Emerging Markets
Highlights China/EM growth will decouple (to the downside) from the business cycle in developed markets (DM). Continued demand strength in DM will not prevent a relapse in EM/China growth. EM is much more leveraged to China than to DM. Higher bond yields in DM, a stronger U.S. dollar and weak China/EM domestic demand are bearish for commodities and EM risk assets. A new equity trade: short KOSPI / long Nikkei. Feature In our recent reports1 we have argued that China's growth is likely to relapse again in the second half of this year based on its aggregate credit and fiscal impulse. Chart I-1 illustrates that this impulse leads Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese, German and U.S. aggregate exports to China by six months, and this indicator is reinforcing the message that shipments from these economies to the mainland have peaked and will stumble. Consistently, the bottom panel of Chart I-1 reveals that Chinese imports of capital goods are set to decelerate significantly and probably contract anew by the end of this year or early 2018. If markets are forward looking, they should begin discounting a potential growth slump very soon. Chart I-2 demonstrates that there is a tight correlation between each of these countries' shipments to China and the mainland's credit and fiscal impulse. Chart I-1Chinese Imports To Relapse Chart I-2Exports To China To Weaken In this context, a relevant question is whether the expansion of U.S. and European imports will be sufficient to safeguard the recovery in EM and global trade as China's imports tumble. Our analysis substantiates that domestic demand strength in the U.S. and Europe will boost these economies but will likely not preclude another downturn in EM/Chinese growth and global trade. In brief, China/EM growth will decouple (to the downside) from the business cycle in developed markets (DM). Our basis is that EM and China trade much more with one another, and as such the DM business cycle has become a less important driver. If DM demand holds up as China's imports tumble anew, EM share prices and currencies will underperform their DM counterparts. In this context, our negative view on EM is contingent on a deceleration in China's business cycle rather than a major relapse in DM domestic demand. In the near term, higher bond yields in DM due to strong domestic demand combined with weakness in EM/Chinese growth will reverse the EM rally. EM Is Much More Leveraged To China Than To DM Chart I-3EM Is Leveraged To China Much More Than DM Chart I-3 shows that the relative performance of EM versus DM stocks typically fluctuates with the relative import volume trend between China and DM. This supports our thesis that the EM world is much more leveraged to China than DM. The following considerations certify China's greater importance for EM economies compared to the U.S. and Europe: Table I-1 shows the share of exports going to China and to the U.S. for individual EM countries. The mean for exports to China is 14.6% of total, and 11.3% for shipments to the U.S. These numbers corroborate the fact that developing countries sell more to China than to the U.S. Chart I-4 is constructed using the numbers from Table I-1. It demonstrates that Korea, Taiwan, Chile and Peru are more exposed to China while India, Turkey, and the Philippines are more leveraged to the U.S. We did not include Mexico and central Europe in this chart because the former trades with the U.S. and the latter predominantly with European countries due to their geographical proximity. Table I-1Export To China And U.S. Chart I-4Exposure To China And Exposure To The U.S. Chinese demand is critical for commodities, particularly for industrial metals prices. China consumes 6-7-fold more industrial metals than the U.S. Unsurprisingly, the mainland's credit and fiscal impulse leads industrial metals prices (Chart I-5). At this moment, we are negative on both metals and oil prices, as we view the 2016 rally as a mean-reverting rally in a structural bear market. As commodities prices drop again, commodities-producing nations will suffer from a negative terms-of-trade shock. This is regardless of which countries they export commodities to. There is one global price for each commodity, and when it deflates commodity producing nations are the ones that get hurt - irrespective of whether they sell that commodity to China, the U.S., Europe or the rest of the world. Countries like Korea and Taiwan do not sell commodities, but their largest export destination is still China (Chart I-6). The latter accounts for 25% of Korean and 27% of Taiwanese exports Chart I-5China's Credit And Fiscal##br## Impulse And Industrial Metals Chart I-6Korea And Taiwan: The ##br##Composition Of Exports. Even if we assume that 30% of goods exported to China by Korea and Taiwan are assembled and then re-exported to other countries, the mainland's domestic absorption of Korean and Taiwanese goods is still considerable. Notably, the recovery in Korean, Taiwanese and Japanese exports has been driven more by China than the rest of the world (Chart I-7). Therefore, China's business cycle is also important for some non-commodity producing countries like Korea, Taiwan and others in Asia. China itself has become much more reliant on its credit origination and fiscal spending than on exports in general and exports to DM in particular (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Asia's Exports Recovery Has Largely ##br##Been Driven By China's Demand Chart I-8China Has Become Reliant ##br##On Stimulus Not Exports Finally, Table I-2 exhibits the product structure of Chinese imports. By and large, China imports three categories of goods: various commodities, capital goods and some luxury goods. All three are at risk of a slowdown because they are leveraged to the nation's credit cycle. Table I-2Composition Of Chinese Imports Bottom Line: China's imports are critical not only for commodity producers (Latin America, Russia, Africa, the Middle East and Indonesia) but also for non-commodity economies in Asia. Altogether this comprises most of the EM universe. EM/China's Importance In Global Trade EM/China account for much larger global trade flows than advanced economies. In short, global trade will relapse again if global shipments to China and the rest of the EM universe slump. EM including Chinese imports (but excluding the mainland's imports for re-exports) in U.S. dollars are equal to imports by the U.S., EU and Japan combined (Chart I-9). Chinese imports for processing - imports that are used to manufacture goods for exports - are excluded from the calculation of this chart. Only Chinese imports for domestic consumption are accounted for. Also, this EM aggregate excludes Mexico and central European countries because their manufacturing is intertwined with the ones in the U.S. and EU. Exports to EM countries account for 25%, 28% and 17% of German, Japanese and U.S. exports, respectively. As a share of GDP, exports to vulnerable EM economies stand at 2%, 5% and 5% of U.S., German and Japanese GDP, respectively (Chart I-10). Chart I-9EM Imports Are Equal To Combined##br## Imports Of U.S., EU And Japan Chart I-10Japan And Germany Are More ##br##Exposed To EM Than The U.S. Japan and Germany are much more vulnerable to an EM/China slowdown than the U.S. and the rest of Europe (Europe ex-Germany). China's exports are exposed more to EM than DM. Chart I-11 shows that 45% of Chinese exports are shipped to Asia ex-Japan, 18% to Latin America, Russia, the Middle East, Africa, Australia and Canada and only 18% to the U.S. and 16% to the EU. Capital spending in China and EM ex-China makes up 5% and 5% (together 10%) of global GDP in real terms (Chart I-12). By comparison, EU and U.S. capital expenditures are 5% and 4.5% of world GDP in real terms. Hence, EM and especially China's investment outlays are big enough to matter for the global economy. Chart I-11China Sells More To EM Than DM Chart I-12EM/China Capex Is Large As Chart I-1 indicates, China's imports of industrial goods will soon tumble. Capital goods imports for EM ex-China have revived, but as their bank loan growth slumps the recovery in capital goods imports is likely to be short lived. Bottom Line: Two-pronged trade flows between EM and China are considerable for their own economies as well as global trade flows. Continued demand strength in DM countries will not prevent a relapse in EM/China growth. Market Observations And Conclusions Our conviction is that China's imports are set to dwindle in the second half of this year. This is bearish for commodities producers and Asian economies selling to China. If markets are forward looking, they should begin discounting this now. Moreover, bank deleveraging in EM/China has further to run. Altogether, this leads us to maintain the strategy of underweighting EM risk assets relative to their DM counterparts, and maintaining a negative stance on EM in absolute terms. Furthermore, it appears the U.S. dollar and U.S. bond yields have recently bounced from their technical support levels, and odds are they will rise further (Chart I-13). DM bond yields will move higher for now before the EM/China slowdown becomes visible later this year. For the time being, rising U.S. bond yields and a stronger greenback (versus EM, Asian and commodities currencies) will weigh on EM risk assets. Remarkably, Chinese interest rates are rising and corporate bond prices are plunging as the People's Bank of China continues along a gradual tightening path (Chart I-14). Chart I-13The U.S. Dollar And U.S. Bond Yields To Rise Chart I-14China: Borrowing Costs Are Rising As long as economic data from China and DM remain positive, financial regulators in Beijing are determined to curb leverage and speculative activities in China's credit system. Higher interest rates and regulatory tightening amid the lingering credit bubble are bound to cause meaningful stress in China's financial system and lead to a deceleration in credit growth. EM risk assets are very complacent about this risk. Interestingly, the commodities currencies index - an equal-weighted average of the Australian, New Zealand and Canadian dollars - has already halted its rally and begun depreciating even versus safe-haven currencies like the Swiss franc (Chart I-15). Such poor showing by commodities currencies should be taken seriously because it has occurred at a time when the U.S. dollar has been soft and global share prices have been well bid. As such, we read this message from the commodities currencies as a harbinger of a major top in commodities prices and EM risk assets. There is no reason why EM ex-China currencies should diverge from the commodities currency index this time around (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Commodities Currencies Versus ##br##Safe-Haven Currency Chart I-16EM Currencies ##br##To Tumble In short, we are reiterating our bearish strategy on EM currencies and recommend shorting a basket of the following currencies: ZAR, TRY, BRL, CLP, COP, MYR and IDR versus the U.S. dollar or a basket of the U.S. dollar and the euro. The main risk to our downbeat view on EM risk assets is not EM/China fundamentals but the rally in DM share prices. That said, DM stocks and credit markets were well bid in 2012-2014 yet EM stocks and currencies did very poorly during that period. This could be repeated again in the next couple of months before fundamental problems/weaker growth in China/EM become evident and stem the rally in DM equities too, as occurred in 2015. A New Equity Trade: Short KOSPI / Long Nikkei We have identified a tactical opportunity for a relative equity trade: short Korean / long Japanese stocks, currency unhedged. The Korean won is overvalued versus the Japanese yen, according to the relative real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs (Chart I-17). This will provide a competitive advantage to Japanese manufacturers and will dent performance of the KOSPI versus the Nikkei. Even though the won could still appreciate versus the yen, equity prices in Japan will still fare better than their Korean counterparts in common currency terms. Japan's more competitive positioning is also reflected in its manufacturing PMI, which is much stronger than Korea's (Chart I-18). This should lead to outperformance of Japanese manufacturers versus their Korean peers. Chart I-17The Korean Won Is Expensive ##br##Versus The Yen Chart I-18Manufacturing PMI: ##br##Korea And Japan Korea is much more exposed to China than Japan. Exports destined to China make up 25% and 18% of Korean and Japanese exports, respectively. In the meantime, combined exports to the U.S. and EU account for 22% of Korea's total exports and 31% of Japan's total exports (Chart I-19). Provided our view that China's growth will disappoint relative to U.S. and EU growth pans out, Japan is in better position than Korea. Japanese policymakers continue to be much more aggressive in reflating their economy than Korean policymakers. Bank loan growth is accelerating in Japan but is slowing in Korea, albeit from a higher level (Chart I-20). Finally, the technical profile of relative performance between Korean and Japanese share prices favors the latter (Chart I-21). Chart I-19Japan And Korea: Structure Of Exports Chart I-20Bank Loan Growth Is Stronger In Japan Than Korea Chart I-21Short KOSPI / Long Nikkei Bottom Line: Short KOSPI / long Nikkei, currency unhedged. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Reports titled, "A Time To Be Contrarian", dated April 5, 2017, "Signs Of An EM/China Growth Reversal", dated April 12, 2017 and "EM: The Beginning Of The End", dated April 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights It is difficult to judge how much of the recent unwind of the Trump Trades has been due to data disappointments versus rising geopolitical tensions. We do not believe that an attack on North Korea is imminent. Rather, U.S. military muscle-flexing is designed to force the rogue state to the negotiating table. On the economic front, the U.S. "hard" data have disappointed surveys in Q1. However, we believe this largely reflects weather and seasonal adjustment distortions. The Leading Economic Indicator and our new Beige Book Monitor support this view. Our profit growth model is very bullish for earnings this year, and is supported by our proxies for corporate pricing power. The latter is improving relative to wage growth recently, suggesting that there is more upside for margins this year. Returning cash to shareholders has not been particularly strong in this expansion relative to past expansions, contrary to popular belief. Nonetheless, buyback activity will continue to boost EPS growth by about 2 percentage points. Cyclical conditions and a significant improvement in relative valuation suggests that investors should continue to favor small over large cap stocks. Feature Treasury yields fell to their lowest level last week since just after the U.S. Presidential election. The solid start to the Q1 earnings reporting season was not enough to offset the disappointing economic reports and geopolitical fears, leaving U.S. equity prices mostly lower on the week (Chart 1). We thought that the "hard" data would improve to meet the accelerating "soft" data, but that clearly didn't occur last week. Unusual weather in March may have been a factor. We will return to the outlook for the economy and corporate profits later in the report. Chart 1Q1 Growth Disappoints It is difficult to judge how much of the bond rally has been due to data disappointments versus rising geopolitical tensions. President Trump's military show of force in Asia and comments about "losing patience" with North Korea have the world on edge. The U.S. has acted tough with the regime before, but nothing beyond economic sanctions ever materialized. The balance of power vis-à-vis China and the military threat to South Korea made North Korea a stalemate. Nonetheless, our geopolitical team argues that the calculus of the standoff is changing. Most importantly, the rogue regime is getting closer to being capable of hitting the U.S. with