Emerging Markets

Highlights Economic Outlook: The global economy is in a reflationary window that will stay open until mid-2018. Growth will then slow, culminating in a recession in 2019. While the recession is likely to be mild, the policy response will be dramatic. This will set the stage for a period of stagflation beginning in the early 2020s. Overall Strategy: Investors should overweight equities and high-yield credit during the next 12 months, while underweighting safe-haven government bonds and cash. However, be prepared to scale back risk next spring. Fixed Income: For now, stay underweight U.S. Treasurys within a global fixed-income portfolio; remain neutral on the euro area and the U.K.; and overweight Japan. Bonds will rally in the second half of 2018 as growth begins to slow, but then begin a protracted bear market. Equities: Favor higher-beta developed markets such as Europe and Japan relative to the U.S. in local-currency terms over the next 12 months. Emerging markets will benefit from the reflationary tailwind, but deep structural problems will drag down returns. Currencies: The broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 10% before peaking in mid-2018. The yen still has considerable downside against the dollar. The euro will grind lower, as will the Chinese yuan. The pound is close to a bottom. Commodities: Favor energy over metals. Gold will move higher once the dollar peaks in the middle of next year. Feature Reflation, Recession, And Then Stagflation The investment outlook over the next five years can be best described as a three-act play: First Act: "Reflation" (The present until mid-2018) Second Act: "Recession" (2019) Third Act: "Stagflation" (2021 onwards) Investors who remain a few steps ahead of the herd will prosper. All others will struggle to stay afloat. Let us lift the curtain and begin the play. Act 1: Reflation Reflation Continues If there is one chart that best encapsulates the reflation theme, Chart 1 is it. It shows the sum of the Citibank global economic and inflation surprise indices. The combined series currently stands at the highest level in the 14-year history of the survey. Consistent with the surprise indices, Goldman's global Current Activity Indicator (CAI) has risen to the strongest level in three years. The 3-month average for developed markets stands at a 6-year high (Chart 2). Chart 1The Reflation Trade In One Chart Chart 2Current Activity Indicators Have Perked Up What accounts for the acceleration in economic growth that began in earnest in mid-2016? A number of factors stand out: The drag on global growth from the plunge in commodity sector investment finally ran its course. U.S. energy sector capex, for example, tumbled by 70% between Q2 of 2014 and Q3 of 2016, knocking 0.7% off the level of U.S. real GDP. The fallout for commodity-exporting EMs such as Brazil and Russia was considerably more severe. The global economy emerged from a protracted inventory destocking cycle (Chart 3). In the U.S., inventories made a negative contribution to growth for five straight quarters starting in Q2 of 2015, the longest streak since the 1950s. The U.K., Germany, and Japan also saw notable inventory corrections. Fears of a hard landing in China and a disorderly devaluation of the RMB subsided as the Chinese government ramped up fiscal stimulus. The era of fiscal austerity ended. Chart 4 shows that the fiscal thrust in developed economies turned positive in 2016 for the first time since 2010. Financial conditions eased in most economies, delivering an impulse to growth that is still being felt. In the U.S., for example, junk bond yields dropped from a peak of 10.2% in February 2016 to 6.3% at present (Chart 5). A surging stock market and rising home prices also helped buoy consumer and business sentiment. Chart 3Inventory Destocking Was A Drag On Growth Chart 4The End Of Fiscal Austerity? Chart 5Corporate Borrowing Costs Have Fallen Fine For Now... Looking out, global growth should stay reasonably firm over the next 12 months. Our global Leading Economic Indicator remains in a solid uptrend. Burgeoning animal spirits are powering a recovery in business spending, as evidenced by the jump in factory orders and capex intentions (Chart 6). The lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions over the past 12 months should help support activity. Chart 7 shows that the 12-month change in our U.S. Financial Conditions Index leads the business cycle by 6-to-9 months. The current message from the index is that U.S. growth will remain sturdy for the remainder of 2017. Chart 6Global Growth Will Stay Strong In The Near Term Chart 7Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity ... But Storm Clouds Are Forming Home prices cannot rise faster than rents or incomes indefinitely; nor can equity prices rise faster than earnings. Corporate spreads also cannot keep falling. As the equity and housing markets cool, and borrowing costs start climbing on the back of higher government bond yields, the tailwind from easier financial conditions will dissipate. When that happens - most likely, sometime next year - GDP growth will slow. In and of itself, somewhat weaker growth would not be much of a problem. After all, the economy is currently expanding at an above-trend pace and the Fed wants to tighten financial conditions to some extent - it would not be raising rates if it didn't! The problem is that trend growth is much lower now than in the past - only 1.8% according to the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections. Living in a world of slow trend growth could prove to be challenging. The U.S. corporate sector has been feasting on credit for the past four years (Chart 8). Household balance sheets are still in reasonably good shape, but even here, there are areas of concern. Student debt is going through the roof and auto loans are nearly back to pre-recession levels as a share of disposable income (Chart 9). Together, these two categories account for over two-thirds of non-housing related consumer liabilities. Chart 8U.S. Corporate Sector Has Been Feasting On Credit Chart 9U.S. Household Balance Sheets Are In Good Shape, But Auto And Student Loans Are A Potential Problem The risk is that defaults will rise if GDP growth falls below 2%, a pace that has often been described as "stall speed." This could set in motion a vicious cycle where slower growth causes firms to pare back debt, leading to even slower growth and greater pressure on corporate balance sheets - in other words, a recipe for recession. Act 2: Recession Redefining "Tight Money" "Expansions do not die of old age," Rudi Dornbusch once remarked, "They are killed by the Fed." On the face of it, this may not seem like much of a concern. If the Fed raises rates in line with the median "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections, the funds rate will only be about 2.5% by mid-2019 (Chart 10). That may not sound like much, but keep in mind that the so-called neutral rate - the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - may be a lot lower now than in the past. Also keep in mind that it can take up to 18 months before the impact of tighter financial conditions take their full effect on the economy. Thus, by the time the Fed has realized that it has tightened monetary policy by too much, it may be too late. As we have argued in the past, a variety of forces have pushed down the neutral rate over time.1 For example, the amount of investment that firms need to undertake in a slow-growing economy has fallen by nearly 2% of GDP since the late-1990s (Chart 11). And getting firms to take on even this meager amount of investment may require a lower interest rate since modern production techniques rely more on human capital than physical capital. Chart 10Will The Fed's 'Gradual' Rate Hikes End Up Being Too Much? Chart 11Less Investment Required Rising inequality has also reduced aggregate demand by shifting income towards households with high marginal propensities to save (Chart 12). This has forced central banks to lower interest rates in order to prop up spending. From this perspective, it is not too surprising that income inequality and debt levels have been positively correlated over time (Chart 13). Chart 12Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Chart 13U.S.: Positive Correlation Between Income Inequality And Debt-To-GDP Then there is the issue of the dollar. The broad real trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 19% since mid-2014 (Chart 14). According to the New York Fed's trade model, this has reduced the level of real GDP by nearly 2% relative to what it would have otherwise been. Standard "Taylor Rule" equations suggest that interest rates would need to fall by around 1%-to-2% in order to offset a loss of demand of this magnitude. This means that if the economy could withstand interest rates of 4% when the dollar was cheap, it can only withstand interest rates of 2%-to-3% today. And even that may be too high. Consider the message from Chart 15. It shows that real rates have been trending lower since 1980. The real funds rate averaged only 1% during the 2001-2007 business cycle, a period when demand was being buoyed by a massive, debt-fueled housing bubble; fiscal stimulus in the form of the two Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a weakening dollar; and by a very benign global backdrop where emerging markets were recovering and Europe was doing well. Chart 14The Dollar Is In The Midst Of Its Third Great Bull Market Chart 15The Neutral Rate Has Fallen Today, the external backdrop is fragile, the dollar has been strengthening rather than weakening, and households have become more frugal (Chart 16). And while President Trump has promised plenty of fiscal largess, the reality may turn out to be a lot more sobering than the rhetoric. Chart 16Return To Thrift End Of The Trump Trade? Not Yet The failure to replace the Affordable Care Act has cast doubt in the eyes of many observers about the ability of Congress to pass other parts of Trump's agenda. As a consequence, the "Trump Trade" has gone into reverse over the past few weeks, pushing down the dollar and Treasury yields in the process. We agree that the "Trump Trade" will eventually fizzle out. However, this is likely to be more of a story for 2018 than this year. If anything, last week's fiasco may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the Republicans. Opinion polls suggest that the GOP would have gone down in flames if the American Health Care Act had been signed into law (Table 1). Table 1Passing The American Health Care Act Could Have Cost The Republicans Dearly The GOP's proposed legislation would have reduced federal government spending on health care by $1.2 trillion over ten years. Sixty-four year-olds with incomes of $26,500 would have seen their annual premiums soar from $1,700 to $14,600. Even if one includes the tax cuts in the proposed bill, the net effect would have been a major tightening in fiscal policy. That would have warranted lower bond yields and a weaker dollar. The failure to pass an Obamacare replacement serves as a reminder that comprehensive tax reform will be more difficult to achieve than many had hoped. However, even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. Worries that tax cuts will lead to larger budget deficits will be brushed aside on the grounds that they will "pay for themselves" through faster growth (dynamic scoring!). Throw some infrastructure spending into the mix, and it will not take much for the "Trump Trade" to return with a vengeance. Trump's Fiscal Fantasy Where the disappointment will appear is not during the legislative process, but afterwards. The highly profitable companies that will benefit the most from corporate tax cuts are the ones who least need them. In many cases, these companies have plenty of cash and easy access to external financing. As a consequence, much of the corporate tax cuts may simply be hoarded or used to finance equity buybacks or dividend payments. A large share of personal tax cuts will also be saved, given that they will mostly accrue to higher income earners. Chart 17From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic The amount of infrastructure spending that actually takes place will likely be a tiny fraction of the headline amount. This is not just because of the dearth of "shovel ready" projects. It is also because the public-private partnership structure the GOP is touting will severely limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Indeed, the bill could turn out to be little more than a boondoggle for privatizing existing public infrastructure projects, rather than investing in new ones. Chart 18Euro Area Credit Impulse Will Fade In The Second Half Of 2018 Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing large cuts to nondefense discretionary expenditures that go above and beyond the draconian ones that are already enshrined into current law (Chart 17). As such, the risk to the economy beyond the next 12 months is that markets push up the dollar and long-term interest rates in anticipation of continued strong growth and lavish fiscal stimulus only to get neither. Euro Area: A 12-Month Window For Growth The outlook for the euro area over the next 12 months is reasonably bright, but just as in the U.S., the picture could darken later next year. Euro area private sector credit growth reached 2.5% earlier this year. This may not sound like a lot, but that is the fastest pace of growth since July 2009. A further acceleration is probable over the coming months, given rising business confidence, firm loan demand, and declining nonperforming loans. Conceptually, it is the change in credit growth that drives GDP growth. Thus, as credit growth levels off next year, the euro area's credit impulse will fall back towards zero, setting the stage for a period of slower GDP growth (Chart 18). In contrast to the U.S., the ECB is likely to resist the urge to raise the repo rate before growth slows. That's the good news. The bad news is that the market could price in some tightening in monetary policy anyway, leading to a "bund tantrum" later this year. As in the past, the ECB will be able to defuse the situation. Unfortunately, what Draghi cannot do much about is the low level of the neutral rate in the euro area. If the neutral rate is low in the U.S., it is probably even lower in the euro area, reflecting the region's worse demographics and higher debt burdens. The anti-growth features of the common currency - namely, the inability to devalue one's currency in response to an adverse economic shock, as well as the austerity bias that comes from not having a central bank that can act as a lender of last resort to solvent but illiquid governments - also imply a lower neutral rate. Chart 19Anti-Euro Sentiment Is High In Italy Indeed, it is entirely possible that the neutral rate is negative in the euro area, even in nominal terms. If that's the case, the ECB will find it difficult to keep inflation from falling once the economy begins to slow late next year. The U.K.: And Now The Hard Part The U.K. fared better than most pundits expected in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that the Brexit vote has not cast a pall over the economy. The pound has depreciated by 11% against the euro and 16% against the dollar since that fateful day, while gilt yields have fallen across the board. Had it not been for this easing in financial conditions, the economic outcome would have been far worse. As the tailwind from the pound's devaluation begins to recede next year, the U.K. economy could suffer. Slower growth in continental Europe and the rest of the world could also exacerbate matters. The severity of the slowdown will hinge on the outcome of Brexit negotiations. On the one hand, the EU has an interest in taking a hardline stance to discourage separatist forces elsewhere, particularly in Italy where pro-euro sentiment is tumbling (Chart 19). On the other hand, the EU still needs the U.K. as both a trade partner and a geopolitical ally. Investors may therefore be surprised by the relatively muted negotiations that transpire over the coming months. In fact, news reports indicate that Brussels has already offered the U.K. a three year transitional deal that will give London plenty of time to conclude a free trade agreement with the EU. In addition, the EU has dangled the carrot of revocability, suggesting that the U.K. would be welcomed back with open arms if enough British voters were to change their minds. Whatever the path, our geopolitical service believes that political risk actually bottomed with the January 17 Theresa May speech.2 If that turns out to be the case, the pound is unlikely to weaken much from current levels. China And EM: The Calm Before The Storm? The Chinese economy should continue to perform well over the coming months. The Purchasing Manager Index for manufacturing remains in expansionary territory and BCA's China Leading Economic Indicator is in a clear uptrend (Charts 20 and 21). Chart 20Bright Spots In The Chinese Economy Chart 21Improving LEI Points To Further Growth Acceleration Moreover, there has been a dramatic increase in the sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators, with growth rates matching levels last seen during the boom years before the global financial crisis. Historically, construction machinery sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 22). Reflecting this reflationary trend, the producer price index rose by nearly 8% year-over-year in February, a 14-point swing from