long-range missiles. Second, China is unhappy with the increased U.S. military presence in its backyard that North Korea is inviting. China also sees North Korea's missile tests as a threat to its own security. Third, the U.S. is prepared to use the threat of trade sanctions as leverage with Beijing. It is demanding that China use its own economic leverage to convince North Korea to freeze its nuclear and missile programs. We do not believe that an attack on North Korea is imminent. But doing nothing is not an option either. Our base case is that the U.S. military's muscle-flexing is designed to force North Korea to the negotiating table. Over the next four years, the North might be persuaded to freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for a non-aggression pact from the U.S. and a lifting of sanctions. That said, this is probably North Korea's last chance to show it can be pragmatic. A failure of negotiations would induce a real crisis in which the U.S. contemplates unilateral action. It would be a bad sign if North Korea's long-range missile tests continue, are successful, and show greater distances.1 The market's political focus will likely turn back to Washington this week. Congress has until April 28 to pass a bill to keep the U.S. government running through the end of fiscal year 2017. Our Geopolitical Strategy Service continues to expect a deal to get done, but a partial government shutdown lasting a few weeks could occur. Separately, Congress will need to approve an increase in the debt ceiling by July-September in order for the Treasury to avoid defaulting on payments. While the negotiations surrounding both of events could weigh on Treasury yields in the near term, our view is that they are unlikely to prevent an uptrend in yields over the coming 6-12 months. As for North Korea, the safe-haven bid in the Treasury market will moderate if Kim Jong-un agrees to negotiations. But, near term, this situation is a huge wildcard. We cannot rule out another wave of risk aversion in financial markets. As this week's publication goes to press, the results of the first round of the French presidential election are being tabulated. Please consult BCA's Daily Insight on Monday, April 24, 2017 for our first take on the election results. A Temporary Soft Patch Or Something Worse? In last week's report, we wrote that the weak readings from the "hard" economic data would soon catch up with the surging "soft" economic data. In fact, the opposite has occurred since mid-April. Is this the start of a prolonged weak patch in the U.S. economy? Or is the softness perhaps related to weather and poor seasonal adjustment? We favor the later explanation for now. The first quarter GDP report is due out this Friday, April 28. The Bloomberg consensus is looking for just a 1.2% gain in the quarter after the 2.1% increase in Q4 2016. The Atlanta Fed's "GDP Nowcast" puts Q1 GDP at just 0.5% (Chart 1). The New York Fed's "Nowcast" is at 2.7%. Both estimates have been moving consistently lower since early March, dragging down 10-year Treasury yields (with U.S. stock prices along for the ride). Financial markets should be used to weak readings on first quarter GDP by now. Between 1950 and 1996, Q1 GDP was the weakest quarter of the year in just 14 of 47 years, or 30% of the time (Table 1). Q2 growth was stronger than Q1 growth about half the time. This is just about what you would expect if the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) seasonal adjustment program was functioning properly. But something has gone awry since 1997, despite the government statisticians' recent attempts to correct the problem. Over the past 20 years, the first quarter has been the weakest GDP reading of the year 10 times, or 50% of the time, and Q2 GDP growth has been faster than Q1 growth 70% of the time. Table 1The Gap Between GDP Growth In Q1 And Q2 Has Widened In The Past 20 Years A recent study by the staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland2 suggests that the main culprits in this anomaly are in the private investment and government consumption components of GDP. More specifically, the Cleveland Fed cites defense spending as the key driver of the weakness in Q1 GDP relative to other quarters. We'll expand on this theme in next week's U.S. Investment Strategy report, but for now our view remains that the weakness in U.S. economic growth is temporary. The March reading of the Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator provided no warning that underlying growth is about to trail off, although a couple of the regional Fed surveys have backed off of their recent highs. With April shaping up to be warmer than usual across the U.S., we expect a bounce back in weather-impacted "hard" data like retail sales, housing starts and industrial production. The April update of our Beige Book Monitor, which we introduced last week, confirms that the economy is stronger than the GDP data suggest (Chart 2). The Monitor is simply the difference between the percentage of "strong" versus "weak" descriptors for growth in the document. Chart 2BCA Beige Book Monitor Upbeat For Growth The Monitor edged higher in April to 65%, from 51% in the March reading. "Weather" was mentioned 18 times, after just 6 mentions in March. More than two thirds of the 18 mentions of weather in April cited it as having a negative impact on economic activity. This supports our view that weather had a non-negligible impact on the hard data in March. Thus, if the weather in the first three weeks of April persists into the final week of the month, the stage is set for a noticeable improvement in U.S. economic data released in May. All else equal, this should temper fears that the U.S. economic expansion has lost momentum, supporting stock prices and allowing the recent bond rally to unwind (depending on geopolitics). The soft March CPI also appeared to be quirky, revealing that the core measure actually contracted in March (Chart 3). We note, however, that the weak March reading followed two months of extremely strong gains. In addition, it still appears as though measures of core inflation put in a cyclical bottom in early 2015. While our CPI diffusion index is still below zero, signaling that inflation is likely to remain soft during the next couple of months, it would be premature to suggest that the gradual uptrend in core inflation has reversed. Our "inflation words" indicator based on the Beige Book remains in an uptrend (Chart 2). Chart 3Has U.S. Inflation Peaked? A rebound in the activity data in the coming months should keep the Fed on track to raise rates at least two more times in 2017. A rate hike in next month is unlikely, but we would not rule out June if the economic data firm as we expect. Positive Signs For U.S. Corporate Pricing Power Another 82 S&P 500 companies report first quarter results this week, making it the busiest week of the season. The consensus for Q1 earnings growth remains near 10% on a 4-quarter trailing basis. That forecast is likely to be met. We highlighted the positive 2017 outlook for U.S. corporate profits in the April 10, 2017 Weekly Report. The U.S. experienced a profit recession in 2016 that did not coincide with an economic recession. Oil prices were part of the story, but we have seen this pattern occur several time since the late 1990s; nominal GDP growth (a proxy for top line growth) decelerates temporarily relative to labor compensation growth. Margins get squeezed but, since the economy manages to avoid a recession, nominal GDP growth subsequently rebounds relative to labor compensation. This resulted in a 'catch up' phase when earnings-per-share growth accelerated sharply and equity returns were favorable. We believe that U.S. earnings are in the same type of catch-up phase now, which has been accentuated by the rebound in oil prices. Proprietary indicators from our sister publication, the U.S. Equity Strategy service, confirm our thesis. First, deflation pressures appear to be abating. A modest revival in corporate pricing power is underway according to our Pricing Power Proxy (Chart 4). It is constructed from proxies for selling prices in almost 50 industries. Importantly, the rise in the Proxy is broadly based across industries (as shown by the diffusion index in the chart). As a side note, the Proxy provides some evidence that softness in core CPI will not last. At the same time, the upward march of wage growth appears to be taking a breather (Chart 4). Average hourly earnings growth has softened in recent months. Broader measures, such as the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, tell a similar story. We do not expect wage growth to decelerate much given tightness in the labor market. Nonetheless, the combination of firming pricing power and contained wage growth (for now) suggests that margins will continue to expand modestly in the first half of the year. Our model even suggests that U.S. EPS growth has a very good shot at matching (perpetually optimistic) bottom-up estimates for 2017 (Chart 5). Chart 4Corporate Sector Gaining ##br##Some Pricing Power Chart 5Profit Model##br## Is Very Bullish Companies have supported per share profits in this expansion in part via share buybacks, often funded through debt issuance. This has generated some angst that companies are sacrificing long-term earnings growth potential for short-term EPS growth. This appeared to be the case early in the expansion, but the story is less compelling today. Chart 6 compares the cumulative dollar value of equity buybacks and dividends in this expansion with the previous three expansion phases. The cumulative dollar values are divided by cumulative nominal GDP to make the data comparable across cycles. By this metric, capital spending has lagged previous expansion, but not by much. While capital spending growth has been weak, the same has been true for GDP growth. Chart 6Comparison Of Corporate Outlays Across Four Economic Expansion Phases Dividend payments have been stronger than the three previous expansions. Buyback activity was also more aggressive compared with the 1990s and 2000s, although repurchase activity has been roughly in line with the expansion that ended in 2007. Net equity withdrawal since 2009, which includes the net impact of IPOs, share buybacks and M&A activity, has not been out of line with previous expansions. Bottom Line: CFOs have not been radically different in this cycle in terms of apportioning funds between capital spending and returning cash to shareholders. Buyback Tailwind To Continue How important are buybacks to EPS growth? Chart 7 (second panel) presents a rough proxy for the historical impact of equity withdrawal that is based on the S&P 500 divisor. It is the difference between EPS growth and growth in total dollar earnings. When the line is above zero, it means that EPS growth has been lifted above dollar earnings growth via equity withdrawals. Chart 7Buybacks Adding Almost ##br##2 Percentage Points To EPS Growth This proxy must be taken with a grain of salt due to the manner in which the divisor is calculated. Nonetheless, it suggests that buybacks have boosted EPS growth by 2 percentage points in the year to 2016Q4. We expect that buyback activity will continue to be a mild tailwind in the coming quarters given the positive reading from our Capital Structure Preference Indicator (Chart 7, third panel). This Indicator is defined as the equity risk premium minus the default adjusted high-yield corporate bond yield. When the indicator is above zero, there is financial incentive for firms to issue debt and buy back shares. Conversely, firms are incentivized to issue stock and retire debt when the indicator is below zero. The Indicator is currently positive, although not as high as it was in 2015. Bottom Line: Buybacks have not had an outsized impact on EPS growth in this cycle, but the good news is that this tailwind is likely to continue. Capitalization Strategy: Stick With Small Caps The relative performance of U.S. small vs large cap stocks surged following the November election, but has since retraced about two-thirds of its post-election gains and has recently been trading below its 200-day moving average. Small cap stocks have been one of several "Trump trades" that have waned over the past three months, but our view is that several positive tailwinds for small cap relative performance continue to warrant an overweight stance: Panel 1 of Chart 8 highlights that our cyclical capitalization indicator has moved sharply into positive territory following the election, and has remained positive despite the recent weakness in small cap relative performance. Small cap stocks have been a reliably high-beta segment of U.S. capital markets since the middle of the last economic cycle (panel 2), which argues for a bullish stance given our overweight positions in U.S. equities versus bonds. Our relative valuation indicator for U.S. small caps has moved back towards neutral valuation territory, which is a significant change from the conditions that prevailed in the early part of the U.S. economic recovery. Chart 9 shows that the indicator was consistently elevated from 2009 until early-2015, but has since fallen back to zero. While relative prices have accounted for some of this adjustment, the relative (trailing) earnings trend for small cap stocks remains in an uptrend and has recently risen to an all-time high, despite a disappointing Q1. Chart 10 highlights one risk to the small cap trade that will be important to monitor. The chart shows the NFIB's outlook survey along with the percentage of respondents citing "red tape" as the most important problem facing their business. The consistent rise in concerns about red tape under the Obama administration, especially the strong rise that began in 2010, suggests that small firms have found elements of the Affordable Care Act to be particularly burdensome for their business. This suggests that a portion of the sharp rise in the outlook for small businesses following the election has occurred due to expectations that the ACA will be repealed, in turn implying that confidence may wither following the failure of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) to even be subjected to a vote in the House. Chart 8Beta And The Cycle Argue ##br##For Small Caps Chart 9Small Caps Are##br## No Longer Expensive Chart 10Watch The Change Of A "Trump Slump" ##br##In Small Business Sentiment While several planned policies of the Trump administration have indeed been delayed due to the failure of the AHCA, we remain of the view that a legislative agenda that at least appears to be pro-business remains in place. As such, our view is that it is too early to abandon a bullish bias towards small cap stocks, especially given the major improvement in relative valuation that we noted above. Bottom Line: Cyclical conditions and a significant improvement in relative valuation suggests that investors should continue to favor small over large cap stocks. The failure of the AHCA may cause a near-term pullback in small business confidence, but we doubt that this will be sustained over the coming 6-12 months. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 "Lingering Residual Seasonality in GDP Growth," Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, March 28, 2017.
Highlights Commercial oil inventories finished the first quarter with a minimal draw. This was largely due to a surge in production and sales by Gulf producers and Russia at the end of 2016 and earlier this year, as well as slightly lower demand. Despite reports floating storage and more opaque inventories - e.g., Caribbean storage - drew significantly, OPEC 2.0 remains well short of its goal to get visible oil stocks down to five-year-average levels by year-end. If drawing storage down to more normal levels remains OPEC 2.0's goal, then the production-cutting deal negotiated by Saudi Arabia and Russia will have to be extended when OPEC meets next month. We expect this to happen. Even so, risk-reversals in options markets indicate investors and hedgers are willing to pay more for downside put protection than upside call exposure. We recommend fading this bias, and buying out-of-the-money calls and selling out-of-the-money puts using Dec/17 options. Energy: Overweight. We closed our long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI position last Thursday with a 583.3% gain. We remain long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent, which is up 242.1%. Our long GSCI position is down 1.3%. We are recommending a long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl call vs. a short Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl put, which we will put on at tonight's close. This is driven by our analysis of the need to extend OPEC 2.0's production-cutting deal into the end of the year to reduce OECD commercial oil inventories. We continue to expect Brent and WTI prices to trade on either side of $60/bbl by year-end. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper traded lower this week, on the back of news Freeport McMoRan is poised to resume exports from its Indonesian facilities. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold traded higher, but remains range-bound. Our long volatility gold options play is up 2.9%. We will leave this trade on as a hedge, going into the French elections. Ags/Softs: Underweight: Despite heavy rains, grains (excluding rice) and beans were well offered this past week. Feature The surge in oil production and sales by Gulf producers and Russia at the end of last year and earlier this year, along with a reported slowing of demand - down ~ 100k b/d from our March estimates - combined to leave estimated supply and demand roughly balanced for 2017Q1 (Chart of the Week). These dynamics left visible OECD inventories above year-end 2016 levels (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekVisible Inventories Barely Budge In 2017Q1, ##br##As Supply Surge And Lower Demand Collide Chart 2Visible Inventories Will Reach 5-year Average##br## If OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Are Extended Less-visible floating storage, along with oil stockpiles in China and Japan, drew more than 70mm barrels (bbls), according to Morgan Stanley, while Caribbean storage fell by some 10 - 20mm bbls during the last quarter.1 In addition, major trading companies are actively looking for buyers to take unwanted physical storage capacity off their hands. Nonetheless, OPEC 2.0 - the states banded together under the leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to remove some 1.8mm b/d of oil production from the market in 2017H1 - remains well short of its goal to get visible inventories down to five-year-average levels. Failure to reduce inventories almost surely requires producers allied in the production-cutting deal to extend their pact into 2017H2. We think they will, given the oft-stated desire of the Saudi and Russian energy ministers, Khalid Al-Falih and Alexander Novak, to see inventories continue to draw. Their desire was re-stated recently at a hastily called news conference in Houston last month.2 This message has remained constant from other OPEC leaders as well. The Logic Of Extending OPEC 2.0's Deal To 2017H2 Reducing the global storage overhang is imperative for the OPEC 2.0 coalition. It is the driving force behind the unlikely alliance KSA and Russia forged at the end of last year. Without pulling storage down to more normal levels, inventories remain too close to topping out, which puts markets at higher risk of the sort of price collapse seen in 2015 - 16. At the beginning of 2016, global oil markets were close to pricing in the approach of a full-storage event. In such an event, as global inventories approach capacity, prices trade below the cash-operating costs of the most expensive producers, until enough supply is forcibly knocked off line to drain excess stocks. This is an extremely high-risk scenario for states like KSA, Russia and their allies, which are heavily dependent on oil-export revenues to fund government budgets and much of the private sector.3 After the last such event at the beginning of 2016, these states were left reeling, as fiscal spending was slashed, projects were canceled and governments burned through foreign reserves in an effort to make up for lost revenue. Entering the second quarter of this year, KSA and its allies continue to over-deliver on their pledges to cut ~ 1.2mm b/d of production. Markets are expecting Russian cuts to increase to ~ 300k b/d, in line with their pledges under the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting Agreement negotiated last year (Chart 3 and Chart 4). Chart 3KSA Continues To Over-Deliver; ##br##Russian Cuts Expected to Increase Chart 4KSA Allies Continue to Deliver;##br## Iran And Iraq Continue To Under-Deliver However, if the OPEC 2.0 production deal to remove ~ 1.8mm b/d of production is not extended beyond its end-June deadline, storage levels will remain uncomfortably high for the KSA - Russia alliance. By our reckoning, allowing the deal to expire without extending it would only reduce visible OECD inventories by a little over 170mm barrels by year-end. This can be inferred from our assessment of balances (Chart of the Week). Not extending OPEC 2.0's deal leaves OECD commercial oil inventories close to 130mm barrels above the targeted 300mm-barrel drawdown required to return OECD inventories to more normal (i.e., five-year average) levels. With U.S. shale production coming on strong, this could be precarious for OPEC 2.0 next year. Extending the OPEC 2.0 production-cutting deal to the end of 2017H2 will reduce visible commercial inventories in the OECD by slightly more than the 300mm barrels being targeted (Chart 5). This should put storage levels back at more normal, five-year average levels, and give OPEC 2.0 some breathing room to craft a strategy to contain U.S. shale production going forward.4 For this reason, extending the 1.8mm b/d production cuts to end-2017 is almost a foregone conclusion for us, particularly as KSA needs to clean up the market, so to speak, ahead of the IPO of Saudi Aramco next year. Among other potential investors with a keen interest in the potential $100 billion floatation is a state-led consortium of Chinese banks and oil companies.5 We Think Upside Risks Dominate Oil Markets The logic of extending the OPEC 2.0 deal is compelling. But the market does not share this view. Oil speculators have significantly reduced their net long position as a percent of total open interest in the dominant crude-oil futures markets, WTI and Brent (Chart 6). This, after the specs were chastened following their huge increase in upside exposure earlier this year. Chart 5Extending OPEC 2.0'S Production Deal Reduces ##br##OECD Oil Stocks By 300mm+ Barrels By End-2017 Chart 6Specs Are Retreating From Oil We can also see a lack of conviction in oil options markets. Option markets provide a useful gauge of fear and greed called "skew," which is nothing more than the difference between implied option volatilities (IOV) for puts and calls.6 When the skew favors puts - shown by a negative number in the risk-reversal shown in Chart 7 - markets are signaling they value downside protection more than upside exposure, and vice versa when call IOVs exceed put IOVs. Chart 7Option Skew Favors Downside Puts ##br##Over Upside Call Exposure Given the logic we laid out above, we are recommending investors fade the put skew in the options markets. Specifically, we are getting long out-of-the-money Dec/17 $65/bbl Brent calls and selling out-of-the-money Dec/17 $45/bbl Brent puts against them, to express our view. We will be doing so at the close of trading today, and will report our strikes and net premium in next week's publication.7 Bottom Line: We expect the OPEC 2.0 production deal to be extended when OPEC meets on May 25 in Vienna. This will significantly raise the odds OECD commercial oil stocks will be drawn down to more normal levels, giving the OPEC 2.0 petro-states more breathing room to develop a strategy to regain a modicum of control over prices. This is critical for KSA, which still is on track to IPO Saudi Aramco next year. Given our expectation, we are recommending investors buy out-of-the-money Dec/17 $65/bbl Brent calls and sell out-of-the-money Dec/17 $45/bbl Brent puts. This allows investors to fade what appears to be a consensus - given put skews and spec positioning - and capitalize on what we believe is an all-but-certain extension of the OPEC 2.0 production deal. We expect WTI and Brent to trade on either side of $60/bbl by December, and to average $55/bbl to 2020. As has been mentioned often, our level of conviction in that forecast is low beyond 2018, given the large capex cuts for projects that would have been funded between 2015 and 2020 absent the 2014 - 2016 oil-price collapse. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC's Barkindo Sees Progress in Oil Cuts as Stockpiles Drop," and "Oil Traders Drain Hidden Caribbean Hoards as OPEC Cuts Bite," published by Bloomberg.com on April 2 and 3, 2017, respectively. 2 Please see "Saudi Arabia, Russia Offer United Front on Oil Supply Cuts," published by Bloomberg.com on March 7, 2017, and "Saudi energy minister says oil market fundamentals improving," published by reuters.com on the same day. 3 BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy examined this in our feature article published on September 8, 2016, entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We discuss this at length in "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report April 6 and March 30, 2017, Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Exclusive: China gathers state-led consortium for Aramco IPO - sources," published by Reuters.com on April 19, 2017. We speculated on just such an event in "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and its Geopolitical Strategy January 14, 2016. We noted, "While inviting Western investors and energy firms to take a stake in Aramco would make obvious sense for Saudi Arabia, we would speculate that the real target for the IPO will be Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). China has overtaken the U.S. as the main importer of crude from Saudi Arabia ... but it continues to free-ride on Washington's security guarantees and commitments in the region. By giving China a stake in Saudi Arabia's energy infrastructure, Riyadh would force Beijing to start caring about what happens in the region." 6 "Implied option volatility" is market jargon for the standard deviation of expected returns. It is used as an input for option-pricing models. The "implied," as it's known colloquially in markets, solves an option-pricing model like Fischer Black's, once the option's premium is discovered via trading. Market participants can determine whether puts (i.e., the right, but not the obligation, to sell) are more highly valued than calls (the right to buy) in relative terms by differencing the implied volatilities of puts and calls that are equidistant from at-the-money options. This is referred to as the options' "skew." We use the IOVs for puts and calls that both change by $0.25/bbl for every $1.00/bbl move in oil futures (i.e., 25-delta puts and calls) to calculate skew. Please see Fischer Black's seminal article, "The Pricing of Commodity Contracts," in the Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, (1976), pp. 167-79. 7 We employed a similar strategy in March 2016 - getting long Dec/16 Brent $50/bbl calls vs. selling $25/bbl puts, which registered a 103.5% gain between March 3 and April 14, following a rally in Brent prices. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights The sequential improvement in global trade is less pronounced than the annual growth rates in the Asian trade data imply. China has been instrumental to the recovery in global trade but mainland's credit and fiscal spending impulse has rolled over decisively pointing to a relapse its growth in general and imports in particular. This will hurt meaningfully countries and sectors selling to China. Commodities prices are set to tumble. In Turkey, reinstate the short TRY versus U.S. dollar and short bank stocks trades. Feature Economic data from China and Asian trade data have been strong of late. However, when one looks ahead, China's growth and imports are set to roll over decisively in the second half of the year, based on the credit and fiscal spending impulse (Chart I-1). This will hurt countries and industries that sell to China. This is why we believe commodities prices are in a broad topping-out phase. Commodities producers and Asian economies will again suffer materially. Any possible strength in U.S. and European growth will not offset the drag on EM growth emanating from China and lower commodities prices. As a result, having priced in a lot of good news, EM risk assets are at major risk of a selloff in absolute terms and are poised to underperform their DM counterparts over the next six months. Beware Of The Low Base Effect Asian trade data have been strong, but the magnitude of recovery has not been as large as implied by annual growth rates: Annual growth rates of export values in U.S. dollar terms have surged everywhere - in Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China (Chart I-2A). Chart I-1China's Growth To Decelerate Again Chart I-2AHigh Annual Growth Rates Are Due To... Chart I-2B...Low Base In Early 2016 Chart I-2B depicts the level of export values in U.S. dollar terms. It is clear that dollar values of shipments remain well below their peak of several years ago. Looking at the annual rate of change is reasonable since it removes seasonality from the series. However, investors should be aware of the low base effect of late 2015 and early 2016 that has made these annual growth rates extraordinarily elevated in recent months. As for export volumes, Chart I-3 illustrates that volumes held up better than U.S. dollar values in late 2015, which is why they are now expanding at a moderate rate (i.e. they are not surging). In short, in the past 12 months there has been a major discrepancy between dollar values and volumes of Asian exports. Indeed, the V-shaped profile of Asian export growth rates has been partially due to price swings in tradable goods. Prices for steel and other metals as well as for petrochemical products and semiconductors dropped substantially in late 2015 and early 2016, and have rebounded materially from that low base since. Correspondingly, Asian export prices have rebounded considerably in percentage terms (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Export Volume Recovery Has Been Moderate Chart I-4Export Values Are Inflated By Rising Prices In the U.S., the low base effect from a year ago is also present in manufacturing and railroad shipments. Both intermodal (container) and carload shipment volumes excluding petroleum and coal plunged in early 2016 and recovered considerably on an annual rate-of-change basis, from a low base (Chart I-5). Chart I-5U.S. Railroad Shipments ##br##Also Had Low Base In Early 2016 All told, the skyrocketing annual rate of change of Asian export values and other global trade series is exaggerated by the fact that global trade volume was sluggish and various tradable goods/commodities prices fell precipitously in the last quarter of 2015 and first quarter of 2016, thereby creating a base effect. We are not implying that there has been no genuine recovery in global trade. Indeed, there has been reasonable sequential recovery in global demand and trade. The point is that the sequential improvement in global trade is less pronounced than the annual growth rates in the trade data imply. Importantly, China has been instrumental to the recovery in global trade and the rebound in commodities prices. Hence, the outlook for China holds the key. Looking Ahead Looking forward, there are few reasons to worry about U.S. growth. Consumer spending is robust and core capital goods orders are recovering following a multi-year slump (Chart I-6). Nevertheless, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team's view is that global trade growth will decelerate again because China's one-off