the decline of 6% experienced in late-2015. Historically, rising producer prices have resulted in higher corporate profits and increased capital expenditures, especially among private enterprises (Chart 23). Chart 22An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 23Higher Producer Prices Boosting Profits The key question is how long the good news will last. As in the rest of the world, our guess is that the Chinese economy will slow late next year, setting the stage for a major growth disappointment in 2019. Weaker growth abroad will be partly to blame, but domestic factors will also play a role. The Chinese housing market has been on a tear. The authorities are increasingly worried about a property bubble and have begun to tighten the screws on the sector. The full effect of these measures should become apparent sometime next year. Fiscal policy is also likely to be tightened at the margin. The IMF estimates that China benefited from a positive fiscal thrust of 2.2% of GDP between 2014 and 2016. The fiscal thrust is likely to be close to zero in 2017 and turn negative to the tune of nearly 1% of GDP in 2018 and 2019. The growth outlook for other emerging markets is likely to mirror China's. The IMF expects real GDP in emerging and developing economies to rise by 5.1% in Q4 of 2017 relative to the same quarter a year earlier, up from 4.2% in 2016 (Table 2). The biggest acceleration is expected to occur in Brazil, where the economy is projected to grow by 1.4% in 2017 after having contracted by 1.9% in 2016. Russia and India should also see better growth numbers. Table 2World Economic Outlook: Global Growth Projections We do not see any major reason to challenge these numbers for this year, but think the IMF's projections will turn out to be too rosy for 2018, and especially, 2019. As BCA's Emerging Market Strategy service has documented, the lack of structural reforms in EMs over the past few years has depressed productivity growth. High debt levels also cloud the picture. Chart 24 shows that debt levels have continued to grow as a share of GDP in most emerging markets. In EMs such as China, where banks benefit from a fiscal backstop, the likelihood of a financial crisis is low. In others such as Brazil, where government finances are in precarious shape, the chances of another major crisis remains uncomfortable high. Japan: The End Of Deflation? If there is one thing investors are certain about it is that deflationary forces in Japan are here to stay. Despite a modest increase in inflation expectations since July 2016, CPI swaps are still pricing in inflation of only 0.6% over the next two decades, nowhere close to the Bank of Japan's 2% target. But could the market be wrong? We think so. Many of the forces that have exacerbated deflation in Japan, such as corporate deleveraging and falling property prices, have run their course (Chart 25). The population continues to age, but the impact that this is having on inflation may have reached an inflection point. Over the past quarter century, slow population growth depressed aggregate demand by reducing the incentive for companies to build out new capacity. This generated a surfeit of savings relative to investment, helping to fuel deflation. Now, however, as an ever-rising share of the population enters retirement, the overabundance of savings is disappearing. The household saving rate currently stands at only 2.8% - down from 14% in the early 1990s - while the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has soared to a 25-year high (Chart 26). Chart 24What EM Deleveraging? Chart 25Japan: Easing Deflationary Forces Chart 26Japan: Low Household Saving Rate And A Tightening Labor Market Government policy is finally doing its part to slay the deflationary dragon. The Abe government shot itself in the foot by tightening fiscal policy by 3% of GDP between 2013 and 2015. It won't make the same mistake again. The Bank of Japan's efforts to pin the 10-year yield to zero also seems to be bearing fruit. As bond yields in other economies have trended higher, this has made Japanese bonds less attractive. That, in turn, has pushed down the yen, ushering in a virtuous cycle where a falling yen props up economic activity, leading to higher inflation expectations, lower real yields, and an even weaker yen. Unfortunately, external events could conspire to sabotage Japan's escape from deflation. If the global economy slows in late-2018 - leading to a recession in 2019 - Japan will be hard hit, given the highly cyclical nature of its economy. And this could cause Japanese policymakers to throw the proverbial kitchen sink at the problem, including doing something that they have so far resisted: introducing a "helicopter money" financed fiscal stimulus program. Against the backdrop of weak potential GDP growth and a shrinking reservoir of domestic savings, the government may get a lot more inflation than it bargained for. Act 3: Stagflation Who Remembers The 70s Anymore? By historical standards, the 2019 recession will be a mild one for most countries, especially in the developed world. This is simply because the excesses that preceded the subprime crisis in 2007 and, to a lesser extent the tech bust in 2000, are likely to be less severe going into the next global downturn than they were back then. The policy response may turn out to be anything but mild, however. Memories of the Great Recession are still very much vivid in most peoples' minds. No one wants to live through that again. In contrast, memories of the inflationary 1970s are fading. A recent NBER paper documented that age plays a big role in determining whether central bankers turn out to be dovish or hawkish.3 Those who experienced stagflation in the 1970s as adults are much more likely to express a hawkish bias than those who were still in their diapers back then. The implication is the future generation of central bankers is likely to see the world through more dovish eyes than their predecessors. Even if one takes the generational mix out of the equation, there are good reasons to aim for higher inflation in today's environment. For one thing, debt is high. The simplest way to reduce real debt burdens is by letting inflation accelerate. In addition, the zero bound is less likely to be a problem if inflation were higher. After all, if inflation were running at 1% going into a recession, real rates would not be able to fall much below -1%. But if inflation were running at 3%, real rates could fall to as low as -3%. The Politics Of Inflation Political developments will also facilitate the transition to higher inflation. In the U.S., the presidential election campaign will start coming into focus in 2019. If the economy enters a recession then, Donald Trump will go ballistic. The infrastructure program that Republicans in Congress are downplaying now will be greatly expanded. Gold-plated hotels and casinos will be built across the country. Of course, several years could pass between when an infrastructure bill is passed and when most new projects break ground. By that time, the economy will already be recovering. This will help fuel inflation. As the economy turns down in 2019, the Fed will also be forced to play ball. The market's current obsession over whether President Trump wants a "dove" or a "hawk" as Fed chair misses the point. He wants neither. He wants someone who will do what they are told. This means that the next Fed chair will likely be a "really smart" business executive with little-to-no-experience in central banking and even less interest in maintaining the Federal Reserve's institutional independence. The empirical evidence strongly suggests that inflation tends to be higher in countries that lack independent central banks (Chart 27). This may be the fate of the U.S. Chart 27Inflation Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Europe's Populists: Down But Not Out Whether something similar happens in Europe will also depend on political developments. For the next 18 months at least, the populists will be held at bay (Chart 28). Le Pen currently trails Macron by 24 percentage points in a head-to-head contest. It is highly unlikely that she will be able to close this gap between now and May 7th, the date of the second round of the Presidential contest. In Germany, support for the europhile Social Democratic Party is soaring, as is support for the common currency itself. For the time being, euro area risk assets will be able to climb the proverbial political "wall of worry." However, if the European economy turns down in 2019, all this may change. Chart 29 shows the strong correlation between unemployment rates in various French départements and support for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Should French unemployment rise, her support will rise as well. The same goes for other European countries. Chart 28France And Germany: Populists Held At Bay For Now Chart 29Higher Unemployment Would Benefit Le Pen Meanwhile, there is a high probability that the migrant crisis will intensify at some point over the next few years. Several large states neighboring Europe are barely holding together - Egypt being a prime example - and could erupt at any time. Furthermore, demographic trends in Africa portend that the supply of migrants will only increase. In 2005, the United Nations estimated that sub-Saharan Africa's population will increase to 2 billion by the end of the century, up from one billion at present. In its 2015 revision, the UN doubled its estimate to 4 billion. And even that may be too conservative because it assumes that the average number of births per woman falls from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period (Chart 30). Chart 30Population Pressures In Africa The existing European political order is not well equipped to deal with large-scale migration, as the hapless reaction to the Syrian refugee crisis demonstrates. This implies that an increasing share of the public may seek out a "new order" that is more attuned to their preferences. European history is fraught with regime shifts, and we may see yet another one in the 2020s. The eventual success of anti-establishment politicians on both sides of the Atlantic suggests that open border immigration policies and free trade - the two central features of globalization - will come under attack. Consequently, an inherently deflationary force, globalization, will give way to an inherently inflationary one: populism. The Productivity Curse Just as the "flation" part of stagflation will become more noticeable as the global economy emerges from the 2019 recession, so will the "stag." Chart 31 shows that productivity growth has fallen across almost all countries and regions. There is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.4 Cyclical factors have played some role. Weak investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock. This means that today's workers have not benefited from the same improvement in the quality and quantity of capital as they did in previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. Most prominently, the gains from the IT revolution have leveled off. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than on businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. Human capital accumulation has also decelerated, dragging productivity growth down with it. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart 32). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart 33).5 Given that test scores are extremely low in most countries with rapidly growing populations, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart 31Productivity Growth Has Slowed In Most Major Economies Chart 32The Contribution To Growth From Rising Human Capital Is Falling Chart 33Math Skills Around The World Productivity And Inflation The slowdown in potential GDP growth tends to be deflationary at the outset, but becomes inflationary later on (Chart 34). Initially, lower productivity growth reduces investment, pushing down aggregate demand. Lower productivity growth also curtails consumption, as households react to the prospect of smaller real wage gains. Chart 34A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Eventually, however, economies that suffer from chronically weak productivity growth tend to find themselves rubbing up against supply-side constraints. This leads to higher inflation.6 One only needs to look at the history of low-productivity economies in Africa and Latin America to see this point - or, for that matter, the U.S. in the 1970s, a decade during which productivity growth slowed and inflation accelerated. Financial Markets Overall Strategy Risk assets have enjoyed a strong rally since late last year, and a modest correction is long overdue. Still, as long as the global economy continues to grow at a robust pace, the cyclical outlook for risk assets will remain bullish. As such, investors with a 12-month horizon should stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit at the expense of government bonds and cash. Global growth is likely to slow in the second half of 2018, with the deceleration intensifying into 2019, possibly culminating in a recession in a number of countries. To what extent markets "sniff out" an economic slowdown before it happens is a matter of debate. U.S. equities did not peak until October 2007, only slightly before the Great Recession began. Commodity prices did not top out until the summer of 2008. Thus, the market's track record for predicting recessions is far from an envious one. Nevertheless, investors should err on the side of safety and start scaling back risk exposure next spring. The 2019 recession will last 6-to-12 months, followed by a gradual recovery that sees the restoration of full employment in most countries by 2021. At that point, inflation will take off, rising to over 4% by the middle of the decade. The 2020s will be remembered as a decade of intense pain for bond investors. In relative terms, equities will fare better than bonds, but in absolute terms they will struggle to generate a positive real return. As in the 1970s, gold will be the standout winner. Chart 35 presents a visual representation of how the main asset markets are likely to evolve over the next seven years. Chart 35Market Outlook For Major Asset Classes Equities Cyclically Favor The Euro Area And Japan Over The U.S. Stronger global growth is powering an acceleration in corporate earnings. Global EPS is expected to expand by 12% over the next 12 months. Analysts are usually too bullish when it comes to making earnings forecasts. This time around they may be too bearish. Chart 36 shows that the global earnings revision ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. We prefer euro area and Japanese stocks relative to U.S. equities over a 12-month horizon. We would only buy Japanese stocks on a currency-hedged basis, as the prospect of a weaker yen is the main reason for being overweight Japan. In contrast, we would still buy euro area equities on a U.S. dollar basis, even though our central forecast is for the euro to weaken against the dollar over the next 12 months. Our cyclically bullish view on euro area equities reflects several considerations. For starters, they are cheap. Euro area stocks currently trade at a Shiller PE ratio of only 17, compared with 29 for the U.S. (Chart 37). Some of this valuation gap can be explained by different sector weights across the two regions. However, even if one controls for this factor, as well as the fact that euro area stocks have historically traded at a discount to the U.S., the euro area still comes out as being roughly one standard deviation cheap compared with the U.S. (Chart 38). Chart 36Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Chart 37Euro Area Stocks Are A Bargain... Chart 38...No Matter How You Look At It European Banks Are In A Cyclical Sweet Spot Of course, if euro area banks flounder over the next 12 months as they have for much of the past decade, none of this will matter. However, we think that the region's banks have finally turned the corner. The ECB is slowly unwinding its emergency measures and core European bond yields have risen since last summer. This has led to a steeper yield curve, helping to flatter net interest margins. Chart 39 shows that the relative performance of European banks is almost perfectly correlated with the level of German bund yields. Our European Corporate Health Monitor remains in improving territory, in contrast to the U.S., where it has been deteriorating since 2013 (Chart 40). Profit margins in Europe have room to expand, whereas in the U.S. they have already maxed out. The capital positions of European banks have also improved greatly since the euro crisis. Not all banks are out of the woods, but with nonperforming loans trending lower, the need for costly equity dilution has dissipated (Chart 41). Meanwhile, euro area credit growth is accelerating and loan demand continues to expand. Chart 39Performance Of European Banks And Bond Yields: A Good Fit Chart 40Corporations Healthier In The Euro Area Chart 41Cyclical Background Positive For Bank Stocks Beyond a 12-month horizon, the outlook for euro area banks and the broader stock market look less enticing. The region will suffer along with the rest of the world in 2019. The eventual triumph of populist governments could even lead to the dissolution of the common currency. This means that euro area stocks should be rented, not owned. The same goes for U.K. equities. EM: Uphill Climb Emerging market equities tend to perform well when global growth is strong. Thus, it would not