stimulus-driven recovery will soon reverse, causing the rest of EM to also suffer: In particular, the credit and fiscal spending impulse has rolled over decisively; the indicator typically leads nominal GDP growth and mainland imports by six months, as exhibited in Chart I-1 on page 1. As Chinese import volume relapses again, economies and sectors selling to China will suffer. Chart I-7 demonstrates China's credit and fiscal spending impulses separately. Chart I-6U.S. Final Demand: No Major Risk Chart I-7China: Fiscal And Credit Impulses The credit impulse is the second derivative of outstanding corporate and household credit.1 It does not take much of a slowdown in credit growth for the second derivative, credit impulse, to roll over and then turn negative. Remarkably, narrow (M1) and broad (M2) money as well as banks' RMB loan growth have all slowed in recent months (Chart I-8). Non-bank (shadow banking) credit growth remains stable (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Yet given that the PBoC's recent tightening has targeted shadow banking activities, it is a matter of time before shadow banking credit also decelerates meaningfully. To assess real-time strength in China's economic activity, we monitor prices of various commodities trading in China. Chart I-9 demonstrates that these commodities prices have lately plunged. Chart I-8China: Money/Credit Growth Is Slowing Chart I-9Plunging Commodities Prices To be sure, commodities prices are influenced not only by final demand but also by other factors such as supply, inventory swings and investor/trader positioning. We use these data as one among many inputs in our analysis. Bottom Line: Money/credit growth has rolled over and will continue to downshift, causing the current recovery underway in China to falter. This will hurt meaningfully countries and sectors selling to China. Commodities prices are set to tumble. Market-Based Indicators Financial asset prices often lead economic data. Therefore, one cannot rely on economic data releases to time turning points in financial markets. We watch and bring to investors' attention price signals from various segments of financial markets to corroborate our investment themes and economic analysis. Presently, there are several indicators flashing warning signals for EM risk assets: The plunge in iron ore prices warrants attention as it has historically correlated with EM equities and industrial metals prices (the LMEX index) (Chart I-10). The commodities currencies index - an equal-weighted average of CAD, AUD and NZD - also points to an end of the rally in EM share prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Is Iron Ore A Canary In A Coal Mine? Chart I-11EM Stocks Have Defied ##br##Rollover In Commodities Currencies It appears these long-term correlations have broken down in the past several weeks. We suspect this is due to hefty fund flows into EM. In the short term, the flows could overwhelm fundamentals and prompt financial variables that have historically been correlated to temporarily diverge. However, flows can refute fundamentals for a time, but not forever. It is impossible to time a reversal or magnitude of flows as there is no comprehensive set of data on global investor positioning across various financial markets. The message of a potential relapse in Chinese imports is being reinforced by commodities currencies that lead global export volume growth, and are pointing to weakness in global trade in the second half of this year (Chart I-12). The latest erosion in the commodities currencies has occurred even though the U.S. dollar has been soft and U.S. TIPS yields have not risen at all. This makes this price signal even more important. Oil prices have recovered to their recent highs, but share prices of global oil companies have not confirmed the rebound (Chart I-13). When such a divergence occurs between spot commodities prices and respective equity sectors, the spot prices typically converge toward the equity market. This leads us to argue that oil prices will head south pretty soon. Chart I-12Commodities Currencies ##br##Lead Global Trade Cycles Chart I-13Oil Stocks Have Not Confirmed ##br##The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices The average stock (an equally-weighted equity index) is underperforming the market cap-weighted index in both the EM universe and the U.S. equity market (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Narrowing Breadth Of Equity Rally This usually occurs in two instances: (1) the rally is losing steam and narrowing to large market-cap stocks; and/or (2) the rally is being fueled by flows into ETFs that must allocate money based on market cap. Narrowing breadth of the rally is a warning signal of a top, albeit the precise timing is tricky. Bottom Line: There are several market-based indicators that herald an imminent top in EM share prices, commodities prices and other risk assets. Stay put. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Deceitful Stability Turkey held a constitutional referendum that dramatically expands the powers of the presidency on April 16. The proposed 18 amendments passed with a 51.41% majority and a high turnout of 85%. As with all recent Turkish referenda and elections, the results reveal a sharply divided country between the Aegean coastal regions and the Anatolian heartland, the latter being a stronghold of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Is Turkey Now A Dictatorship? First, some facts. Turkey has not become a dictatorship, as some Western press alleged. Yes, presidential powers have expanded. In particular, we note that: The president is now both a head of state and government and has the power to appoint government ministers; The president can issue decrees, however, the parliament has the ability to abrogate them through the legislative process; The president can call for new elections, however, they need three-fifths of the parliament to agree to the new election; The president has wide powers to appoint judges. What the media is not reporting is that the parliament can remove or modify any state of emergency enacted by the president. In addition, removing a presidential veto appears to be exceedingly easy, with only an absolute majority (not a super-majority) of votes needed. As such, our review of the constitutional changes is that Turkey is most definitely not a dictatorship. Yes, President Erdogan has bestowed upon the presidency much wider powers than the current ceremonial position possesses. However, the amendments also create a trap for future presidents. If the president should face a parliament ruled by an opposition party, they would lose much of their ability to govern. The changes therefore approximate the current French constitution, which is a semi-presidential system. Under the French system, the president has to cohabitate with the parliament. This appears to be the case with the Turkish constitution as well. Bottom Line: Turkish constitutional referendum has expanded the powers of the presidency, but considerable checks remain. If the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) were ever to lose parliamentary control, President Erdogan would become entrapped by the very constitution he just passed. Is Turkey Now Stable? The market reacted to the results of the referendum with a muted cheer. First, we disagree with the market consensus that President Erdogan will feel empowered and confident following the constitutional referendum. This is for several reasons. For one, the referendum passed with a slim majority. Even if we assume (generously) that it was a clean win for the government, the fact remains that the AKP has struggled to win over 50% of the vote in any election it has contested since coming to power in 2002 (Chart II-1). Turkey is a deeply divided country and a narrow win in a constitutional referendum is not going to change this. Chart II-1AKP Versus Other Parties In Turkish Elections Second, Erdogan is making a strategic mistake by giving himself more power. It will also focus the criticism of the public on the presidency and himself if the economy and geopolitical situation surrounding Turkey gets worse. If the buck now stops with Erdogan, it also means that all the blame will go to him as well. We therefore do not expect Erdogan to push away from populist economic and monetary policies. In fact, we could see him double down on unorthodox fiscal and monetary policies as protests mount against his rule. While he has expanded control over the army, judiciary, and police, he has not won over support of the major cities on the Aegean coast, which not only voted against his constitutional referendum but also consistently vote against AKP rule. That said, opposition to AKP remains in disarray. As such, there is no political avenue for opposition to Erdogan. The problem is that such an arrangement raises the probability that the opposition takes the form of a social movement and protest. We would therefore caution investors that a repeat of the Gezi Park protests from 2013 could be likely, especially if the economy takes a stumble. Bottom Line: The referendum has not changed the facts on the ground. Turkey remains a deeply divided country. Erdogan will continue to feel threatened by the general sentiment on the ground and thus continue to avoid taking any painful structural reforms. We believe that economic populism will remain the name of the game. What To Watch? We would first and foremost watch for any sign of protest over the next several weeks. Gezi Park style unrest would hurt Erdogan's credibility. Given his penchant to equate any dissent with terrorism, President Erdogan is very likely to overreact to any sign of a social movement rising in Turkey to oppose him. It is not our baseline case that the constitutional referendum will motivate protests, but it is a risk investors should be concerned with. Next election is set for November 2019 and the constitutional changes will only become effective at that point (save for provisions on the judiciary). Investors should watch for any sign that Erdogan or AKP's popularity is waning in the interim. A failure to secure a majority in parliament could entrap Erdogan in an institutional fight with the legislature that creates a constitutional crisis. Chart II-2Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey ##br##Is Very Reliant On Europe Economically Relations with the EU remain an issue as well. Erdogan will likely further deepen divisions in the country if he goes ahead and makes a formal break with the EU, either by reinstituting the death penalty or holding a referendum on EU accession process. Erdogan's hostile position towards the EU should be seen from the perspective of his own insecurity as a leader: he needs an external enemy in order to rally support around his leadership. We would recommend that clients ignore the rhetoric. Turkey depends on Europe far more than any other trade or investment partner (Chart II-2). If Turkey were to lash out at the EU by encouraging migration into Europe, for example, the subsequent economic sanctions would devastate the Turkish economy and collapse its currency. Nonetheless, Ankara's brinkmanship and anti-EU rhetoric will likely continue. It is further evidence of the regime's insecurity at home. Bottom Line: The more that Erdogan captures power within the institutions he controls, the greater his insecurities will become. This is for two reasons. First, he will increase the risk of a return of social movement protests like the Gezi Park event in 2013. Second, he will become solely responsible for everything that happens in Turkey, closing off the possibility to "pass the buck" to the parliament or the opposition when the economy slows down or a geopolitical crisis emerges. As such, we see no opening for genuine structural reform or orthodox policymaking. Turkey will continue to be run along a populist paradigm. Investment Strategy On January 25th 2017, we recommended that clients take profits on the short positions in Turkish financial assets. Today, we recommend re-instating these short positions, specifically going short TRY versus the U.S. dollar and shorting Turkish bank stocks. The central bank's net liquidity injections into the banking system have recently been expanded again (Chart II-3). As we have argued in past,2 this is a form of quantitative easing and warrants a weaker currency. To be more specific, even though the overnight liquidity injections have tumbled, the use of the late liquidity money market window has gone vertical. This is largely attributed to the fact that the late liquidity window is the only money market facility that has not been capped by the authorities in their attempt to tighten liquidity when the lira was collapsing in January. The fact remains that Turkish commercial banks are requiring continuous liquidity and the Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) is supplying it. Commercial banks demand liquidity because they continue growing their loan books rapidly. Bank loan and money growth remains very strong at 18-20% (Chart II-4). Such extremely strong loan growth means that credit excesses continue to be built. Chart II-3Turkey: Central Bank ##br##Renewed Liquidity Injections Chart II-4Turkey: Money/Credit ##br##Growth Is Too Strong Besides, wages are growing briskly - wages in manufacturing and service sector are rising at 18-20% from a year ago (Chart II-5, top panel). Meanwhile, productivity growth has been very muted. This entails that unit labor costs are mushrooming and inflationary pressures are more entrenched than suggested by headline and core consumer price inflation. It seems Turkey is suffering from outright stagflation: rampant inflationary pressures with a skyrocketing unemployment rate (Chart II-5, bottom panel) The upshot of strong credit/money and wage growth as well as higher inflationary pressures is currency depreciation. Excessive credit and income/wage growth are supporting import demand at a time when the current account deficit is already wide. This will maintain downward pressure on the exchange rate. The currency has been mostly flat year-to-date despite the CBT intervening in the market to support the lira by selling U.S. dollars (Chart II-6). Without this support from the CBT, the lira would be much weaker than it currently is. Chart II-5Turkey: Stagflation? Chart II-6Turkey: Central Bank's Net FX ##br##Reserves Are Being Depleted That said, the CBT's net foreign exchange rates (excluding commercial banks' foreign currency deposits at the CBT) are very low - they stand at US$ 12 billion and are equal to 1 month of imports. Therefore, the central bank has little capacity to defend the lira by selling its own U.S. dollar. Chart II-7Short Turkish Bank Stocks We also believe there is an opportunity to short Turkish banks outright. The currency depreciation will force interbank rates higher (Chart II-7, top panel). Historically, this has always been negative for banks' stock prices as net interest margins will shrink (Chart II-7, bottom panel). Surprisingly, bank share prices in local currency terms have lately rallied despite the headwinds from higher interbank rates and the rollover in net interest rate margin. This creates an attractive opportunity to go short again. Bottom Line: Re-instate a short position in the currency. In addition, short Turkish bank stocks. Dedicated EM equity as well as fixed-income and credit portfolios should continue underweighting Turkish assets within their respective EM universes. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses", dated August 30, 2016, link available on page 19. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Turkey's Monetary Demagoguery", dated June 1, 2016, link available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights The Trump-Xi summit offers hopeful signs that the two sides are mending once-severely tested bilateral relations. The risk of escalation in trade tensions has declined. President Trump and President Xi have different time horizons in setting policy priorities. Trump needs immediate success on trade and job creation to show to his working-class electorates, while Xi's primary objective is to avoid the "Thucydides trap". This offers space for compromises. Unless the Trump administration addresses America's "savings shortage," the country's external deficit will not change materially. Any serious negotiations on bilateral trade imbalances between China and the U.S. must deal with the root causes. Feature The summit between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago last week was hailed by both sides as an "ice breaking" success. Even though no substantive details have been offered, the two countries have formulated a new mechanism for senior-level dialogue, and established a 100-day process for addressing bilateral trade frictions. The risk still exists that Trump could unilaterally impose punitive measures against Chinese goods with his administrative powers, and it is overly simplistic to draw too much information from one particular event. However, the Trump-Xi summit confirms a developing trend: that some of President Trump's highly controversial remarks on his campaign trail are being quickly rolled back. The risk of escalating trade tensions between the world's two largest economies has on margin abated. Trump Goes Mainstream? America's China policy under recent administrations can best be described as "congagement" - an ambiguous mixture of containment and engagement by varying degrees. Trump's remarks on the campaign trail and in his early days in office suggested he was mainly interested in confrontation. But the Trump-Xi summit, along with some recent developments, implies that Trump's China policy is coming back to the middle ground, at least for now. After setting off a fierce firestorm on the Taiwan issue late last year, Trump reaffirmed the "One China" policy in a February phone call with President Xi, re-stating long-standing U.S. policy and easing a key source of diplomatic tensions. Taiwan is still re-emerging as a source of risk.1 But it is unquestionably positive in the short-term that Trump backed away from his initial, highly provocative approach. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stated in February that the Trump administration will stick to the existing statutory process in judging whether China manipulates its currency, a marked departure from Trump's repeated campaign pledges. It is almost certain that China will not be named a currency manipulator in the U.S. Treasury's upcoming semi-annual assessment due later this week.2 In his visit to Beijing last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson used Chinese verbiage to characterize the U.S.-China relationship. This verbiage was not repeated by other officials during Xi's visit to Florida, so it is unclear whether it signals the Trump administration's adoption of China's idea of a "new model of great power relations." Nonetheless, it is a drastic change from Tillerson's aggressive remarks at his congressional confirmation hearings, when he suggested blockading Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea. Separately, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, on his first trip abroad to Japan and South Korea, said he did not anticipate any "dramatic military moves" in the South China Sea. More recently, Steve Bannon, White House Chief Strategist, was removed from the National Security Council. It is futile to try to understand all the internal power struggles within the new administration. Nevertheless, Bannon's departure from the NSC is probably a positive development, viewed through the Chinese lens. Bannon not long ago openly identified China as a major threat to the U.S. and predicted a war in the South China Sea as inevitable. In short, President Trump's summit with President Xi marked continued "mainstreaming" of his China policy. Some strong anti-China rhetoric from him and his inner circle has apparently been sanded off, setting the stage for constructive negotiations with Beijing. Can China Accommodate? The restructuring of the Sino-U.S. comprehensive dialogue and the declaration of a 100-day process for addressing economic frictions are probably the most tangible outcomes from the discussions between the two leaders during the summit. Further detail deserve close attention in order to map out how relations between the world's two largest economies will evolve in the near future. In our view, China is likely to make concessions and avoid confrontations. First, trade appears to be front and center in President Trump's grand dealings with China, an important change compared with previous U.S. administrations that also focused heavily on values and ideological issues, such as democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. From China's perspective, the government has a lot more flexibility in making concessions on trade and economic fronts than in dealing with ideological differences. In the past, China has almost always yielded to U.S. pressure on trade-related issues. For instance, China depegged the RMB from the dollar in 2005 and allowed the RMB to continue to appreciate after the global economic recovery began, all under American political pressure. Chinese senior officials routinely led massive commercial delegations touring the U.S. with big procurement orders for everything from aircraft to agricultural goods in order to address American complaints. Both the U.S. and China understand that bilateral trade imbalances favor the U.S. in the event of an all-out trade war, which China will try its best to avoid. Strategically, President Trump and President Xi have different time horizons in setting policy priorities. Trump needs immediate success on trade and job creation to deliver on promises to his working-class electorate, while Xi is more interested in establishing a cooperative and productive strategic standing with the world's sole superpower. Xi's primary objective is to avoid the "Thucydides trap" - the likelihood of conflict between a rising power and a currently dominant one - by convincing the U.S. to grant China greater global sway. In this vein, Trump's withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been viewed as an important positive development from Xi's perspective, and it is likely that Beijing will offer incentives to further discourage President Trump to "pivot to Asia". It is already rumored that Beijing has drafted investment plans in the U.S. that could create 700,000 jobs, as well as further opening up agricultural goods imports and financial market access. We suspect these deals will be announced during the 100-day negotiation period, which should give Trump a much-needed boost in his approval ratings. Economically, Trump's resentment of China's trade practices is based on the old growth model that the country no longer adheres to. Trump's version of Chinese manufacturers - "sweat shops" operating in "pollution heaven" heavily dependent on state subsidies and a cheap currency - is increasingly out of touch with today's reality, as discussed in detail in a previous report.3 In a nutshell, Chinese manufacturers have quickly climbed up the value-add ladder due to rapidly rising labor costs, and pollution control has become an urgent social issue. Meanwhile, the RMB has been under constant downward pressure in recent years, and the Chinese authorities may welcome coordinated efforts to weaken the dollar and support the yuan. In short, China will not find it too painful to accept Trump's terms and conditions, as the "sick parts" of the Chinese economy will inevitably be cleansed regardless of pressure from the U.S. The risk to this view is that Trump finds China's progress too slow and grows impatient. Previous American presidents have come to accept China's gradualism and have demurred from punitive measures. Trump, with his populist base and promises, may at some point find it politically expedient to exact a price on China for failing to deliver the desired results on his electoral timeline. Across the board tariffs on Chinese imports are unlikely, but highly symbolic sanctions and anti-dumping measures remain distinct possibility. The End Game Of Sino-U.S. Trade Imbalances However, any immediate concessions from China on trade will do little to fundamentally change the U.S.'s external imbalances. It is well known that a country's current account balance is the residual of its national savings and domestic capital spending. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect a meaningful reduction in the country's current account deficit without lifting America's domestic savings rate. Chart 1 shows the chronic nature of America's external deficit. It is worth noting that the "Nixon shock" in 1971 - the policy package of closing the gold window and imposing across-the-board tariffs on imports - was triggered when the U.S. was on track to have its first annual trade deficit since the 19th century. Fast forward 46 years later, various attempts by American administrations have failed to rescue the deteriorating trend. Many countries over the years such as Germany, Japan and newly-industrialized economies in Asia were all singled out as conducting unfair trade practices with the U.S., but none of the bilateral and multi-lateral efforts were effective with lasting impact. A fundamental change in global trade over the past four decades has been the rapid industrialization of China. In essence, China has become the final point of an increasingly integrated global assembly line, and therefore America's chronic deficit has been transferred from other countries to China. Chart 2 shows China's surplus with the U.S. has ballooned, while other countries' surpluses have dwindled. This has put China squarely under the spotlight, replacing previous scapegoats. Chart 1America's Secular Deficit... Chart 2... From Changing Sources From China's perspective, the country will continue to run a surplus with the U.S. so long as it remains in the most manufacturing-intensive phase of its development curve, though the product mix will continue to shift from lower-value-added goods to higher-value-added ones. Meanwhile, the Chinese corporate sector will shift production capacity to even lower cost countries, similar to what Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan have done in relation to China since the early 1980s when China began to open up. Already, China's direct investment to Vietnam has surged in recent years, which partially explains the sharp increase in Vietnam's trade surpluses with the U.S. (Chart 3). In fact, Vietnamese trade surplus with the U.S. account for 15% of the country's GDP, even though its overall trade balance is barely positive. This means that America's demand for cheap consumer goods is the main driving forces for its deficit, rather than any particular country's unfair trade practices. The fact is that the U.S. has moved beyond industrialization and become a post-industrial society, where the service sector generates more wealth than the manufacturing sector. China's shrinking share of imports from the U.S. is the mirror image of America's shrinking share of the manufacturing sector in the overall economy (Chart 4). Furthermore, the self-imposed restrictions on some high-tech goods exports to China further limits American firms growth potential, as this is the most competitive segment of America's manufacturing sector in the global market. Without removing these restrictions, it is unrealistic to expect a material increase in sales to China. Chart 3The "China Factor" In Vietnam's##br## Growing Trade Surpluses Chart 4America's Deindustrialization And ##br##Shrinking Market Share In China For now, the Trump-Xi summit offers hopeful signs that the two sides are mending severely tested bilateral relations and that the risk of escalation in trade tensions has declined. Trump may adopt a "good cop / bad cop" strategy that creates greater volatility. Longer term, unless the Trump administration addresses America's "savings shortage," the country's external deficit will not change materially. Imposing tariffs on Chinese imports only pushes Chinese surpluses to other less-competitive countries; it does not bring jobs back to the U.S. Any serious negotiations on bilateral trade imbalances between China and the U.S. must deal with the root causes. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB: Back In The Spotlight," dated March 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard," dated January 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Global political risks are understated in 2018; U.S. policy will favor the USD, as will global macro trends; Trump's trade protectionism will re-emerge; China will slow, and may intensify structural reforms; Italian elections will reignite Euro Area breakup risk. Feature In our last report, we detailed why political risks are overstated in 2017.1 First, markets are underestimating President Trump's political capital when it comes to passing his growth agenda. Second, risks of populist revolt remain overstated in Europe. Third, political risks associated with Brexit probably peaked earlier this year. Next year, however, the geopolitical calendar is beset with potential systemic risks. First, we fear that President Trump will elevate trade to the top of his list of priorities, putting fears of protectionism and trade wars back onto the front burner. In turn, this could precipitate a serious crisis in the U.S.-China relationship and potentially inspire Chinese policymakers to redouble their economic reforms - so as not to "let a good crisis go to waste." That, in turn, would create short-term deflationary effects. Meanwhile, we fear that investors will have been lulled to sleep by the pro-market outcomes in Europe this year. The series of elections that go against populists may number seven by January 2018 (two Spanish elections, the Austrian presidential election, the Dutch general election, the French presidential and legislative elections, and the German general election in September). However, the Italian election looms as a risk in early 2018 and investors should not ignore it. Investors should remain overweight risk assets for the next 12 months. Our conviction level, however, declines in 2018 due to mounting geopolitical risks. Mercantilism Makes A Comeback Fears of a trade war appear distant and alarmist following the conclusion of the Mar-a-Lago summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. We do not expect the reset in relations to last beyond this year. Trump has issued a "shot across the bow" and now the two sides are settling down to business - but investors should avoid a false sense of complacency.2 Investors should remember that candidate Trump's rhetoric on China and globalization was why he stood out from the crowd of bland, establishment Republican candidates. Despite the establishment's tenacious support for globalization, Americans no longer believe in the benefits of free trade, at least not as defined by the neoliberal "Washington Consensus" of the past two decades (Chart 1). We take Trump's views on trade seriously. They certainly helped him outperform expectations in the manufacturing-heavy Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (Chart 2). And yet, Trump's combined margin of victory in the three states was just 77,744 votes -- less than 0.5% of the electorate of the three states! That should be enough to keep him focused on fulfilling his campaign promises to Midwest voters, at least if he wants to win in 2020.3 Chart 1America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc Chart 2Protectionism Boosted Trump In The Rust Belt In 2017, Trump's domestic agenda has taken precedent over international trade. The president is dealing with several key pieces of legislation, including the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, comprehensive tax reform, the repeal of Obama-era regulations, and infrastructure spending. However, there is considerable evidence that trade will eventually come back up: President Trump's appointments have favored proponents of protectionism (Table 1) whose statements have included some true mercantilist gems (Table 2). Table 1Government Appointments Certifying That Trump Is A Protectionist Table 2Protectionist Statements From The Trump Administration Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin, who is not known as a vociferous proponent of protectionism, prevented the G20 communique from reaffirming a commitment to free trade at the March meeting of finance officials in Baden-Baden, Germany.4 Such statements were staples of the summits over the past decade. The Commerce Department - under notable trade hawk Wilbur Ross - looks to be playing a much more active role in setting the trade agenda under President Trump. Ross has already imposed a penalty on Chinese chemical companies in a toughly worded ruling that declares, "this is not the last that bad actors in global trade will hear from us - the games are over." He is overseeing a three-month review of the causes of U.S. deficits, planning to add "national security" considerations to trade and investment assessments, proposing a new means of collecting duties in disputes, and encouraging U.S. firms to bring cases against unfair competition. Ross is likely to be joined by a tougher U.S. Trade Representative (who has historically been the most important driver of trade policy in the executive branch). In addition, we believe that Trump's success on the domestic policy front, in combination with the global macro environment, will lead to higher risk of protectionism in 2018. There are three overarching reasons: Domestic Policy Is Bullish USD: We do not know what path the White House and Congress will take on tax reform. We think tax reform is on the way, but the path of least resistance may be to leave reform for later and focus entirely on tax cuts in 2017. Whatever the outcome, we are almost certain that it will involve greater budget deficits than the current budget law augurs (Chart 3). Even a modest boost to government spending will motivate the Fed to accelerate its tightening cycle at a time when the output gap is nearly closed and unemployment is plumbing decade lows (Chart 4). This will perpetuate the dollar bull market. Chart 3Come What May, Trump Will Increase The Budget Deficit Chart 4A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation Chinese Growth Scare Is Bullish USD: At some point later this year, Chinese data is likely to decelerate and induce a growth scare. Our colleague Yan Wang of BCA's China Investment Strategy believes that the Chinese economy is on much better footing than in early 2016, but that the year-on-year macro indicators will begin to moderate.5 This could rekindle investors' fears of another China-led global slowdown. Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have gone forward with property market curbs and begun to tighten liquidity marginally on the interbank system. The seven-day repo rate, a key benchmark for Chinese lending terms, has surged to its highest level in two years, according to BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy. It could surge again, dissuading small and medium-sized banks from bond issuance (Chart 5). Falling commodity demand and fear of another slowdown in China will weigh on EM assets and boost the USD. European Political Risks Are Bullish USD: Finally, any rerun of political risks in Europe in 2018 will force the ECB to be a lot more dovish than the market expects. With Italian elections to be held some time in Q1 or Q2 2018 - more on that risk below - we think the market is getting way ahead of itself with expectations of tighter monetary policy in Europe. The expected number of months till an ECB rate hike has collapsed from nearly 60 months in July 2016 to just 20 months in March, before recovering to 28 months as various ECB policymakers sought to dampen expectations of rate hikes (Chart 6).6 In addition, our colleague Mathieu Savary of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has noted that a relationship exists between EM growth and European monetary policy (Chart 7), which suggests that any Chinese growth scares would similarly be euro-bearish and USD-bullish.7 Chart 5Interbank Volatility Will ##br##Dampen Chinese Credit Growth Chart 6Market Is Way Ahead Of ##br## Itself On ECB Hawkishness Chart 7EM Spreads, ECB Months-To-Hike: ##br##Same Battle The combination of Trump's domestic policy agenda and these global macro-economic factors will drive the dollar up. At some point in 2018, we assume that USD strength will begin to irk Donald Trump and his cabinet, particularly as it prevents them from delivering on their promise of shrinking trade deficits. We suspect that President Trump will eventually reach for the "currency manipulation" playbook of the 1970s-80s. There are two parallels that investors should be aware of: 1971 Smithsonian Agreement - President Richard Nixon famously closed the gold window on August 15, 1971 in what came to be known as the "Nixon shock."8 Less understood, but also part of the "shock," was a 10% surcharge on all imported goods, the purpose of which was to force U.S. trade partners to appreciate their currencies against the USD. Much like Trump, Nixon had campaigned on a mercantilist platform in 1968, promising southern voters that he would limit imports of Japanese textiles. As president, he staffed his cabinet with trade hawks, including Treasury Secretary John Connally who was in favor of threatening a reduced U.S. military presence in Europe and Japan to force Berlin and Tokyo to the negotiating table.9 Economists in the cabinet opposed the surcharge, fearing retaliation from trade partners, but policymakers favored brinkmanship.10 The eventual surcharge was said to be "temporary," but there was no explicit end date. The U.S. ultimately got other currencies to appreciate, mostly the deutschmark and yen, but not as much as it wanted. Critics in the administration - particularly the powerful National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger - feared that brinkmanship would hurt Trans-Atlantic relations and thus impede Cold War coordination between allies. As such, the U.S. removed the surcharge by December without meeting most of its other objectives, including increasing allied defense-spending and reducing trade barriers to U.S. exports. Even the exchange-rate outcomes of the deal dissipated within two years. 1985 Plaza Accord - The U.S. reached for the mercantilist playbook again in the early 1980s as the USD rallied on the back of Volcker's dramatic interest rate hikes. The subsequent dollar bull market hurt U.S. exports and widened the current account deficit (Chart 8). U.S. negotiators benefited from the 1971 Nixon surcharge because European and Japanese policymakers knew that Americans were serious about tariffs. The result was coordinated currency manipulation to drive down the dollar and self-imposed export limits by Japan, both of which had an almost instantaneous effect on the Japanese share of American imports (Chart 9). Chart 8Dollar Bull Market And ##br## Current Account Balance Chart 9The U.S. Got What It ##br##Wanted From Plaza Accord The Smithsonian and Plaza examples are important for two reasons. First, they show that Trump's mercantilism is neither novel nor somehow "un-American." It especially is not anti-Republican, with both Nixon and Reagan having used overt protectionism as a negotiating tool in recent history. In fact, Trump's Trade Representative, the yet-to-be-confirmed Robert Lighthizer, is a veteran of the latter agreement, having negotiated it for President Ronald Reagan.11 Second, the experience of both negotiations in bringing about a shift in the U.S. trade imbalance will motivate the Trump administration to reach for the same "coordinated currency manipulation" playbook. The problem is that 2018 is neither 1971 nor 1985. The Trump administration will face three constraints to using currency devaluation to reduce the U.S. trade imbalance: Chart 10Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Chart 11Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Economy: Europe and Japan were booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s and had the luxury of appreciating their currencies at the U.S.'s behest. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that engineers structural bull markets in the euro and RMB respectively. For Europe, the risk is that peripheral economies may not survive a back-up in yields. For China, monetary policy tightness would imperil the debt-servicing of its enormous corporate debt horde. Apex of Globalization: U.S. policymakers could negotiate the 1971 and 1985 currency agreements in part because the promise of increased trade remained intact. Europe and Japan agreed to a tactical retreat to get a strategic victory: ongoing trade liberalization. In 2017, however, this promise has been muted. Global trade has peaked as a percent of GDP (Chart 10), average tariffs appear to have bottomed (Chart 11), and the number of preferential trade agreements signed each year has collapsed (Chart 12). Temporary trade barriers have ticked up since 2008 (Chart 13). To be clear, these signs are not necessarily proof that globalization is reversing, but merely that it has reached its apex. Nonetheless, America's trade partners will be far less willing to agree to coordinated currency manipulation in an era where the global trade pie is no longer growing. Geopolitics: During the Cold War, the U.S. had far greater leverage over Europe and Japan than it does today over Europe and China. While the U.S. is still involved in European defense, its geopolitical relationship with China is hostile. What happens when the Smithsonian/Plaza playbook fails? We would expect the Trump administration to switch tactics. Two alternatives come to mind: Protectionism: As the Nixon surcharge demonstrates, the U.S. president has few legal, constitutional constraints to using tariffs against trade partners.12 As the Trump White House grows frustrated in 2018 with the widening trade imbalance, it may reach for the tariff playbook. The risk here is that retaliation from Europe and China would be swift, hurting U.S. exporters in the process. Dovishness: There is a much simpler alternative to a global trade war: inflation. Our theory that the USD will rally amidst domestic fiscal stimulus is predicated on the Fed hiking rates faster as inflation and growth pick up. But what if the Fed decides to respond to higher nominal GDP growth by hiking rates more slowly? This could be the strategy pursued by the next Fed chair, to be in place by February 3, 2018. We do not buy the conventional wisdom that "President Trump will pick hawks because his economic advisors are hawks" for two reasons. First, we do not know that Trump's economic advisors will carry the day. Second, we suspect that President Trump will be far more focused on winning the 2020 election than putting a hawk in charge of the Fed. Chart 12Low-Hanging Fruit Of Globalization Already Picked Chart 13Temporary Trade Barriers Ticking Up Bottom Line: Putting it all together, we expect that U.S. trade imbalances will come to the forefront of the political agenda in 2018. This will especially be the case if the USD continues to rally into next year, contributing to the widening of the trade deficit. We expect any attempt to reenact the Smithsonian/Plaza agreements to flame out quickly. America's trade partners are constrained and unable to appreciate their currencies against the USD. This could rattle the markets in 2018 as investors become aware that Trump's mercantilism is real and that chances of a trade war are high. On the other hand, Trump may take a different tack altogether and instead focus on talking down the USD. This will necessitate a compliant Fed, which will mean higher inflation and a weaker USD. Such a strategy could prolong the reflation trade through 2018 and into 2019, but only if the subsequent bloodbath in the bond market is contained. China Decides To Reform Presidents Trump and Xi launched a new negotiation framework on April 6 that they will personally oversee, as well as a "100 Day Plan" on trade that we expect will result in a flurry of activity over the next three months. One potential outcome of the meeting is a rumored plan for massive Chinese investment into the U.S. that could add a headline 700,000 jobs, complemented with further opening of China's agricultural, automotive, and financial sectors to U.S. investment and exports. Investors may be fêted with more good news, especially with President Trump slated to visit China before long. President Trump, a prominent China-basher, may decide that the deals he brings home from China will be enough to convince the Midwest electorate that he has gotten the U.S. a "better deal" as promised. This would enable him to stabilize China relations in order to focus on other issues, as all presidents since Reagan have done. However, we doubt that the Sino-American relationship can be resolved through short-term trade initiatives alone. There is too much distrust, as we have elucidated before.13 The 100-day plan is a good start but it carries an implicit threat of tariffs from the Trump administration if China fails to follow through; and China is not likely to give Trump everything he wants. Moreover, strategic and security issues are far from settled, despite some positive gestures. As such, we expect both economic and geopolitical tensions to resurface in 2018. Meanwhile Chinese policymakers may decide to use tensions with the U.S. as an opportunity to redouble efforts towards structural reforms at home. Since the Xi Jinping administration pledged sweeping pro-market reforms in 2013, the country has shied away from dealing with its massive corporate debt hoard (Chart 14) and has only trimmed the overcapacity in sectors like steel and coal (Chart 15). It fears incurring short-term pain, albeit for long-term gain. However, if Beijing can blame any reform-induced slowdown on the U.S. and its nationalist administration, it will make it easier to manage the political blowback at home, providing a means of rallying the public around the flag. Chart 14China's Corporate Debt Pile Still A Problem... Chart 15...And So Is Industrial Overcapacity China has, of course, undertaken significant domestic reforms under the current administration. It has re-centralized power in the hands of the Communist Party and made steps to improve quality of life by fighting pollution, expanding health-care access, and loosening the One Child policy. These measures have long-term significance for investors because they imply that the Chinese state is responsive to the secular rise in social unrest over the past decade. The political system is still vulnerable in the event of a major economic crisis, but the party's legitimacy has been reinforced. Nevertheless, what long-term investors fear is China’s simultaneous backsliding on key components of economic liberalization. Since the global financial crisis, the government has adopted a series of laws that impose burdens on firms, especially foreign and private firms, relating to security, intellectual property, technology, legal (and political) compliance, and market access. Moreover, since the market turmoil in 2015-16, the government has moved to micromanage the country’s stock market, capital account, banking and corporate sectors, and Internet and media. The general darkening of the business environment is a major reason why investors have not celebrated notable reform moves like liberalizing deposit interest rates or standardizing the business-service tax. These steps require further reforms to build on them (i.e. to remove lending preferences for SOEs, or to provide local governments with revenues to replace the business tax). But all reforms are now in limbo as the Communist Party approaches its “midterm” party congress this fall. Most importantly for investors, the government has still not shown it can "get off the train" of rapid credit growth that has underpinned China's transition away from foreign demand (Chart 16). The country's relatively robust consumer-oriented and service-sector growth remains to be tested by tighter