be surprising if EM equities continue to march higher over the next 12 months. However, the structural problems plaguing emerging markets that we discussed earlier in this report will continue to cast a pall over the sector. Our EM strategists favor China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Thailand, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Russia. They are neutral on Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa; and are underweight Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, and Turkey. Fixed Income Global Bond Yields To Rise Further We put out a note on July 5th entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" recommending that clients go structurally underweight safe-haven government bonds.7 As luck would have it, we penned this report on the very same day that the 10-year Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. We continue to think that asset allocators should maintain an underweight position in global bonds over the next 12 months. In relative terms, we favor Japan over the U.S. and have a neutral recommendation on the euro area and the U.K. Chart 42The Market Expects 50 Basis Points Of Tightening Over The Next 12 Months Underweight The U.S. For Now We expect the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to rise to around 3.2% over the next 12 months. The Fed is likely to raise rates by a further 100 basis points over this period, about 50 bps more than the 12-month discounter is currently pricing in (Chart 42). In addition, the Fed will announce later this year or in early 2018 that it will allow the assets on its balance sheet to run off as they mature. This could push up the term premium, giving long Treasury yields a further boost. Thus, for now, investors should underweight Treasurys on a currency-hedged basis within a fixed-income portfolio. The cyclical peak for both Treasury yields and the dollar should occur in mid-2018. Slowing growth in the second half of that year and a recession in 2019 will push the 10-year Treasury yield back towards 2%. After that, bond yields will grind higher again, with the pace accelerating in the early 2020s as the stagflationary forces described above gather steam. Neutral On Europe, Overweight Japan Yields in the euro area will follow the general contours of the U.S., but with several important qualifications. The ECB is likely to roll back some of its emergency measures over the next 12 months, including suspending the Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations, or TLTROs. It could also raise the deposit rate slightly, which is currently stuck in negative territory. However, in contrast to the Fed, the ECB is unlikely to hike its key policy rate, the repo rate. And while the ECB will "taper" asset purchases, it will not take any steps to shrink the size of its balance sheet. As such, fixed-income investors should maintain a benchmark allocation to euro area bonds. Chart 43A Bit More Juice Left A benchmark weighting to gilts is also warranted. With the Brexit negotiations hanging in the air, it is doubtful that the Bank of England would want to hike rates anytime soon. On the flipside, rising inflation - though largely a function of a weak currency - will make it difficult for the BoE to increase asset purchases or take other steps to ease monetary policy. We would recommend a currency-hedged overweight position in JGBs. The Bank of Japan is committed to keeping the 10-year yield pinned to zero. Given that neither actual inflation nor inflation expectations are anywhere close to that level, it is highly unlikely that the BoJ will jettison its yield-targeting regime anytime soon. With government bond yields elsewhere likely to grind higher, this makes JGBs the winner by default. High-Yield Credit: Still A Bit Of Juice Left The fact that the world's most attractive government bond market by our rankings - Japan - is offering a yield of zero speaks volumes. As long as global growth stays strong and corporate default risk remains subdued, investors will maintain their love affair with high-yield credit. Thus, while credit spreads have fallen dramatically, they could still fall further (Chart 43). Only when corporate stress begins to boil over in late 2018 will things change. Nevertheless, investors will continue to face headwinds from rising risk-free yields in most economies even in the near term. This implies that the return from junk bonds in absolute terms will fall short of what is delivered by equities over the next 12 months. Currencies And Commodities Chart 44Real Rate Differentials Are Driving Up The Dollar Real Rate Differentials Will Support The Greenback We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to appreciate by about 10% over the next 12 months. Historically, changes in real interest rate differentials have been the dominant driver of currency movements in developed economies. The past few years have been no different. Chart 44 shows that the ascent of the trade-weighted dollar since mid-2014 has been almost perfectly matched by an increase in U.S. real rates relative to those abroad. Interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners are likely to widen further through to the middle of 2018 as the Fed raises rates more quickly than current market expectations imply, while other central banks continue to stand pat. Accordingly, we would fade the recent dollar weakness. As we discussed in "The Fed's Unhike," the March FOMC statement was not as dovish as it might have appeared at first glance.8 Given that monetary conditions eased in the aftermath of the Fed meeting - exactly the opposite of what the Fed was trying to achieve - it is likely that the FOMC's rhetoric will turn more hawkish in the coming weeks. The Yen Has The Most Downside, The Pound The Least Among the major dollar crosses, we see the most downside for the yen over the next 12 months. The Bank of Japan will continue to keep JGB yields anchored at zero. As yields elsewhere rise, investors will shift their money out of Japan, causing the yen to weaken. Only once the global economy begins to teeter into recession late next year will the yen - traditionally, a "risk off" currency - begin to rebound. The euro will also weaken against the dollar over the next 12 months, although not as much as the yen. The ECB's "months to hike" has plummeted from nearly 60 last summer to 26 today (Chart 45). That seems too extreme. Core inflation in the euro area is well below U.S. levels, even if one adjusts for measurement differences between the two regions (Chart 46). The neutral rate is also lower in the euro area, as discussed previously. This sharply limits the ability of the ECB to raise rates. Chart 45Market's Hawkish View Of The ECB Is Too Extreme Chart 46Core Inflation In The U.S. Is Still Higher, Even Excluding Housing Unlike most currencies, sterling should be able to hold its ground against the dollar over the next 12 months. The pound is very cheap by most metrics (Chart 47). The prospect of contentious negotiations over Brexit with the EU is already in the price. What may not be in the price is the possibility that the U.K. will move quickly to reach a deal with the EU. If such a deal fails to live up to the promises made by the Brexit campaign - a near certainty in our view - a new referendum may need to be scheduled. A new vote could yield a much different result than the first one. If the market begins to sniff out such an outcome, the pound could strengthen well before the dust settles. EM And Commodity Currencies The RMB will weaken modestly against the dollar over the coming year. As we have discussed in the past, China's high saving rate will keep the pressure on the government to try to export excess production abroad by running a large current account surplus. This requires a weak currency.9 Nevertheless, a major devaluation of the RMB is not in the cards. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has been driven by an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 48). At this point, most of the hot money has fled the country. This suggests that the pace of capital outflows will subside. Chart 47Pound: Cheap By All Accounts Chart 48Hot Money In, Hot Money Out A somewhat weaker RMB could dampen demand for base and bulk metals. A slowdown in Chinese construction activity next year could also put added pressure on metals prices. Our EM strategists are especially bearish on the South African rand, Brazilian real, Colombian peso, Turkish lira, Malaysian ringgit, and Indonesian rupiah. Crude should outperform metals over the next 12 months. This will benefit the Canadian dollar and other oil-sensitive currencies. However, Canada's housing bubble is getting out of hand and could boil over if domestic borrowing costs climb in line with rising long-term global bond yields. A sagging property sector will limit the ability of the Bank of Canada to raise short-term rates. On balance, we see modest downside for the CAD/USD over the coming year. The Aussie dollar will suffer even more, given the country's own housing excesses and its export sector's high sensitivity to metal prices. Finally, a few words on the most of ancient of all currencies: gold. We do not expect bullion to fare well over the next 12 months. A stronger dollar and rising bond yields are both bad news for the yellow metal. However, once central banks start slashing rates in 2019 and stagflationary forces begin to gather steam in the early 2020s, gold will finally have its day in the sun. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Structural Reasons For A Lower Neutral Rate In The U.S.," dated March 13, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The "What Can You Do For Me" World?" dated January 25, 2017, and Special Report, "Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?" dated March 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Ulrike Malmendier, Stefan Nagel, and Zhen Yan, "The Making Of Hawks And Doves: Inflation Experiences On The FOMC," NBER Working Paper No. 23228 (March 2017). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Taking Off The Rose-Colored Glasses: Education And Growth In The 21st Century," dated February 24, 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Note to economists: We can think of this relationship within the context of the Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. In the standard setup where the saving rate is fixed, slower population and productivity growth will always result in a lower equilibrium real interest rate. However, consider a more realistic setup where: 1) the saving rate rises initially as the population ages, but then begins to decline as a larger share of the workforce enters retirement; and 2) habit persistence affects consumer spending, so that households react to slower real wage growth by saving less rather than cutting back on consumption. In that sort of environment, the neutral rate could initially fall, but then begin to rise. If the central bank reacts slowly to changes in the neutral rate, or monetary policy is otherwise constrained by the zero bound on interest rates and/or political considerations, the initial effect of slower trend GDP growth will be deflationary while the longer-term outcome will be inflationary. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Unhike," dated March 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Renewed deflationary pressures indicate that the Hong Kong dollar may have once again become expensive. The currency peg will stay and domestic prices will adjust as a release valve. Developing deflationary pressures and slowing rent growth may reinforce one other. Rising risk free interest rate calls for higher rental yield, which can only be achieved via lower home prices. Remain short HK government bonds relative to US Treasurys; Remain short HK property investors relative to benchmark. More evidence that China's profit cycle is in an upturn. Feature The election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive this past weekend garnered little coverage among the global mainstream media. Carrie Lam easily beat her competitors, purportedly with blessings from Beijing. However, she will face an uphill battle to reunite the citizens of Hong Kong, who have become increasingly divided in recent years. As a regional financial hub heavily exposed to global forces, local politics barely matter for Hong Kong's economy and financial markets. Nonetheless, the significance of politics has clearly been on an upward trajectory in recent years, which could impact investors' long-term risk perceptions for a market that has historically been largely viewed as an "apolitical" Laissez Faire system. On the economic front, also largely ignored has been Hong Kong's inflation statistics released early last week, which showed that headline consumer price inflation dropped by 0.1% in February, the first negative reading since August 2009. While one single data point certainly does not denote a trend, odds are high that deflationary forces are re-emerging in Hong Kong, with important implications for asset prices, particularly for the currency and local real estate market. Budding Deflation... Chart 1Deflation Is Coming Back The negative February CPI reading was largely attributed to some poverty relief factors, declining vegetable prices and the base effect due to the Chinese New Year holiday. However, headline CPI has been decelerating since the peak of 2011 (Chart 1). Indeed, after briefly dipping below zero at the height of the global financial crisis and then roaring back in the aftermath on improving growth, consumer prices in Hong Kong have been in a prolonged period of disinflation. In fact, February's negative CPI figure is just a continuation of a well-established trend rather than an anomaly caused by one-off factors. Moreover, falling inflation and developing deflation is rather broad-based. It is true that the nosedive in fresh food prices has clearly played a role in dragging down headline CPI. However, price inflation has been trending lower in almost all major components of the consumption basket such as housing, eating out and other miscellaneous services (Chart 1, bottom panel). Meanwhile, consumer durable goods inflation has been stuck in negative territory for more than 10 years. Interestingly, amid strengthening global growth momentum, most major economies have been experiencing bouts of reflation, particularly in sectors associated with commodities prices - intensifying disinflationary/deflationary pressures in Hong Kong are a notable exception. It means that inflation dynamics in Hong Kong are likely rooted in unique domestic factors. ...Indicates An Expensive Hong Kong Dollar In our view, a key factor behind Hong Kong's budding deflationary pressure is the exchange rate. As the Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the relative shift in price levels between Hong Kong and the rest of the world cannot be adjusted through a change in the nominal exchange rate. Therefore, the adjustment must be achieved in real terms through price changes. Chart 2 shows that prior to 1983 when the currency board system was established, Hong Kong inflation largely followed that in the U.S., while the exchange rate fluctuated against the dollar. Since the 1983 currency peg, Hong Kong inflation has been swinging around the U.S. level, with the economy alternating between inflationary booms and deflationary busts. A new factor that has also become increasingly important in Hong Kong's inflation dynamics is China's price levels, which also relates to the exchange rate. Chart 3 shows Hong Kong headline inflation has outpaced Chinese inflation since 2013, and the RMB's depreciation against the Hong Kong dollar in recent years has put further downward pressure on local Hong Kong price levels. Chart 2Exchange Rate And Inflation Tango Chart 3Hong Kong Inflation: The China Factor In short, renewed deflationary pressures indicate that the Hong Kong dollar may have once again become expensive, and therefore domestic price levels have begun to adjust as the release valve. It remains to be seen how long the adjustment process will last. From investors' point of view, a few observations are in order: There is little risk that the Hong Kong dollar peg will break, unless it is a voluntary policy choice by the authorities. Hong Kong's solid banking sector is not prone to financial crises, and its massive fiscal and foreign exchange reserves give the government plenty of fire powder to defend the exchange rate in the event of a speculative attack, let alone the mighty official reserves held in mainland China (Chart 4). We remain convinced that Hong Kong's ultra-low interest rates compared with the U.S. are unjustified and unsustainable (Chart 5). Hong Kong 10-year government bond yields are still 84 basis points lower than their U.S. counterparts, which probably reflects upward pressure on the Hong Kong dollar to appreciate against the U.S. dollar, partially driven by Chinese capital outflows. In this vein, budding deflationary pressures in Hong Kong further diminish the odds of an upward move of the HKD against the U.S. dollar. Remain short Hong Kong government bonds against U.S. Treasurys with comparable durations. Historically Hong Kong's flexible and largely Laissez Faire system has been able to stomach drastic swings in domestic price levels induced by the currency peg. The rising grassroots anti-establishment movement in recent years suggests the side effects of the Hong Kong system may have become increasingly unpopular. It will be interesting to see if any deflationary growth downturn in Hong Kong triggers a populist backlash that leads to a change in Hong Kong's exchange rate scheme. Chart 4Ample Resources To Defend HKD Peg Chart 5HK Rates Should Move Higher Real Estate: Sky's The Limit? Another key reason behind Hong Kong's falling CPI inflation is rent, which has also turned sharply lower in recent months (Chart 1, bottom panel). This is in stark contrast to home prices, which have continued to rally strongly. After a temporary pullback last year, Hong Kong real estate prices have roared back to new record highs. Looking forward, the outlook for Hong Kong's real estate sector looks decisively bearish. First, Hong Kong's real estate market has become increasingly detached from economic fundamentals. Home prices have dramatically outpaced household income, in greater proportion than the previous housing bubble peak in the late 1990s (Chart 6). Therefore, it is not surprising that both transactions and construction activity have declined substantially to near-record lows. Thinning transaction activity suggests that ordinary local households may have been priced out, underscoring frothy market conditions. The saving grace is that the dramatic increase in prices has not led to euphoria in housing demand and transactions, which should limit financial sector risk should home prices decline. Second, developing deflationary pressures and slowing rent growth may reinforce one other, potentially creating a downward spiral. Meanwhile, risk-free interest rates, driven by Federal Reserve policy, will likely edge higher. This is an especially poor combination for Hong Kong real estate investors. Historically, higher risk-free yields should lead to higher rental yields (Chart 7). With falling rents, the only way for rental yields to go up is via lower prices. Chart 6Housing Market: Soaring Prices, Falling Volume Chart 7Rental Yield Will Be Pushed Higher From a big-picture vantage point, Hong Kong deflation and Fed tightening will lead to much higher real interest rates in Hong Kong, which amounts to significant tightening in monetary conditions. This will create further headwinds for both the Hong Kong domestic economy and property prices. The bottom line is that the risk in Hong Kong home prices is tilted to the downside. The market may have been boosted by an influx of capital from the mainland, which may sustain the bubble for a while longer. However, investors should not chase the market. Chart 8The Widening Valuation Gap Budding deflationary pressures also bode poorly for profits and equity prices. However, Hong Kong stocks are more heavily exposed to China and the global cycle than local business conditions, and therefore should not be impacted materially. Moreover, Hong Kong stock multiples historically have tracked their U.S. counterparts closely - the valuation gap has widened sharply since 2013 (Chart 8). This should further limit the downside in Hong Kong stocks. Meanwhile, we expect property owners such as REITs to underperform the broader market. A Word On Chinese Profits The latest numbers show Chinese industrial profits jumped by over 30% in the first two months of the year compared with a year ago, a sharp acceleration from recent months, as predicted by our model (Chart 9). The strong profit recovery has important implications. For equity earnings, the upturn in the profit cycle is also confirmed by bottom-up analysts. Net earnings revisions have been lifted, which has historically led to acceleration in forward earnings growth (Chart 10). Remain positive on Chinese H shares. From a macro perspective, rising earnings should lead to stronger investment, especially in the manufacturing and mining sectors. This should further boost domestic demand and prolong the ongoing mini cycle upturn. The profit recovery also helps alleviate financial stress in the banking system, as it will reduce the pace of accumulation of non-performing loans (NPL). Importantly, profits are rising particularly strongly in some of the hardest hit sectors in previous years, such as steelmakers and coal miners, which were precisely where the increase in NPLs were the most rampant. We will follow up on this issue in upcoming reports. Chart 9China's Profit Cycle Upturn Chart 10Chinese Equity Earnings Will Accelerate Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The end game for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Russia and their respective allies is fairly obvious: Remove enough production from the market to draw down storage and make the oil-supply curve, once again, more inelastic. This would allow these states to use forward guidance and small adjustments in production to influence prices, the sine qua non of petro-states desperate to maintain revenues and diversify away from near-complete dependence on hydrocarbon exports. We think the effort will succeed over the short run. Just how durable this pact will be remains to be seen, given oil is, once again, super-abundant. If production discipline breaks down, all bets are off. Energy: Overweight. We are now solidly positioned for backwardation in oil - long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI and Brent; these positions are up 141.6% and 68.4%, respectively. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks: We are long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017; these positions are up 7.66% on average. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at Chile's Escondida mine are back on the job, after a 44-day strike. The strike is estimated to have cost BHP Billiton some $1 billion, according to Reuters.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold has rallied by 4.3% since the FOMC raised overnight rates. Our long volatility position - long a Jun/17 put and call spread for $21/oz - is down 30%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The long-awaited and much-anticipated USDA planting intentions report is due out tomorrow. We remain bearish, expecting an early indication stocks-to-use ratios for grains and beans will remain elevated. Feature Chart of the WeekStorage Was Well On Its Way to Drawing##br## Before the Year-End Production Surge KSA and Russia have to make oil supply more inelastic in order to regain some control over where prices go and, consequently, where their revenues go. Their end game is obvious - i.e., remove the excess oil production that pushed inventories to historically high levels - but their execution has been, at best, halting. Prior to KSA and Russia delivering an historic production-management Agreement at the end of last year, oil markets were well on the way to removing the storage overhang by year-end 2017, as any Econ 101 text would have suggested. Low prices following OPEC's market-share war declaration destroyed supply and lifted demand, which was drawing down stocks. This is easily seen in the Chart of the Week showing inventories beginning to head south in mid-2016. Then came the KSA - Russia Agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC producers to cut output by some 1.8mm b/d. The goal of the deal was to accelerate the drawdown in record high storage levels. Even while the deal was being negotiated, it was apparent some producers in the know were getting a jump on shipping those last barrels out the door before they were obliged to cut. This produced the end-of-year production surge, which swelled global inventories. The year-end surge by OPEC and non-OPEC producers could be expected (Chart 2), but it came at a really bad time for the market, since 1Q17 also was when refiners took units down for maintenance. This is fairly routine, but in some key markets like the U.S. Gulf, the current maintenance season was busier than average, according to the EIA (Chart 3). This left a lot of crude in storage, as product inventories were being drawn. Chart 2Year-End Production Surge ##br##Powered The Storage Build Chart 3Maintenance Season In 1Q17 ##br##Exacerbated The Storage Build Where are we today? Most of the pre-Agreement production and export surge has been absorbed, and inventories in the U.S. are drawing a bit. Floating storage has been drained. But, in an interesting economic twist, OECD storage levels are likely to reach the targeted drawdown of 10% (300mm bbl) by year-end 2017, which is exactly what would have happened absent any action by KSA and Russia at the end of last year. It is difficult to resist reiterating that had nothing been done at the end of last year by KSA and Russia, and the market was left to do its necessary work of removing high-cost production and encouraging increased demand via lower prices, the market would have ended up in the exact same place it now finds itself. Trust But Verify Be that as it may, the really hard work of the KSA - Russia deal now begins. We expect OECD inventories to hit the 10% drawdown target by year end. However, if parties to the deal do not maintain production discipline markets will almost surely take prices lower. This could easily happen if prices start to percolate as we expect in 2Q17, and cash-strapped non-OPEC producers decide to see how far they can push KSA and its Gulf-state allies on their deal. Russia has been slow to deliver on its production commitment, while KSA has over-delivered (Chart 4). The same can be said for their respective allies (Chart 5). We believe markets will remain skittish, until evidence Russia and Iraq also are abiding by the end-2016 Agreement becomes incontrovertible. It is true Russian President Vladimir Putin personally involved himself in this deal, and helped close it on the non-OPEC side, but markets will want proof production actually is falling. Like former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, markets may be willing to trust, but they certainly will want to verify compliance. Chart 4KSA Over-Delivers On Its Cuts, ##br##Russia Is Slow To Deliver Chart 5KSA's Allies Are Delivering, ##br##Russia's Not So Much While not our base case, it is possible Russia and its fellow travelers could decide to risk keeping their production above agreed volumes under the Agreement, in the belief KSA is more in need of keeping prices above $50/bbl or so over the next 18 months, given the Kingdom wants a successful IPO of state-owned Saudi Aramco. Should this occur, markets would correct violently. At the end of the day, such a gamble likely would be ruinous for both, if it provoked KSA to abandon its commitment to keep production below 10mm b/d. Short-term goals - getting OECD storage levels down to five-year averages - would be sacrificed. Importantly, long-term goals we believe are driving KSA and Russia to cooperate in the first place, namely developing a modus operandi for containing U.S. shale-oil output, will become moot, possibly returning the market to the production free-for-all that motivated the KSA - Russia dialogue. The Quest For Relevance Chart 6Odds Favor Backwardated Markets ##br##As the Production Cuts Lead To Physical Deficits Our base case envisions a successful KSA - Russia Agreement in which production discipline is maintained, and the deal produces its desired result - drawing storage down by ~ 300mm bbls. Forward curves then backwardate (Chart 6). This sets the stage for deeper discussions among KSA, Russia and their respective allies re how they can work together going forward to contain U.S. shale-oil production. In effect, the parties to this deal have a choice to make: Either they figure out a way to make room for shale, which has catapulted the U.S. to major-producer status once again, or they leave this to the market. We are fairly confident these discussions already are ongoing, and will be well advanced by year-end. Next week, we will be publishing a theoretical piece on how the KSA - Russia pact could provide a platform that allows these petro-states - which we are taking the liberty of dubbing OPEC 2.0 - to re-gain a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. In earlier research, we advanced a theory that shale rig counts are highly sensitive not only to the level of prices at the front of the curve, but to the curve shape itself. We were able to demonstrate that contango markets - i.e., prices for promptly delivered crude are less than prices for deferred delivery material - favor shale producers, and, all else equal, incentivize them to hedge forward so as to lock in future revenues that maximize the number of rigs they deploy.2 In backwardated markets, the number of rigs a shale operator is able to deploy is lower, all else equal, which means the revenue they can lock in by hedging forward is lower. This limits the rate at which the resource can be developed. Based on these theoretical results, we believe it is in the interest of the OPEC 2.0 states to keep the WTI forward curve in backwardation, so that, at the margin, the number of rigs deployed to the shales is contained. Our research suggests that the deeper the backwardation, the slower rig counts grow. So, if the ideal price level for KSA is, as has been reported in the media, $60/bbl for Brent, then, in the best of all worlds, the Kingdom, Russia and their respective allies target spot prices at this level and use production, storage and forward guidance to backwardate the WTI curve, which is used by shale producers to hedge.3 Such a strategy has numerous risks, particularly if OPEC 2.0 cannot react quickly enough to keep prices from rising above a level that keeps shale-oil producers restricted to their core production areas. This would allow higher-cost shale reserves to be brought on line, which would raise the likelihood of lower prices, and cost OPEC 2.0 market share.4 Such a strategy also would tempt OPEC 2.0 producers to free ride, raising production at the margin to increase their revenues. This also risks lower prices. Nonetheless, we believe such a strategy could benefit both KSA and Russia and their allies, which is why it likely will at least be considered and attempted.5 KSA would be able to IPO Aramco into a relatively stable higher-price market, which would allow it to invest in additional refinery capacity in Asia and elsewhere, and in alternative-energy resources like solar, to free up oil for export. Russia also is better off keeping prices at a level at which its economy can continue to work on diversifying its exposure away from its heavy dependence on oil and gas exports.6 We will present more of our thinking on this next week. In the meantime, we highly recommend BCA clients read Matt Conlan's article in this week's Energy Sector Strategy entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery."7 This is an excellent analysis of shale-oil economics. Bottom Line: We continue to expect crude and products storage to draw as production cuts become apparent and refiners bring units back up off maintenance. This will backwardate WTI and Brent forward curves. Based on our high level of conviction in this outcome, we added a long Brent Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 Brent position to our recommended trades, along with a similar WTI position. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks, by being long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017. We continue to expect the U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl to 2020 and for WTI prices to trade most of the time between $45/bbl and $65/bbl. For 2018 and beyond, our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. For the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, we expect the spread between Brent and WTI prices to average $1.50/bbl (Brent over). Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Escondida outcome seen as disaster for BHP as workers return," published by Reuters.com on March 24, 2017. 2 We introduced this line of research in our February 16, 2017, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "North American Oil Pipeline Buildout Complicates Price And Storage Expectations," it is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We continue to delve into this topic, and will be presenting out latest thinking next week. 3 Please see "Exclusive: Saudi Arabia wants oil prices to rise to around $60 in 2017 - sources," published by Reuters February 28, 2017. Russia's budgeting assumption for 2017 to 2019 is $40/bbl, according to a Bloomberg report from March 24, 2017, entitled "OPEC Be Warned: Russia Prepares for Oil at $40." 4 It is not in KSA's, Russia's or their allies' interests to kill off shale production. The more-than-$1 trillion of capex for projects that would have been developed between 2015 and 2020, and would have translated into some 7mm b/d of oil-equivalent production will not be available to the market beginning later this decade. As we have noted, an enormous burden will be placed on shale production, Gulf OPEC producers and Russia to meet growing demand later this decade. 5 We also would note this would be a boon to long-only commodity index investors, whose returns are driven by roll yields that only exist in backwardated markets. More on that in subsequent research as well. 6 Russia's exports are dominated by oil and gas, while KSA's are dominated by crude oil and, increasingly, refined products. In 2015, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calculated close to 70% of Russia's economy is dependent on revenue from hydrocarbons - production, trade, investments in non-oil industries funded by oil revenues, and consumption made possible via oil and gas production and sales. We discuss this at length in the September 8, 2016, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." 7 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery," This article was published March 29, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 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 EM equity valuations are neutral. Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer some value, but this primarily reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. According to the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio, EM stocks are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon - longer than two to three years. Corporate profits are much more important than equity valuations in driving share prices in the next 12 months. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months. Maintain a defensive posture and an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM. A new trade: go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones. Feature Chart I-1EM P/E Ratio And EPS There is ongoing debate in the investment community concerning whether emerging markets (EM) equities are or are not cheap, in both absolute terms and relative to developed markets (DM). In this week's report we review various equity valuation indicators and reiterate that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive in absolute terms. For example, the average of trailing and forward P/E ratios is slightly above its historical mean (Chart I-1, top panel). Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer value, but this reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. Despite this, we recommend underweighting EM vs U.S./DM because the cyclical growth dynamics is much better in DM than EM. EM stocks are cheap if one assumes a strong earnings recovery (Chart I-1, bottom panel). If earnings per share (EPS) begin contracting anew, as we expect, then the current rally will be reversed sooner than later. Overall, we continue to recommend a defensive posture for absolute-return investors and maintaining an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM for asset allocators. Valuation Perspectives Below we consider several valuation ratios: The equal-sector weighted trailing P/E ratio is 17.7 for EM (Chart I-2). Table I-1 displays equal-sector weighted P/E ratio, price-to-book value ratio and dividend yields for major equity markets globally. This is an apples-to-apples comparison, as it assigns equal weights to each of the 10 MSCI sectors - i.e., it removes sector biases. Chart I-2Equal-Sector Weighted Trailing P/E Ratio Table I-1Equal-Sector Weighted Valuation Ratios Across EM And DM Hence, on a comparable basis, EM equities are only slightly cheaper than DM stocks as is evident in Table I-1. Besides, the composite valuation indicator based on equal-sector weighted trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield indicate that EM stocks are fairly valued (Chart I-3). The cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. The CAPE ratio is a structural valuation measure, i.e. it matters in the long run. Importantly, it assumes that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS will revert to its historical mean or trend. In short, the CAPE ratio tells us what the P/E ratio would be if EPS were to revert to its historical trend. Chart I-4 illustrates the EM CAPE ratio. If EM EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms reaches its historical time trend, one can safely assume that EM stocks are cheap and currently worth buying. In a nutshell, the current CAPE ratio of 15 assumes that EM EPS should rise by about 30% in nominal U.S. dollar terms over an investor's time horizon. Chart I-3EM Equities Valuations Are Neutral Chart I-4EM CAPE Ratio Given that our time horizon is 12 months, the assumption that EM EPS will surge by about 30% in U.S. dollar terms is in our view ambitious. Therefore, we posit that EM share prices do not offer compelling value at all in the next 12 months. If one's investment horizon were two-to-three years or longer, the assumption that EPS will rise by 30% or more in U.S. dollar terms is much more plausible. In this sense we would concur that EM share prices offer decent value from a longer-term perspective. Our methodology of calculating the CAPE ratio for EM varies from the well-known Robert Shiller's CAPE ratio for the U.S.1 However, even when applying our CAPE methodology to U.S. equities, the resulting ratio is not very different from Shiller's CAPE (Chart I-5). Trimmed-mean equity valuation ratios. Chart 6 illustrates 20% trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yields for the EM equity universe. A 20% trimmed-mean ratio excludes the top 10% and bottom 10% of industry groups, and then calculates the average. All calculations are based on 50 EM industry group data available from MSCI. Why look at trimmed-mean valuation ratios? Because by removing the top and bottom 10% of industry groups, this measure excludes outliers and provides a better perspective on valuation. A few observations are in order: First, according to the trimmed-mean valuation ratios, EM equities are not cheap. The trimmed-mean ratios are close to their historical mean (Chart I-6). Second, the trimmed-mean ratios are well above their market cap ones. This indicates that there are a few industry groups with large market caps that pull EM multiples lower. In other words, market-cap weighted multiples are skewed to the downside by a few large industry groups. There are reasons why some sectors and countries have low or high equity multiples. It makes sense to exclude them. Finally, the composite valuation indicator based on trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/Es, PBV and price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield demonstrates that EM equity valuations are neutral (Chart I-7). Chart I-5U.S. CAPE Ratios Chart I-6EM Stocks Are Close to Fair Value Chart I-7EM Equities Have Neutral Value Bottom Line: EM equities by and large command a neutral valuation. According to the CAPE ratio, EM equities are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon, say two-to-three years or longer. Profits Hold The Key Valuations are not a good timing tool. For low equity valuations to be realized, i.e., to produce solid price gains, corporate profits should grow. The reverse is also true: for an overvalued market to decline, company earnings should contract, or at least disappoint. When valuations are neutral - as they currently are for the EM equity benchmark - a recovery in EPS should entail higher share prices, while EPS shrinkage should lead to a selloff. EM EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months, given the rally in commodities prices in 2016, amelioration in China's business cycle and the technology sector boom in Asia. However, this moderate and short-lived EPS recovery is already priced in. For the market to rally further, EPS will need to expand beyond the next three to six months. Remarkably, there has been little improvement in EM ex-China domestic demand. Besides, the risk to bank loan growth remains to the downside both in China and EM ex-China. Slower loan growth and the need to recognize and provision for potentially large NPLs will pressure banks' profits in many EM countries. Finally, we expect oil and industrial metals prices to decline considerably over the course of this year. If and as this view plays out, energy and materials stocks will fall. Energy and materials share prices correlate not with their past or current profits but rather with underlying commodities prices. One area where we remain bullish is the technology sector. Even though tech share prices are overbought and could correct in absolute terms in the months ahead, they will continue to outperform the benchmark. Bottom Line: Corporate profits are much more important in driving share prices in the next 12 months than equity valuations. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months or so, even though EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months. Timing Reversal: Watch Credit Quality Spreads Chart I-8Credit Quality Spreads: ##br##A Correction Or Reversal? Following are some of the indicators we are monitoring to gauge a reversal in EM share prices. EM corporate spreads have widened a notch relative to EM sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, top panel). Similarly, Chinese off-shore corporate spreads have widened versus Chinese sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, middle panel). Credit quality spreads - the gap between B- and BAA-grade corporate bonds - have widened slightly in the U.S. (Chart I-8, bottom panel). These moves are still very small, and do not constitute a definite sign of a major trend reversal. Nevertheless, such widening in credit quality spreads is an important development. If they persist, they will certainly sound the alarm for the reflation trade. Interestingly, this is the first time a simultaneous widening in credit quality spreads has occurred since the risk assets rally began in early 2016. Bottom Line: Major equity market selloffs will occur when lower quality credit begins to persistently underperform better quality credit. There have been budding signs of quality spread widening that are worth being monitored. Identifying Relative Value Within the EM equity universe, valuation ratios differ greatly. For example, banks trade at a trailing P/E of 9.7, while consumer staple stocks trade at 24.8. Table I-2 portrays the trailing P/E ratio and its historical mean as well as 12-month forward EPS growth and the forward P/E ratio for each sector - as well as average of trailing and forward P/E ratios. Table I-3 shows the same valuation measures but for EM countries. Table I-2Stock Valuation Snapshot: EM Sectors Table I-3Equity Valuation Snapshot: EM Countries It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from these tables. On a general level, a simplistic approach to investing based on trailing and forward P/E ratios would not have produced great outcomes in EM in recent years. When analyzing EM stock valuations, we prefer to use the trailing rather than forward P/E ratio because historically, EM forward EPS have had a very poor record forecasting actual EPS. One of our favorite ways to identify relative value is to compare the PBV ratio and return on equity (RoE) across countries/sectors. Chart I-9 plots RoE on the X-axis and the PBV ratio on the Y axis. Countries and sectors located in the bottom right corner (at the low end of the shaded area) have a low PBV ratio compared to their RoE. In contrast, in the north-west side of the distribution (at the upper end of the shaded zone), these have an elevated PBV ratio, taking into account their RoE. Chart I-9Searching For Relative Value Among countries, Korea, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and China appear cheap, while Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Malaysia and Poland are on the expensive side. Chart I-10EMS's Recommended ##br##Equity Portfolio Performance Concerning equity sectors, utilities and financials/banks are cheap, yet consumer staples and consumer discretionary, health care, telecom and materials appear expensive in relative terms. Our recommended country equity allocation is based on a qualitative assessment of many variables including but not limited to valuation. Chart I-10 displays the performance of our fully invested EM Equity Portfolio Model versus the EM benchmark. Our overweights presently include: Korea, Taiwan, India, China, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and Peru. We are neutral on Mexico, Chile, Colombia, South Africa and the Philippines. The lists of our country allocation and other equity investment recommendations are presented each week at the end of our reports. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Bet On Russia's Non-Compliance With OPEC Odds of Russia's compliance with the OPEC agreement to cut oil output by 300k b/d in the next two months are low. This poses downside risk to oil prices. Russia has so far done only 120k b/d cuts. Hence, in the next two months it should reduce its output by 180k b/d which amounts to 1.6% of the nation's oil output. One way to bet on Russia's non-compliance, regardless the direction of oil prices, is to go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones (Chart II-1). There are a number of political, economic and financial motives why Russia might care less about lower oil prices than Saudi Arabia in the next 12-18 months or so. As a result, Russia might not cut as much as it is expected by the OPEC agreement. Russia is able to increase oil production due to a cheaper ruble and technology advances. BCA's Energy Sector Strategy team has been highlighting that there have been concerted efforts by Russia's largest producers to employ horizontal drilling and multi-zone hydraulic fracturing in Western Siberia.2 These have stemmed declines from those aging fields and allowed production to rise (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Long Russia Energy / ##br##Short Global Energy Stocks Chart II-2Russian Oil ##br##Production Will Increase Russia will not shy away from being opportunistic and increase its market share when it can ramp up oil production. A rising global oil market share will allow Russian companies to outperform their global peers regardless the direction of oil prices. There are major cyclical divergences between Russian and Saudi economies. Russia's economy is gradually picking up while there is less certainty about Saudi's growth recovery. The reason is that Russia has allowed the ruble to depreciate and act as a shock absorber. Meanwhile, Sa­­­­udis have stuck to the currency peg. ­­­Oil prices are down by 27% from their top in rubles and 55% in Saudi riyals (Chart II-3). This has reflated Russia's fiscal revenues and the economy, while Saudi Arabia is still struggling with the consequences of low ­oil prices. On the fiscal front, Russia went through a notable fiscal squeeze and its budget deficit is projected to be 3.2% of GDP in 2017 (Chart II-4). In contrast, the Saudi Arabian fiscal deficit in 2016 reached an outstanding 17% of GDP, accounting for the drawdown in reserves by our estimates.3 Chart II-3Ruble's Depreciation ##br##In 2014-15 Made a Difference Chart II-4Fiscal Deficit: Small In ##br##Russia & Large In Saudi More importantly, Russia's federal budget for 2017 was constructed on the oil price assumption of $40/bbl. The 2017 Saudi budget assumes oil price of $50/bbl.4 Therefore, Russia would not mind if oil prices drop toward or slightly below $40 in the second half of this year. Therefore, Saudis care much more about sustaining oil prices at a higher level than Russians do. Finally, Rosneft has already conducted its IPO while Aramco's IPO has not taken place yet. As such, the need for higher oil prices is much greater in Saudi Arabia - to justify a higher value of their oil giant - than in Russia. Bottom Line: Odds are considerable that Russia will not comply with the OPEC deal and this could cause oil prices to selloff more. Regardless of direction of oil prices, we expect the Russian energy sector to outperform their global peers due to Russia's rising market share in the global oil market. Go long Russian energy stocks / short global ones. Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 For more detailed discussion on our methodology of CAPE, please refer to January 20, 2016 Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "EM Equity Valuations: A CAPE Model", available at ems. bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Russian Oil Production: Surpassing Expectation", dated December 14, 2016, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Saudi Arabia: Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain", dated February 1, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 https://mof.gov.sa/en/budget2017/Documents/The_National_Budget.pdf Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Geopolitical tensions in the South China Sea are here to stay; China has reached the ability to impose massive costs on any state that tries to roll back its control; U.S. advantages in the region are significant, but declining and overrated. We put together a portfolio of stocks that give investors exposure to the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea. Dear Client, Today's Special Report is jointly authored by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy services and focuses on the tail risks around the South China Sea conflict. In this report, our colleagues Matt Gertken of the Geopolitical Strategy and Oleg Babanov of the Emerging Markets Equity Sector Strategy ask whether China has "won" the South China Sea, and what the implications might be for investors. At the end of the report, we provide detailed investment recommendations for both EM-dedicated as well as global investors. Kindest Regards, Garry Evans Senior Vice President EM Equity Sector Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President, Geopolitical Strategy "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years ... There's no doubt about that." - Steve Bannon, prior to becoming President Donald Trump's Chief Strategist, Breitbart News, March 2016 The South China Sea is a headline grabber that has failed to produce any market-disruptions despite years of rising tensions. In fact, it would appear that the issue has been relegated to the backburner, with the Trump administration laying off its earlier aggressive rhetoric and America's Asian allies focusing on building a trade relationship with China. Compared to the Koreas, in particular, where geopolitical risk is spiking due to political turmoil in the South and weapons advances in the North, the South China Sea seems relatively calm.1 We are not so sanguine, however, and advise investors to take the tail-risk of a conflict in the South China Sea seriously. First, there has been a general "rotation" of global geopolitical risk from the Middle East to Asia Pacific, as BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has chronicled over the years.2 China's transformation into a "peer" or "near-peer" competitor to the United States, and the U.S.'s various reactions, are transforming the region and sowing the seeds of a new Cold War. Second, despite a thaw in the relationship between China and the Trump Administration, the latest positive signals have not extended to the South China Sea.3 In North Korea, China is offering to enforce sanctions. In Taiwan, Trump has backed away from hints of encouraging independence. But in the South China Sea, the two sides have increased activity even as they have made reassuring statements.4 Third, fact remains that despite headline grabbers, China has managed to expand its military installations in the region over the past half-decade and now possesses a layered-defense system in the region. In this report, we ask whether China has "won" the South China Sea, and what the implications might be for investors, particularly EM-dedicated investors, on the sectoral level. We find that China has reached the ability to impose massive costs on any state that should try to roll back its control of the disputed islands. We also do not think that the U.S. is ready to accept this new Chinese "sphere of influence." This means that the two countries are in a "gray zone" in which policy mistakes could occur. This uncertainty is driving the odds of a crisis higher. China is flush with recent victories in the islands, and yet the United States will continue to insist on free passage and the defense of allies and partners. Nationalism and rising jingoism in both countries also raises the odds of misunderstanding and miscalculation. Until the Trump and Xi administrations agree to a robust strategic deal that arranges for de-escalation, the South China Sea will remain a source of low-probability, high-impact geopolitical risk for investors. It is only one aspect of a broader deterioration in U.S.-China relations that we see as the ultimate driver of a secular rise in geopolitical risk in Asia Pacific.5 Unfortunately, history also teaches us that such "strategic resets" are normally motivated by a dramatic crisis. At the end of this report, we provide investment recommendations for investors in emerging markets (and a couple for the U.S. as well). Why Not Ignore The South China Sea? Map 1Nine-Dash Line Reaches Far Beyond China Maritime territorial disputes between China and several of its neighbors - Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and partly Indonesia - have a long history. China declared its "Nine Dash Line," an expansionist claim of sovereignty over almost the entirety of the sea, in 1947 (Map 1). Since then, conflicts have flared up sporadically. The most notable skirmishes illustrate that the maritime disputes are always simmering but tend to boil over only when larger geopolitical issues heat up.6 Since the 1990s, China and the other claimants have raced to "grab what they can," particularly in the Spratly Islands. However, conflicts have especially intensified since the mid-2000s (Charts 1 and 2). A major factor has been the rise in competition for subsea resources: Chart 1Territorialism Rising In South China Chart 2Rising Number Of Confrontations Energy and minerals - Although estimates vary widely, the South China Sea contains respectable reserves of oil and natural gas (Chart 3) and there are also hopes of extracting other minerals from the sea floor. Most of the region's states are net importers. Several conflicts have been sparked by exploration, test drilling, and unilateral development.7 It is a fact that the past decade's buildup in tensions has coincided with a global bull market for energy prices and offshore energy investment and capex (Chart 4). Chart 3Not Insignificant Reserves Of Oil And Gas In South China Sea Fishing Grounds - The South China Sea holds vast fish resources, a source of food security, exports, and jobs for littoral countries. It is estimated that over 10% of global fishing catches come from here. Fishing as a whole accounts for about 1-3% of GDP for the countries involved in the disputes (Chart 5), and the South China Sea is a large chunk of that. A quick glance at recent skirmishes reveals that fishing rights are a major cause of conflict (Table 1). Chart 4Offshore Oil Production In Decline Chart 5Fisheries Non-Negligible For Asian States Table 1Notable Incidents In The South China Sea (2010-16) Nevertheless, resource extraction is not the main driver of discord. Frictions spiked in 2015-16 despite the collapse in China's and other countries' offshore rig counts (Chart 6). And fishing rights are also clearly a pretext for attempts to assert control over waters and rocks.8 Chart 6Energy Interest Declining, Tensions Still Elevated Moreover, China's conversion of the sea's various geographical features into artificial islands through a process of land reclamation, and its construction of military facilities and stationing of armaments on these islands, points not to strictly economic interests but to broader strategic security interests. Similarly, the United States' enforcement of international rights of free navigation and overflight is not related to oil and fish. What is really at stake is national security, supply-line control, and international prestige. First, the United States has long executed a grand strategy of preventing any country from forming a regional empire and denying the U.S. access. China has the long-term potential to make this happen, and the South China Sea is its earliest foray into empire-building abroad. (Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet are all old news and expand Chinese hegemony into the largely useless Eurasian hinterland.) Second, the main global trading lines from Eurasia and Africa to and from Asia mostly go through the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands. We illustrate this process through our diagram of the sea as a large traffic roundabout (Diagram 1). China is attempting to control the centerpiece of the roundabout, which - in combination with China's southern mainland forces - would eventually give it veto power over transit. Diagram 1South China Sea As A Vital Supply Roundabout The economic value of the trade potentially affected by power struggles is what makes this all highly market relevant if a full-blown war ever occurs. We estimate that roughly $4.8 trillion worth of trade flowed through this area in 2015, which is comparable to the $5.3 trillion estimate from 2012 frequently cited in news media.9 Moreover, the trade does not consist merely of manufactured goods from Asian manufacturing centers but also basic commodities vital to the Asian countries' economic and political stability. Essential commodities account for about 20-35% of Northeast and Southeast Asian imports, and almost all of this by definition flows through the South China Sea (Charts 7 and 8). Chart 7Commodity Imports Go Through South China Sea... Chart 8...And Greatly Affect Asian Economies The numbers belie how vital the supply lanes are for individual countries: Japan, for instance, gets 80% of its oil via the South China Sea. A total cutoff would be devastating after strategic reserves were exhausted; and even a marginal hindrance of energy imports would bite into the current account surpluses that grease the wheels of high-debt Asian economies. The South China Sea is therefore vital even to countries like Japan and South Korea that are not party to the maritime-territorial disputes. A commerce-destroying war could strangle their economies. Military access is another reason states seek control. This is separate but related to the need to secure economic supplies. Chinese military planners are clear that they want to be able to deny access to foreign powers if need be, in order to secure the southern half of the country, or cut off Taiwan's or Japan's supply lines. American military planners are equally clear that they will not allow a state to deny them access to international commons, or to coerce others through supply-lane control.10 Finally, there are political and legal aspects to the South China Sea disputes. China's successful alteration of the status quo in the face of opposition from the U.S., Asian neighbors, and a high-profile international tribunal (the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague), has undermined international legal institutions and the U.S. prestige in the region. Over time, regional states, perceiving that "might makes right," may feel the need to cling more closely to China or the U.S., giving rise to proxy battles.11 With supply security and national defense at risk - and China in the process of "militarizing" the islands - there is a rising probability of a major "Black Swan" incident. The involvement of a number of major powers and minor allies means that a small incident could escalate into something significant. The friction between U.S. global dominance and China's rising regional sway is the chief source of instability. China could agree to a "Code of Conduct" with the Asian states possibly as early as this year. But without improvement in U.S.-China relations, the geopolitical consequences of such a code will be moot. Southeast Asian risk assets could benefit temporarily, but the chief tail-risks of the U.S. and China falling out would be unresolved. Bottom Line: He who controls the sea routes controls the traffic. China has made an overt bid for the ability to govern the sea routes and deny foreign powers access to the sea. The U.S. has threatened forceful responses to acts of "area-denial" or military coercion. Thus, geopolitical uncertainty and risks in the region remain elevated. How Do The Contenders Size Up? If China had clearly achieved full control of the waterways, airways, and geographical features of the South China Sea, then geopolitical risk over the area might decline. Countries would adjust to Beijing's rules of the game and the region would enter a period of hegemonic stability. The reason we are in a gray area today is that China has not yet reached dominance. China's advantages are significant, growing rapidly, and underrated; meanwhile the U.S.'s advantages are significant, declining, and overrated. A simple comparison of the U.S.'s and China's military advantages and disadvantages will make this clear. China Considering that the South China Sea is China's backyard, the country has a major advantage of playing on its "home court" versus the United States. China can afford to concentrate its military capabilities and planning specifically on its near seas, whereas American resources are dispersed globally and reduced to an "expeditionary force" when operating in China's neighborhood.12 Even so, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), Navy (PLAN), and Air Force (PLAAF) have major obstacles to overcome if they are to contend with American forces. Until relatively recently, China's defense buildup focused on traditional ground capabilities, creating weak spots in its ability to project military power over the South China Sea. What matters is whether China has addressed these shortfalls sufficiently to raise the costs of U.S. intervention to a prohibitive level. So far, it is attempting to do so in the following ways: Sea Power - China's naval capabilities have generally lagged far behind those of the U.S. and Japan. An important step was the commissioning of China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in 2012. It is a renovated Soviet carrier of the type that Russia has recently used in Syria. A second carrier, Shandong, is 85% complete and set to be commissioned in 2018 - it is an indigenously produced copy of the former. It is set to be stationed in Hainan, which will influence the balance of power given that the U.S. only has one carrier permanently in the region (though several more dock in San Diego). A third carrier is slated for 2022 and expected to be stationed in the South China Sea. The navy has also significantly increased China's logistic and support capabilities in the area, with amphibious warships and air cover. China has also vastly expanded its destroyers and smaller ships. Only its submarine capabilities face serious doubts about the degree of improvement and capability. Air Transport - China's naval and air force lifting capabilities, necessary to transport troops and equipment quickly to disputed territories, were initially very limited. But in recent years, China has improved these capabilities. Considering satellite pictures of the Spratly and Paracel Islands with new hangars and landing strips, China has made considerable progress toward the goal of quick material and troop supply for the islands. Of course, it is notoriously difficult to resupply small scattered islands amid enemy disruptions, but it is also difficult to disrupt without committing more than one aircraft carrier wing to the problem. Clearly China's capacity has improved. Infrastructure - China has converted Hainan, its southernmost island (and smallest province) into a major military and logistics base. Its new Yulin Naval Base can host up to 20 nuclear submarines as well as two carrier groups and several assault ships. This is China's "Pearl Harbor," and unlike the American version, it is in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, on the disputed islands, China had not built infrastructure until very recently. It was in fact the last of the island claimants to pave an airstrip. But its construction has been bigger, faster, and more ambitious - including for air transport, fighter jets, and surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles, all of which have added greatly to its ability to deny the U.S. access to the sea. Air Power - One of the main issues the PLAAF had over the years was the limited radius of its fighter planes, which would not allow full air superiority in the South China Sea. Airfield infrastructure was built on the disputed islands so that fighter planes could be stationed closer to the area. China therefore does not possess just one aircraft carrier, but rather numerous ones if we think of islands as aircraft carriers. Also, Russia is delivering to China a number of multirole fighters that can cover the South China Sea from bases on the mainland. And China's fifth-generation fighter is coming along. By far the most significant military development in China's arsenal, however, is its development of short- and medium-range missiles. This development greatly increases the danger to American ships and aircraft seeking access to the region. First, China has concentrated on building short-range, DF-21D "Carrier Killer" anti-ship missiles, which pack enough punch to take out an American aircraft carrier with one hit, and which the U.S. has limited means to defend against.13 China has also paraded around the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, or "Guam Killer," which can reach as far as Guam, can carry a nuclear charge, and has a mobile launch platform that would be difficult for U.S. forces to detect and knock out before the launch. In turn, the U.S. has deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile systems in Guam and South Korea in preparation for precisely this kind of attack.14 Second, China has amassed around 500 surface-to-air missiles on Hainan Island, waiting to be shipped to the disputed rocks. The armory consists of a combination of short-, medium-, and long-range missiles to create a layered air-defense perimeter. Satellite images of the islands show that China has also positioned short-range and medium-range missile systems on some of the islands, namely Woody Island in the Paracels. Finally, China has fielded better radar systems to gain full coverage of the South China Sea (as well as other nearby waters) in order to find or guide friendly or hostile ships or planes and to support the various activities of its air and ship defenses. This combination of radar and missile capabilities amounts to a game changer. They make it possible for China to raise the costs of conflict to such a level that the United States might balk. Will the U.S. seek to change the balance of power with force? No. But Washington has reaffirmed its "red lines" in the region, namely freedom of passage. This was the takeaway from Secretary of Defense James Mattis's first foreign trip, not incidentally to Japan and South Korea. Mattis indicated that freedom of passage is "absolute" not only for the U.S. merchant fleet but also for the navy. However, he also said the U.S. will exhaust "diplomatic efforts" and eschew "any dramatic military moves" in the South China Sea, while maintaining the U.S.'s neutrality on sovereignty disputes. This is status quo, and the status quo favors China's rapidly growing ability to deny others' access to the area. The United States The U.S. has several bases in the Indo-Pacific area, with ground, air, naval, and marine assets. It also has extensive experience conducting wars and special operations in East Asia. Yet despite this dispersed and historic basing, China poses a challenge the likes of which it has not seen in the region. The distances to be covered, the complexities of the logistics, and China's growing strengths, make any U.S. intervention in the South China Sea harder than is typically assumed. The U.S.'s key five bases make these advantages and disadvantages clear: Guam, with almost 6,000 troops, will most likely be the first base to respond to a threat in the South China Sea, or to become engaged in a conflict there. It hosts part of the Seventh Fleet, including a ballistic-missile submarine squadron. It would be a key launch pad for regional operations. It could also be an early target for China's long-range ballistic missiles in a major conflict. Guam sits almost 3,000km from the South China Sea. South Korea hosts one of the U.S.'s oldest and largest regional deployments, with about 28,000 troops. Korea hosts the Eighth U.S. Army and Seventh Air Force, as well as Special Operations Command Korea. Its chief advantage is its proximity to China. However, assuming a conflict involves no direct engagement with mainland China, Korea comes with some disadvantages. Most of the ground staff is located around the North Korea border. The U.S. command in the region will be wary of lifting troops from the border and exposing its northern flank. North Korea (or conceivably China itself) could take advantage of U.S. distraction in the South China Sea. At the same time, the operational radius of planes on the Osan Air Base would not allow direct engagement in the South China Sea, though they could cover the southeast to hinder any maneuvers of the Chinese air force. Japan is the United States' largest overseas deployment with about 49,000 troops - heavily tilted toward naval and air power. The Fifth U.S. Air Force is spread across three main bases in Misawa, Yokota, and Kadena, while the Seventh Fleet is the largest forward-deployed U.S. fleet. It has several powerful task forces including the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and naval special warfare, amphibious assault, mine warfare, and marine expeditionary forces. The strong presence and firepower of this fleet as well as its maneuverability make it the prime candidate for any sort of engagement in the South China Sea (or East China Sea for that matter). The air bases around Tokyo and Okinawa can provide air support down to Taiwan and run airlift operations down to China's Hainan Island, the base of China's southern fleet. The only disadvantages stem from vulnerability to layered air defense and long supply lines for the navy, which will become targets after any lengthy engagement. Moreover, U.S. Forces Japan lack large ground units to organize landing operations, which will need to be sourced from South Korea or Hawaii. Hawaii is the home of the U.S. Pacific Command, which oversees regional forces, and contains sizable ground units to reinforce regional bases. It hosts the U.S. Army Pacific, U.S. Pacific Air Forces, and the U.S. Pacific Fleet stationed in Pearl Harbor (with a second base in San Diego). Hawaii has a large ground troop presence, which, together with U.S. air-lift capabilities, would provide the main ground forces for offensive operations. The large fleet secures U.S. presence in the region. Hawaii would host and resupply the core of any naval operations in the South China Sea. The only disadvantage is geographic: the distance to any U.S. ally's territory is significant, and main operational areas in the South China Sea cannot be reached in a single lift. This means that troop and equipment movement will take time and will not go unmolested. In any scenario involving land operations, the redeployment of troops will give the other side time to prepare. Alaska is also worth mention as it houses infantry brigades and air force combat units, albeit no significant naval presence. We only give small consideration to the base here because of its proximity to Russia. Assuming the neutrality of Russia during a hypothetical conflict, the U.S. would still be unlikely to draw resources from Alaska to aid operations in the South China Sea, since that would leave its own territory exposed to some degree. Other Allied Bases - We do not feature other allied bases in the region mainly because of the small numbers of troops that can be deployed and the low capabilities of U.S. allies. Some countries, such a Singapore, which has a respectably army, could disappoint the U.S. by trying to remain neutral. The most reliable help would come from Japan and Australia, but even Australia would face a very intense internal dilemma as a result of its economic dependency on China. South Korea would also be preoccupied with North Korea's ability to take advantage. A quick survey of the "order of battle" of the U.S. and China in the region would make our assertion that China has gained supremacy laughable. Then again, geopolitics does not work in ceteris paribus terms. Yes, the U.S. maintains military hegemony in the region, but China's abilities to impose real pain on American naval forces creates a complicated political dilemma for the U.S.: is Washington prepared to expend blood and treasure to defend allies and their supply lines in case of a conflict over this area? China is not yet looking to project power globally. It is not actively trying to compete for supremacy with the U.S. in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, or Caribbean Sea. As such, it can concentrate its forces in the South and East China Seas and dedicate its entire naval strategy to the sole purpose of denying the U.S. navy access there. The U.S., meanwhile, has to plan for a global confrontation and then dedicate a portion of its forces to China's home court. Japan may very well hold the balance of power in a potential conflict over the region. Its import dependency is at the core of its national psyche and it would view a Chinese blockade of the South China Sea as an existential threat - not unlike the American threat of oil embargo that precipitated war in the early 1940s. Japan is not likely to go rogue, but it would be a tremendous addition to the American effort, even in a situation where other states refrained from action out of fear. However, while China will see the above as a reason not to initiate armed conflict with the United States, it will not be able to retrench in the South China Sea in the face of domestic nationalism either. These pressures virtually ensure that it is locked into the assertive foreign policy it has pursued over the past ten years. Bottom Line: A simple analysis of the current disposition shows that the military capabilities of the two countries - in this limited theater - are not as disparate as one might think. Both sides have weaknesses: the U.S. is bound to a handful of distant bases and has a global range of obligations and constraints, while China lacks technology, experience, and cooperation among its military branches. Nevertheless, China is approaching full air and sea cover of the area within the Nine Dash Line (Map 1) and is rapidly gaining greater ability through radar and missiles to inflict politically unacceptable damage on the U.S. The U.S.'s interest in the South China Sea is ultimately limited to free passage and the defense of treaty allies. The Trump administration is primed to strengthen the country's rights and deterrence, namely through a large increase in defense spending that focuses heavily on the navy - aiming at a 600-ship fleet - and likely on Asia Pacific. In the context of a massive new assertion of U.S. regional presence and power, it is significant that China has not yet given any concrete indication of slowing down its island reclamation, militarization, or control techniques. Investment Implications BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been warning clients of the rising risks in the South China Sea, and East China in general, since 2012. However, it has been a challenge to construct an investment strategy based on our view. For starters, it is unclear when the crisis could emerge. It is difficult to know when accidents and miscalculations will happen. What we can say with some degree of certainty, however, is that the window of opportunity for any realistic campaign to reverse the militarization of the disputed islands will probably be closed by the end of this year. By "realistic," we mean operations that would promise control over the disputed territory with a calculated degree of risk and an acceptable degree of casualties. At the same time, the U.S. still has the ability to win a full-blown war with China. We have not addressed scenarios like cutting off China's oil supplies at the Strait of Hormuz, for instance, but have limited our discussion to a conflict in the South China Sea over control of the newly militarized islands. In that context, the American threshold for pain is low and its military advantages are narrowing. We are therefore entering a danger zone now because both China and the U.S. stand at risk of becoming overly assertive in the near future: Chart 9Will Trump Seek Political Recapitalization Via Conflict? China because it has domestic nationalist pressures that the Communist Party needs to vent as the economy slows; The U.S. because it has an unpopular (Chart 9), nationalist leadership that seeks to increase its defense presence in the region and may fall to brinkmanship in order to extract major trade concessions from Beijing. The tail-risk in the South China Sea suggests that global investors should also continue to hedge their exposure to risk assets with exposure to safe-haven assets receptive to geopolitical risk, like gold, Swiss bonds, though perhaps not U.S. Treasuries. The persistence of Sino-American distrust - beyond whatever happy encounter Trump and Xi may have at Mar-a-Lago in April - suggests that Chinese economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated and global financial volatility to rise. U.S.-China tension also feeds our broader narrative of rising mercantilism and protectionism. Investors will want to overweight domestic-oriented economies, consumer-oriented sectors, and small cap companies relative to their export-oriented, manufacturing, and large cap counterparts. We also recommend that EM-dedicated investors be wary about Asian states caught in the middle of de-globalization and vulnerable to geopolitical tail-risks. We are neutral to bearish on South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Our long Vietnam equities trade has been downgraded to tactical. We prefer Thailand and Japan, U.S. allies that are removed from conflict zones (Thailand) or domestically oriented and reflationary (Japan). We are also long China relative to Hong Kong and Taiwan, given the risks of both de-globalization and Chinese political troubles for the latter two. We are bullish on U.S. defense stocks.15 The U.S. defense establishment is conducting extensive reviews of the navy's force structure and future strategic needs - the fleet peaked in 1987 and fell below 300 battle force ships in 2003, but has projected that 355 battle force ships is necessary. This would require a major injection of funds in the coming decade. The Trump administration has endorsed this assessment in principle and is planning a significant increase in defense spending, marked by a requested increase of $50 billion in his first annual budget. Trump has signaled that defense manufacturing, notably shipbuilding, will be one of the ways in which he seeks to boost American manufacturing and jobs. This plays to his blue-collar base of support and could move the needle in battleground states like Virginia. It should be beneficial on the margin for U.S. defense companies.16 Below are our corporate-level recommendations for both EM-dedicated and global investors. The Companies Given the likelihood that tensions in the SCS will continue, and the projected build up in defense spending in both the U.S. and China, EMES recommends investors look to take exposure to defense stocks. We have put together a portfolio of such stocks that is intended to give exposure to the developments between China and the U.S. in the South China Sea. We recommend the following basket of companies: AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK); AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH); AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH); AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH); China Avionics Systems (600372 CH); Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US); General Dynamics Corporation (GD US). The basket consists of four Chinese defense companies, mostly centered around the aviation industry. The choice of listed companies in China is constrained and hence we have been forced to gain exposure through aviation companies rather than naval. We recommend two companies in the U.S. that are involved in military vessel production for the U.S. Navy. We believe that the main ramp-up in defense spending from the U.S. side will come through a significant increase in the number of ships in the Asian region. Chart 10Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AviChina Vs. MSCI EM AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK): Chinese aviation holding company (Chart 10). AviChina is the listed subsidiary of the government-controlled Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). Airbus is another large shareholder, with over 11% of the free float. The company produces dual-purpose aircraft - civil and military -- including helicopters, trainers, parts and components (including radio-electronic), avionics and electrical products and components. AviChina itself is a holding company with a rather complicated structure, which makes it difficult for investors to access its market value. Listed subsidiaries include AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH), China Avionics (600372 CH), AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH) and Hongdu Aviation (600316 CH). In terms of the revenue stream, 49% is generated from whole aircraft production, 28% from engineering services and another 23% from parts and components manufacturing. The company reports semi-annual results. The latest full-year report released on March 15 came out mixed. Revenues were strong, up 39% year over year, but costs accelerated at a faster pace (+45% year over year). Operating income was still strong, growing 12.3% year over year, but margins declined across the board. EBITDA margin contracted by 257 basis points to 9.94%, while operating margin fell by 170 basis points to 7.32%. Despite this, the bottom line still managed to grow by 18.75% year over year. AviChina is currently trading at a forward P/E of 21.2x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 9.5% for the next three years. Chart 11Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Jonhon Optronic Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH): Profiting from growing military and EV spending (Chart 11). A subsidiary of AVIC and AviChina, the company specializes in production of optical and electric connectors (third largest in China), and cable components. Jonhon is unrivalled in the defense market. It profits from rising electronic content and from supplying major components to other parts of the AVIC group, shipbuilders, railways and aerospace. It is also successfully developing its civil offering, specifically for the fast-growing electric vehicle market and the 4G space in the telecoms industry. Looking at the revenue composition, 54% is generated by sales of electric connectors, a further 24% from fiber-optic cables, and 19% from conventional cable and assembly products. As for the civil-military split, the company is expected to receive 60% of total revenues from its civil applications, growing approximately 10% per annum. Jonhon Optronics reported its full-year results on March 15. Revenues saw a strong increase, jumping 23.7% year over year. Cost growth was also higher, though it slowed from the previous year (up 23.8% year over year). This led to an operating profit increase of 19.7%, but slight margin deterioration. EBITDA margin fell by 77 basis points to 16.98%, and operating margin was down 5 basis points to 14.32. On the other hand, profit margins improved to 12.6% (up 54 basis points) as the bottom line grew by 29.8% year over year. Jonhon Optronics is currently trading at a forward P/E of 24.4x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 15.2% for the next three years. Chart 12Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Helicopter Company Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH): AVIC's helicopter arm (Chart 12). As the name already suggests, the company specializes in helicopter production, which accounts for almost 100% of the overall revenue stream. The main helicopters currently marketed are from the AC series, in particular the AC311, AC312 and AC313, the Z series - Z-8, Z-9 and Z-11. We expect further tailwinds for the company stemming from China's future defense budget. The country's helicopter fleet is still only a tenth of the size of the U.S.'s fleet. It will continue to ramp up production. Export contracts will also support revenue growth for AVIC Helicopter Co. With a strong advance on the Asian military helicopter market, the company is looking to expand in the region. Furthermore, we see some promising developments in the civil helicopter space, with Chinese emergency services and the Civil Aviation Administration ramping up demand. The main headwind might come from the transition to new models, with the new production cycle to be in full force in 2018. AVIC Helicopter Co reported full year results on March 15, which came out weaker than expected. Revenues were virtually flat, contracting by 0.3% year over year, while cost of revenue grew 1.3% year over year. Operating income was also stable relative to last year, contracting 0.4% year over year, helped by an operating expense reduction of 12% year over year. Nevertheless, EBITDA margin declined slightly by 19 basis points to 6.77%, while operating margin fell by 131 basis points to 13.99%. A marginally lower income tax in FY16 allowed the firm to eke out 1.3% year-over-year bottom-line growth. AVIC Helicopters is currently trading at a forward P/E of 48.2x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 13.8% for the next two years. Chart 13Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Aviation Engine Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH): Sole leader in Chinese engine production (Chart 13). Aviation Engine Corporation is part of the government-controlled Aeroengine Corporation of China (AECC), which was established in August 2016 and contributes just under 50% to Being in a monopolistic position on the Chinese market, the company profits from rising military aircraft procurement and prices. As part of the AECC, the company also receives tailwinds from scale effects within the company as well as cost savings in the supply chain. AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation reported weak full year results on March 16. Revenue slid 5.5% year over year, but management kept costs under control (down 7.3% year over year). Operating expenses grew only marginally (up 5.2% year over year), which left operating profit flat compared to last year. Margin trends have been strong; EBITDA margin improved by 78 basis points to 13.05%, while operating margin grew by 42 basis points to 7.78%. However, high net interest expense depressed the bottom line, which fell 13.3% year over year. At the same time the company managed to decrease its debt level for the fourth year in a row. AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation is currently trading at a forward P/E of 52.0x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 14.4% for the next two years. Chart 14Performance Since March 2016: ##br## China Avionics Systems Vs. MSCI EM China Avionics Systems (600372 CH): Leading developer and producer of avionics equipment (Chart 14). China Avionics Systems is also a subsidiary of AviChina, which controls 43% of the free float. The company is active in R&D, running several research institutes in the fields of radar, aviation and navigation control as well as aviation computers and software. China Avionics enjoys a near-monopoly on the Chinese aviation electronics market, and also controls over 90% of the military market for air data systems. Looking at the revenue breakdown, 80% of total revenues come from military contracts, while it is expected that the share of civil revenues will increase with the development of civil aircraft in the country. Aircraft data acquisition devices contribute the most to overall revenue, at 25% of total, followed by airborne sensors at 15%, auto-pilot systems at 14%, distance-sensing alarm systems at 9.5%, and air data systems at 9%. The company reported full year results on March 16. Revenues experienced a mild increase of 1.9% year over year, while costs increased at the same pace (2% year over year). On the operating side, costs increased by 3% year over year, suppressing income by 1% year over year. EBITDA margin fell 37 basis points to 15.15%, while operating margin contracted 30 basis points to 10.60%. The bottom line contracted 3.5% year over year. China Avionics Systems is currently trading at a forward P/E of 55.0x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 13% for the next two years. Chart 15Performance Since March 2016: ##br## Huntington Ingalls Industries Vs. S&P 500 Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US): Largest listed U.S. military shipbuilder (Chart 15). Initially a part of Northrop Grumman, Huntington was spun off and listed in 2011. Huntington enjoys a monopolistic market position, as over 70% of the current U.S. Navy fleet was designed and built by the company's Newport News or Ingalls divisions in Virginia and Mississippi. Huntington is currently the sole designer, builder and re-fueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the U.S. In the nuclear submarines space, the company has one competitor: the Electric Boat unit of General Dynamics. The company also provides a range of services through its Technical Solutions division, centered around fleet support, integrated missions solutions and nuclear and oil and gas operations. Huntington reported full-year results on February 16. Full year revenue was virtually flat (+1% on quarterly basis), while costs increased slightly by 1.6% year over year. The company managed to reduce operating expenses, which fell by 16% to the lowest level since 2010. This helped boost operating profit by 13% year over year. EBITDA margin improved by an impressive 125 basis points to 14.77%, and operating margin was up by 119 basis points to 12.14%. New orders grew by US$5.2 billion, bringing the total pipeline to US$21 billion. The bottom line jumped by 45% year over year, helped by a lower income tax bill and a one-off after-tax adjustment. Huntington Ingalls Industries is currently trading at a forward P/E of 18.1x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 4.2% for the next two years. Chart 16Performance Since March 2016: ##br## General Dynamics Vs. S&P 500 General Dynamics (GD US): Primary contractor for U.S. Navy submarines (Chart 16). General Dynamics is a multinational defense corporation and currently the fourth-largest defense company in the world. The company has four business segments, from which we are mainly interested in the marine systems segment, contributing 25% of overall group revenue. The marine systems segment is represented by General Dynamics' unlisted subsidiary, GD Electric Boat. Electric Boat has long been the main builder of nuclear submarines for the U.S. Navy out of Connecticut, and is expected to be one of the main beneficiaries of the U.S. Navy expansion program under the Trump administration. General Dynamics reported full-year results on January 27, which generally came in flat. Revenue fell by a marginal 0.4% year over year (after the adoption of a new revenue-recognition standard), but the company did a good job in managing costs, which contracted by 1% year over year. Operating income grew by 4% year over year, helped by lower operating costs. Margins improved across the board; EBITDA margin went up 45 basis points to 15.19%, while operating margin was up 54 basis points to 13.74%. The bottom line grew 5% year over year. Management seem confident in their guidance through 2020, including detailed but conservative estimates. Especially promising was the good pipeline visibility in the marine segment, driven by the company's Columbia-class submarine sales. General Dynamics is currently trading at a forward P/E of 19.3x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 6.5% for the next two years. How To Trade? The GPS/EMES team recommends gaining exposure to the sector through a basket of the listed equities, which would consist of five Chinese companies and two U.S. companies. The main goal is active alpha generation by excluding laggards and including out-of-benchmark plays, to avoid passive index hugging via an ETF. Direct: Equity access through the tickers (Bloomberg): AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK); AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH); AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH); AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH); China Avionics Systems (600372 CH); Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US); General Dynamics Corporation (GD US). ETFs: At current time there is one listed ETF covering the China defense sector: Guotai CSI National Defense ETF (512660 CH); And three listed ETFs covering the U.S. defense sector: iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF (ITA US); SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR US); PowerShares Aerospace & Defense Portfolio (PPA US). Funds: At current time there are no funds with significant defense sector exposure. Please note that the trade recommendation is long-term (1Y+) and based on a straight long trade. We don't see a need for specific market timing for this call (for technical indicators please refer to our website link). For convenience, the performance of both market cap-weighted and equally-weighted equity baskets will be tracked (please see upcoming updates as well as the website link to follow performance). Risks To The Investment Case The largest risk to our investment case - leaving aside company-specific risks - would be an unexpected fading away of the tensions in China's near seas, and of China's and America's military spending ambitions. Such a development - which would require a robust diplomatic agreement and an about-face from what the leaders have stated - would hit the weapons producers. Though such a settlement would not necessarily occur overnight, or receive immediate publicity, it would be observable over the course of negotiations between the Trump and Xi administrations. A key event to watch is the upcoming April summit between the two leaders. At the same time, the large momentum in the defense industry (with very long production pipelines), and the very low flexibility of defense budgeting, means that we are comfortable in terms of timing an exit should geopolitical tensions begin to recede. Another risk might come from a slowdown in economic growth in China or the U.S., which could lead to cuts in defense budgets. Nevertheless, in a case of a further escalation in China's near-abroad, we would most likely see defense spending continue to grow despite any weak economic performance, warranted by strategic needs. This is a key dynamic that investors should understand. Strategic distrust between the U.S. and China has worsened since the Great Recession, indicating that the preceding period of strong growth helped keep a lid on U.S.-China tensions. Now the two countries have entered a dilemma in which relations have soured despite their economic recoveries, since both sides are using growth to fuel military development, yet an economic relapse would fuel further distrust. Only a high-level political settlement can break this spiral and such settlements between strategic rivals traditionally require a "crisis." Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The United States sent the USS Carl Vinson carrier group to the South China Sea as part of Freedom of Navigation Operations that the Trump administration may intensify; China is involved in a new spat about "environmental" monitoring stations in the Paracel Islands and in Scarborough Shoal, and is also increasing activity east of the Philippines; it is threatening to impose a new law that would govern foreign ships' access; the question of a Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone lingers; and China has also begun sending large tourist groups to the Paracels. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "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. 6 Most notably in 1971, 1974, 1988, 1995, 2001, and 2011-14. In the two biggest "battles," 1974 and 1988, China kicked Vietnamese forces out of the Paracel Islands and parts of the Spratly Islands, respectively. These conflicts took place in the context of Vietnam's wars with itself, the U.S., and China, just as the recent rise in tensions takes place in the context of China's emergence as a global power - in other words, international tensions are the cause and maritime-territorial disputes are but a symptom. 7 Most notably the HS981 showdown between China and Vietnam in 2014, which occurred when China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) moved a large mobile drilling rig into the farthest southwest island of the Paracel Islands, near Triton Island, triggering a months-long skirmish with Vietnamese coast guard ships and fishermen that involved Chinese warships and aircraft and the sinking of at least one Vietnamese fishing boat. 8 In fact, officers from China's People's Liberation Army-Navy's southern fleet have recently written publicly and approvingly of the well-known Chinese tactic of fighting "behind a civilian front" to establish control over the sea - which has involved a host of private and public actions covering fishing, energy, coast guard, administration, science and environment, and tourism. Please see "Chinese Military's Dominance in S. China Sea Complete: Report," Kyodo News, March 20, 2017. 9 Please see Bonnie S. Glaser, "Armed Clash In The South China Sea," Council on Foreign Relations, Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 14, April 2012, available at cfr.org. Separately, an American diplomatic estimate from 2016 claims that "more than half the world's merchant fleet tonnage" passes through these waters; see Colin Willett, "Statement ... Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee ... 'South China Sea Maritime Disputes,'" July 7, 2016, available at docs.house.gov [http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS28/20160707/105160/HHRG-114-AS28-Wstate-WillettC-20160707.pdf]. A Chinese study estimates that 47.5% of China's total foreign trade in goods transited the sea in 2014; see Du D. B., Ma Y. H. et al, "China's Maritime Transportation Security And Its Measures Of Safeguard," World Regional Studies 24:2 (2015), pp. 1-10. 10 When President Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson clarified remarks at his senate confirmation hearing in which he threatened that the U.S. would deny China's access to the islands in the South China Sea, he reformulated his statement to say that in the event of a contingency the U.S. needed to be "capable of limiting China's access to and use of its artificial islands" to threaten the U.S. and its allies and partners. 11 Please see footnote 3 above. Another potential implication might be a weaker U.S. position in the partition of the Arctic shelf (which has far more hydrocarbon reserves than the South China Sea), which U.S. rivals like Russia will pursue next against the claims of the U.S. and its allies Norway, Canada, and Denmark. 12 Please see Robert Haddick, Fire on the Water: China, America, and the Future of the Pacific (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2014). 13 It is understood by multiple sources that these missiles cannot be defended successfully against by current anti-missile technology, with one potential exclusion - the recently tested SM-6 Dual I. Otherwise, possible defense methods would lie in the realm of electronic countermeasures. 14 We believe, with medium conviction, that the incoming administration in South Korea will remove the THAAD missile defense sometime in 2017 or 2018 in what would be a major diplomatic quarrel between Seoul and Washington. This is because the soon-to-be ruling Minjoo Party (Democratic Party) will seek to engage North Korea and mend relations with China, and the latter countries' top demand will be removal of the missile defense system that was only put in place in a rushed manner in the final days of the discredited and impeached Park Geun-hye administration. Such a removal would illustrate the U.S.'s disadvantages relative to China in having to deal with alliances, basing, and force structure in a foreign region. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Joint Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated January 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see "2016 Navy Force Structure Assessment (FSA)," dated December 14, 2016, and Ronald O'Rourke, "Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress," Congressional Research Service, September 21, 2016.

Highlights Beyond the healthcare vote and its implication for Trump's fiscal stimulus, other risks lurk in the background. Market complacency is at historical extremes but Chinese reflation is rapidly dissipating. The euro could benefit in this environment, especially as markets price in a Macron victory. Longer-term, the euro remains hampered by its two-speed recovery, which will limit the capacity of the ECB to lift rates. Stay long EUR/AUD, short USD/JPY and NZD/JPY. Feature The dollar correction continues. The recent wave of dollar weakness has been dubbed a reversal of the "Trump trade". There is some truth to this. The difficulty President Trump and House Speaker Ryan are facing to pass the American Health Care Act (their replacement for Obamacare) is raising questions about how much tax cuts and infrastructure spending Trump will actually be able to implement. Even if the House votes in favor of the new bill (which is still an unknown at the time of writing), the Senate remains a question mark. So the narrative goes, if the Trump stimulus is at risk, the economy will be weaker, the Fed will not hike interest rates as much as anticipated, and the dollar will falter. While there is validity to this thesis, we think the picture is more nuanced. The potential for less fiscal stimulus in the U.S. is a real worry, but our main concern is that the global industrial sector's growth improvement does not continue the way investors expect. In this environment, the dollar is likely to perform poorly against European currencies and the yen, but hold its own against EM and commodity currencies. We are positioned for such a development. These trends would be reminiscent of the kind of dollar dynamics that emerged in late 2015 / early 2016. Chinese Reflation Matters Too! What