financial conditions. And the property sector poses an additional, perpetual financial risk, which policymakers have avoided tackling with reforms like the proposed property tax (a key reform item to watch for next year).14 The PBoC's recent tightening efforts come after a period of dramatic liquidity assistance to the banks (Chart 17), and even though interbank rates remain well below their brief double-digit levels during the "Shibor Crisis" in 2013 (see Chart 5 above, page 6), any tightening serves to revive fears that financial instability could re-emerge and translate to the broader economy. Chart 16China's Savings Fueling Debt Buildup Chart 17PBoC Lends A Helping Hand What signposts should investors watch to see whether China re-initiates structural reforms? Already, personnel changes at the finance and commerce ministries, as well as the National Development and Reform Commission and China Banking Regulatory Commission, suggest that the Xi administration may be headed in this direction. Table 3 focuses on the steps that we think would be most important, beginning with the party congress this fall. Given current levels of overcapacity and corporate leverage, we suspect that genuine structural reform will begin with a move toward deleveraging, and involve a mix of bank recapitalization and capacity destruction, as it did in the 1990s and early 2000s. These reforms included the formation of new central financial authorities, like policy banks, regulatory bodies, and asset management companies, to oversee the cleaning up of bank balance sheets and the removal of numerous inefficient players from the financial sector.15 They eventually entailed transfers of funds from the PBoC, from foreign exchange reserves, and from public offerings as major banks were partially privatized. On the corporate side, the reforms witnessed the elimination of a range of SOEs and layoffs numbering around 40% of SOE employees, or 4% of the economically active workforce at the time. Table 3Will China Launch Painful Economic Restructuring Next Year? Chinese President Jiang Zemin launched these reforms after the party congress of 1997, just as his successor, Hu Jintao, attempted to launch similar reforms following the party congress of 2007. The latter got cut short by the Great Recession. The question now for Xi Jinping's administration is whether he will use his own midterm party congress to launch the reforms that he has emphasized: namely, deep overcapacity cuts and financial and property market stabilization through measures to mitigate systemic risks.16 Bottom Line: China may decide to use American antagonism as an "excuse" to launch a serious structural reform push following this fall's National Party Congress. Short-term pain, which is normal under a reform scenario in any country, could then be blamed on an antagonistic U.S. trade and geopolitical policy. While reforms in China are a positive in the long term, we fear that a slowdown in China would export deflation to still fragile EM economies. And given Europe's high-beta economy, it could also be negative for European assets and the euro. Europe's Divine Comedy Investors remain focused on European elections this year. The first round of the French election is just 11 days away and polls are tightening (Chart 18). Although Marine Le Pen is set to lose the second round in a dramatic fashion against the pro-market, centrist Emmanuel Macron (Chart 19), she could be a lot more competitive if either center-right François Fillon or left-wing Jean-Luc Mélenchon squeaks by Macron to get into the second round.17 Chart 18Melenchon's Rise: Comrades Unite! Chart 19Le Pen Cruisin' For A Bruisin' The risk of someone-other-than-Macron getting into the second round is indeed rising. However, Mélenchon's rise thus far appears to be the mirror image of Socialist Party candidate Benoît Hamon's demise. At some point, this move will reach its natural limits: not all Hamon voters are willing to switch to Mélenchon. At that point, the Communist Party-backed Mélenchon will have to start taking voters away from Le Pen. This is definitely possible, but would also create a scenario in which it is Mélenchon, not Le Pen, that faces off against a centrist candidate in the second round. As such, we see Mélenchon's rise primarily as a threat to Le Pen, not Macron.18 While we remain focused on the French election, we think that any market relief from that election - and the subsequent German one - will be temporary. By early next year, investors will have to deal with Italian elections. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no clarity in terms of who will win the Italian election. If elections were held today, the Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) would gain a narrow victory (Chart 20). However, it is not clear what electoral law will apply in the next election. The current law on the books, which the Democratic Party-led (PD) government is attempting to reform by next February, would give a party reaching 40% of the vote a majority-bonus. As Chart 20 illustrates, however, no party is near that threshold. As such, the next election may produce a hung parliament with no clarity, but with a Euroskeptic plurality. Meanwhile, the ruling center-left Democratic Party is crumbling. Primaries are set for April 30 and will pit former PM Matteo Renzi against left-wing factions that have coalesced into a single alliance called the Progressive and Democratic Movement (DP). For now, DP supports the government of caretaker PM Paolo Gentiloni, but its members have recently embarrassed the government by voting with the opposition in a key April 6 vote in the Senate. If Renzi wins the leadership of the Democratic Party again, DP members could formally split and contest the 2018 election as a separate party. The real problem for investors with Italy is not the next election, whose results are almost certain to be uncertain, but rather the Euroskeptic turn in Italian politics. First, aggregating all Euroskeptic and Europhile parties produces a worrying trend (Chart 21). And we are being generous to the pro-European camp by including the increasingly Euroskeptic Forza Italia of former PM Silvio Berlusconi in its camp. Chart 20Five Star Movement Set For Plurality Win Chart 21Euroskeptics Take The Lead Unlike its Mediterranean peers Spain and Portugal, Italian support for the euro is still plumbing decade lows -- no doubt a reflection of the country's non-existent economic recovery (Chart 22). It is difficult to see how Italians can regain confidence in European integration given that they are unwilling to pursue painful structural reforms. Chart 22Italian Economic Woes Hurt Euro Support The question is not whether Italy will face a Euroskeptic crisis, but rather when. It may avoid one in 2018 as the pro-euro centrists cobble together a weak government or somehow entice the center-right into forming a grand coalition. But even in that rosy scenario, such a government is not going to have a mandate for painful structural reforms that would be required to pull Italy out of its low-growth doldrums. As such, it is unlikely that the next Italian government will last its full five-year term. Bottom Line: Investors should prepare for a re-run of Europe's sovereign debt crisis, with Italy as the main event. We expect this risk to be delayed until after the Italian election in 2018, maybe later. However, it is likely to have global repercussions, given Italy's status as the third-largest sovereign debt market. Will Italy exit the euro? Our view is that Italy needs a crisis in order to stay in the Euro Area, as only the market can bring forward the costs of euro exit for Italian voters by punishing the economy through the bond market. The market, economy, and politics have a dynamic relationship and Italian voters will be able to assess the costs of an exit first hand, as yields approach their highs in 2011 and Italian banks face a potential liquidity crisis. Given that support for the euro remains above 50% today, we would expect that Italians would back off from the abyss after such a shock, but our conviction level is low.19 Housekeeping This week, we are taking profits on our long MXN/RMB trade. We initiated the trade on January 25, 2017 and it has returned 14.2% since then. The trade was a play on our view that Trump's protectionism would hit China harder than Mexico. Given the favorable conclusion to the Mar-a-Lago summit - and the likely easing of risks of a China-U.S. trade war in the near term - it is time to book profits on this trade. We still see short-term upside to MXN and investors may want to pair it by shorting the Turkish lira. We expect more downside to TRY given domestic political instability, which we expect to continue beyond the April 15 constitutional referendum. We see both the yes and no outcomes of the referendum as market negative. In addition, we are closing our short Chinese RMB (via 12-month non-deliverable forwards) trade for a profit of 5.89% and our long USD/SEK trade for a gain of 1.27%. Our short U.K. REITs trade has been stopped out for a loss of 5%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For this negotiating sequence, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington," dated November 24, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Trump loves to win. 4 Please see Federal Ministry of Finance, Germany, "Communique - G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting," dated March 18, 2017, available at www.bundesfinanzministerium.de. 5 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Growth: Testing Time Ahead," dated April 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 The head of the Lithuanian central bank, Vitas Vasiliauskas, was quoted by the Wall Street Journal in early April stating that "it is too early to discuss an exit because still we have a lot of significant uncertainties." This was followed by the executive board member Peter Praet dampening expectations of even a reduction in the bank's bond-buying program and President Mario Draghi stating that the current monetary policy stance remained appropriate. 7 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?" dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Douglas A. Irwin, "The Nixon shock after forty years: the import surcharge revisited," World Trade Review 12:01 (January 2013), pp. 29-56, available at www.nber.org, and Barry Eichengreen, "Before the Plaza: The Exchange Rate Stabilization Attempts of 1925, 1933, 1936 and 1971," Behl Working Paper Series 11 (2015). 9 Treasury Secretary John Connally was particularly protectionist, with two infamous mercantilist quips to his name: "foreigners are out to screw us, our job is to screw them first," and "the dollar may be our currency, but it is your problem." 10 Paul Volcker, then Undersecretary of the Treasury, provided some color on this divide: "As I remember it, the discussion largely was a matter of the economists against the politicians, and the outcome wasn't really close." 11 We highly recommend that our clients peruse Lighthizer's testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Beginning at p. 29, he recommends three key measures: using the 1971 surcharge as a model (p. 31); going beyond "WTO-consistent" policies (p. 33); and imposing tariffs against China explicitly (p. 35). Please see Robert E. Lighthizer, "Testimony Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission: Evaluating China's Role in the World Trade Organization Over the Past Decade," dated June 9, 2010, available at www.uscc.gov. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also the recent Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Market Equity Sector Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Property Market: A Structural Downtrend Just Started," dated June 4, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Is Beijing About To Blink?" in Monthly Report, "What Geopolitical Risks Keep Our Clients Awake?" dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 At a meeting of the Central Leading Group on Financial and Economic Affairs, which Xi chairs, the decision was made to make some progress on these structural issues this year, but only within the overriding framework of ensuring "stability." The question is whether Xi will grow bolder in 2018. Please see "Xi stresses stability, progress in China's economic work," Xinhua, February 28, 2017, available at news.xinhuanet.com. 17 That said, the most recent poll - conducted between April 9-10 - shows that Mélenchon may be even more likely to defeat Le Pen than Macron. He had a 61% to 39% lead in the second round versus Le Pen. 18 In the second round, Macron is expected to defeat Mélenchon by 55% to 45%, according to the latest poll, conducted April 9-10. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Chinese capex and EM domestic demand will falter again in the second half of this year. This is not contingent on a growth slowdown in the advanced economies, but due to a further slowdown in bank lending in EM and lower commodities prices. The direction of EM share prices in absolute terms and relative to the S&P 500 is determined by EPS trajectory, not equity valuations. We expect EM EPS to drop in absolute terms and to underperform U.S. EPS. India's deleveraging cycle is well advanced, especially when compared with other EM economies. Maintain an overweight position in Indian equities within the EM universe. Continue betting on yield curve steepening. Stay long the Czech koruna versus the euro. Feature EM/China growth will relapse in the second half of this year. Share prices, presuming they are forward-looking, will roll over beforehand. Chinese interest rates have risen, which typically heralds a downtrend in the mainland's credit impulse and business cycle (Chart I-1). Chinese interest rates are shown as an annual percentage change, inverted and advanced. This is a typical relationship between interest rates and credit cycles, and there is currently no reason why it will play out any differently in China. Given the mainland has a lingering credit bubble, rising borrowing costs and regulatory tightening of banks and the shadow banking system are guaranteed to lead to a relapse in credit origination, and in turn economic growth. China's yield curve has been flattening in recent months. This often precedes a selloff in both EM share prices and industrial metals (Chart I-2). Chart I-1China: Interest Rates ##br##And Credit/Business Cycles Chart I-2A Flattening Yield Curve In China Is ##br##A Bad Omen For EM And Commodities The Chinese yield curve has been experiencing bear flattening - front-end rates have risen more than long-term rates. Bear flattening in yield curves typically occurs before a major top in growth, when current conditions are still robust but the fixed-income market begins to question growth sustainability going forward. A flattening yield curve is consistent with our assessment: a lack of follow-through from last year's stimulus combined with the recent policy tightening will cause growth to downshift materially very soon. EM narrow (M1) money growth has rolled over decisively, and historically it has been a good leading indicator for EM earnings per share (EPS) (Chart I-3). The former has historically led the latter by about nine months. Chart I-3EM EPS To Roll Over In the Second Half 2017 The same is true in the case of China - the M1 impulse (the second derivative of M1) leads industrial profits by about six months and heralds an imminent reversal (Chart I-4). Chart I-4China's Industrial Profit Growth Recovery Is At A Risk The commodities currency index (an equally weighted average of AUD, NZD and CAD) has relapsed against the greenback. This index points to global growth deceleration in the second half of this year (Chart I-5). Similarly, these commodities currencies also lead commodities prices, and presently signal a top in the commodities complex (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Commodities Currencies Signify Weakness In Global Trade Chart I-6Commodities Currencies Point To Relapse In Commodities Prices In EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan, bank loan growth has still been decelerating despite the global growth recovery of the past 12 months (Chart I-7, top panel). Besides, retail sales volume growth in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has not ameliorated yet (Chart I-7, bottom panel). All of these economic aggregates are equity market cap-weighted. Similarly, auto sales in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan have been stabilizing at very low levels but have not recovered at all (Chart I-8). Hence, we infer that domestic demand in EM ex-China has stabilized, but it has not recovered. For example, manufacturing production in Brazil, Russia, South Africa and Indonesia has been rather subdued (Chart I-9). Chart I-7EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Domestic Demand Has Not Recovered Chart I-8EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Auto Sales Are Stabilizing At Low levels Chart I-9Synchronized Global Recovery? As EM ex-China credit growth decelerates further due to the lingering credit excesses and poor banking system health, their domestic demand will disappoint. This is a major risk to the EM profit outlook. Bottom Line: Chinese and EM domestic demand and by extension corporate earnings will falter again in the second half of this year. This view is not contingent on a growth slowdown in the advanced economies but will be the outcome of further slowdown in bank lending in EM and lower commodities prices. A reversal in Chinese imports from other EM is the link that explains how a relapse in the mainland's growth in the second half this year will hurt the rest of the world in general, and EM in particular. Profits Hold The Key Chart I-10Profits, Not Valuations, Hold The Key Emerging markets' relative performance versus the S&P 500 has historically been driven by EPS (Chart I-10). In the past 12 months, EM EPS has improved modestly but has not outperformed U.S. EPS in U.S. dollar terms. Consistently, EM stocks have failed to outperform the S&P 500 in common currency terms; they have been flat at low levels in the past 12 months. An important message from this chart is that equity valuations are not critical to EM versus U.S. relative equity performance. It is all about corporate profit cycles. The widely held view within the investment community is that EM stocks are cheaper than those in the U.S., and therefore will outperform based on more attractive valuations. The fact that EM stocks are indeed cheaper versus the S&P 500 only reflects the fact that U.S. equity valuations are expensive and EM equity valuations are neutral in absolute terms. Equity valuations may affect the degree of out- and underperformance, but they do not determine the direction of relative performance as vividly illustrated by Chart I-10. The same can be said about EM stocks' absolute performance. Equity valuations do not determine the direction of share prices; the latter rise when profits expand, and fall when EPS contracts. However, valuations affect the magnitude of the move in equity prices: cheap valuations and growing EPS will produce a larger rally compared to neutral equity valuations and identical growth in EPS. We discussed EM equity valuations at great length in our Weekly Report published two weeks ago.1 In absolute terms, EM equity valuations are presently neutral. Therefore, they have no bearing on the direction of share prices. If EM EPS expands, stocks will continue to rally. If EPS growth stalls or turns negative, EM stocks will stumble. As Charts I-3 and I-4 on page 3 illustrate, EM EPS will soon relapse. In addition, U.S. return on equity (RoE) remains well above EM's RoE (Chart I-11), reflecting better equity capital utilization in the U.S. versus the EM. Looking forward, one variable that has had a reasonably good track record in gauging relative performance of EM versus U.S. share prices is the ratio of industrial metals to U.S. lumber prices (Chart I-12). Industrial metals prices are a proxy for economic growth in China/EM, while U.S. lumber prices are indicative of America's business cycle. Industrial metals prices (the LMEX index) have lately underperformed U.S. lumber prices, pointing to renewed EM underperformance versus the S&P 500. Chart I-11EM RoE Is Below U.S. RoE Chart I-12EM Stocks To Underperform The S&P 500 Our view is that EM EPS growth will contract again within a cyclical investment horizon (over the next 12 months). While not all sectors' earnings are set to shrink, our view is that banks' profits will decline driven by credit growth deceleration and a rise in non-performing loans in a number of countries. Besides, commodities producers' EPS will drop anew if, as we expect, commodities prices head south again. Table I-1 illustrates the weights of each EM equity sector within total EM-listed companies' profits. Financials account for 24%, while energy and materials comprise 7.5% each of the aggregate EM equity market cap, respectively. In aggregate, these sectors make up 50% of EM EPS and 40% of the stock index. Table I-1EM Sectors: Equity Market Caps ##br##And EPS's Share Of Total EPS We remain positive on the technology/internet sector's growth outlook. While this sector's weight in terms of both market cap and EPS is very large, it is not yet sufficient to lift the overall EM equity index if other large sectors falter. In fact, technology/internet stocks have already rallied dramatically and are presently overbought. They will likely correct along with the rest of the universe. Nevertheless, we continue to recommend an overweight stance in technology stocks within the EM benchmark. Bottom Line: The direction of EM share prices in absolute terms and relative to the S&P 500 is determined by EPS trajectory, not equity valuations. We expect EM EPS to drop in absolute terms and to underperform U.S. EPS. Consistently, we maintain our long-standing strategy of being short EM / long the S&P 500. Taking Profits On Short Korean Auto Stocks Initiated on July 3, 2013, this recommendation has generated a 35% gain (Chart I-13, top panel). Notably, Korean auto stocks have failed to rally in the past 12 months. Furthermore, Korean auto stocks have underperformed the overall EM equity index by a whopping 22% since our recommendation (Chart I-13, bottom panel). For dedicated investors, we recommend lifting the allocation to this sector from underweight to neutral. In regard to allocation to the KOSPI overall, we maintain our overweight stance within an EM equity portfolio for now. Geopolitical volatility could create near-term disturbance but the primary trend in Korea's relative performance against the EM benchmark is up (Chart I-14). Within the KOSPI, we continue to overweight technology stocks, companies with exposure to DM growth and domestic industries. Meanwhile, companies with exposure to China's capital spending should be avoided. Chart I-13Take Profits On Short ##br##Korean Stocks Recommendation Chart I-14Korean Equities ##br##Relative To EM Overall Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "EM Equity Valuations Revisited", dated March 29, 2017, link available on page 21. India: Beyond De-Monetization The growth-dampening effects from India's de-monetization program are beginning to dissipate. Both services and manufacturing PMIs are recovering (Chart II-1). As more cash is injected back into the system, consumer sector growth will improve. Beyond the recovery in consumption, however, capital spending - the key driver of productivity and non-inflationary growth - is still anemic because of structural reasons that began well before de-monetization was announced (Chart II-2). Chart II-1PMIs Are Recovering Chart II-2Capital Spending Is Depressed Public Banks: Is Deleveraging Advanced? The Indian authorities appear serious about restructuring their public banks, and the banking downturn cycle is likely approaching its final stages (Chart II-3). As and when India's public banks find themselves on more solid footing, industrial credit growth will pick up meaningfully and capital expenditures will follow. The previous credit boom that occurred in the infrastructure, mining, and materials sectors left a large number of failed and stalled projects. Chart II-4 shows the number of stalled projects remains stubbornly high and is not yet declining. These mal-investments have ended up as non-performing loans primarily on public banks' balance sheets: Non-performing loans (NPLs) currently amount to 11.8% and distressed assets (DRA) stand at around 4% of total loans on Indian public banks' balance sheets. This has forced public banks to curtail credit growth to the industrial sector (Chart II-5). Chart II-3Bank Credit Growth Is At All Time Low Chart II-4Plenty Of Projects Stalled Chart II-5Bank Credit Growth To Industries Is Contracting Public banks' NPLs and DRAs have spiked because the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is forcing commercial banks to acknowledge and provision for these bad loans via the central bank's Asset Quality Review (AQR) program. This is eroding public banks' capital and constraining their ability to grow their loan book. However, the program is bullish for India's economy in the long run and stands in stark contrast to other EM countries where authorities are turning a blind eye on banks attempting to window dress their NPLs. India's government and the RBI are currently working with commercial banks and proposing measures to recover loans from defaulters. The government is also injecting capital into public banks. It has announced 100 billion INR in capital injections for this fiscal year and will inject more if needed. It is also forcing banks to raise more capital by ridding their books of non-core businesses. We have performed a scenario analysis on public banks (presented in Table II-1) to gauge their stock valuations. In all scenarios, we assume that DRAs will be constant at 5% of total loans, and also assume a 70% recovery rate on DRAs. We examine various scenarios for NPLs - the latter vary from 12-15% of total loans (the current actual NPL rate is 11.8%). Equity valuations are very sensitive to the recovery rate on NPLs. We stress test for recovery rates of 30%, 40%, 50% and 60%. If one assumes a 12% NPL ratio and a recovery rate of 60%, public bank stocks would be 30% cheap - their adjusted (post provisions, capital impairment, and recapitalization) price-to-book value (PBV) ratio will be 0.7, which is 30% less than its historical mean PBV ratio for public banks of 1.0. By contrast, assuming a 15% NPL ratio and a 30% recovery rate, banks' equity valuations would be 50% expensive - their adjusted (post provisions, capital impairment, and recapitalization) PBV ratio would be 1.5. Table II-1Under/Overvaluation (In %) Of Public Banks Stocks For A Given NPL Ratio And Recovery Ratio* Our bias is to believe that the NPL ratio is somewhere between 14-15% and the recovery rate near 40%. In such a case, public bank stocks would presently be 10-20% expensive. This does not offer a great buying opportunity at current levels, but suggests the downside is probably smaller than in other EM bank stocks. Overall, India is much more advanced in terms of recognizing and provisioning for NPLs as well as re-capitalization of its banking system than many other EM countries. Therefore, we believe India's deleveraging cycle is well advanced, especially when compared with other EM economies. Due to this and the fact that this economy is not exposed to China/commodities prices, we still recommend an overweight position in Indian equities within the EM universe. Inflation And Fixed-Income Strategy While headline inflation is easing due to temporarily lower food prices, core inflation remains sticky. The central government's overall and current expenditures - which often drive inflation - are rising rapidly (Chart II-6). Likewise, state governments' current expenditures are also booming and state development loans - borrowing by state governments - are growing at an extremely fast pace. In addition, in June 2016, the Indian central government announced it will raise salaries, allowances and pensions of government employees by 23%. The central government also raised the minimum wage for non-agriculture laborers by 42% in August 2016, and the Ministry of Labor followed by doubling the minimum wage of agricultural workers in March 2017. All of this will entail accumulating inflationary pressures, even if oil and food prices remain tame. The central bank hiked the reverse repo rate last week to absorb excess liquidity from the banking system. Even though it cited service sector inflation as a concern, we believe it will lag behind accumulating inflationary pressures. This warrants a steeper yield curve. Investors should continue to bet on yield curve steepening by paying 10-year swaps / receiving 1-year swap rates (Chart II-7). Chart II-6Government Expenditures Are Rising Chart II-7Bet On A Yield Curve Steepening Rising inflationary pressures and higher bond yields could weigh on Indian stocks in absolute terms, but will likely not preclude them outperforming the EM equity benchmark. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor aymank@bcaresearch.com Stay Long Czech Koruna Versus Euro On September 28th 2016, we recommended going long CZK / short EUR on the back of expectations that the Czech National Bank (CNB) would abandon its currency peg. Last week, the CNB has floated the koruna. We expect this currency to appreciate versus the euro further and suggest keeping this position. Inflationary pressures in the Czech economy are genuine and heightening. The 1.5% appreciation in the koruna versus the euro since last week will not tighten monetary conditions enough to cap inflation. As such, we expect the CNB to eventually start raising interest rates, leading to further koruna appreciation versus the euro (Chart III-1). The output gap is turning positive, which historically has led to a rise in core inflation (Chart III-2). Chart III-1The Czech Koruna Has More Catch-Up To Do Chart III-2Output Gap And Inflation The labor market is tight - the Czech unemployment rate is the lowest in Europe. Both wages and until labor costs growth are robust and trimmed-mean consumer price inflation is accelerating (Chart III-3). The CNB's foreign exchange reserve accumulation has generated an overflow of liquidity in the Czech financial/banking system (Chart III-4). Chart III-3Inflationary Pressures Are Broad-Based Chart III-4Money And Credit Growth Are Very Strong The rapid expansion of liquidity has led to strong credit growth (Chart III-4, bottom panel), and a rapid appreciation in real estate prices. This warrants higher interest rates to prevent the formation of a bubble. Furthermore, the Czech economy has been benefiting from the recovery in European economic growth in general and manufacturing in particular. Tourist arrivals have also been robust. Notably, the nation's current account surplus stands at 1% of GDP. Chart III-5The Koruna Is Mildly Cheap With regards to currency valuations, the koruna is silently cheap and as such has further room to appreciate (Chart III-5). Either the koruna will gradually appreciate over the next few months, tightening monetary conditions to an extent where the CNB does not need to hike interest rates, or the CNB is eventually forced to hike rates considerably. The latter will push up the value of the Czech currency. We suspect that the CNB is still intervening in the forex market in order to prevent a dramatic appreciation in the koruna. The central bank has stated in its last press conference that it stands ready to intervene to mitigate exchange rate fluctuations if needed. However, in an economy with open capital account, the central bank cannot target the exchange rate and interest rates simultaneously. If the CNB desires to cap inflation, it has to hike interest rates or allow the currency to appreciate considerably. If it chooses the former, the koruna will still rally dramatically. Bottom Line: Stay long the Czech koruna versus the euro. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations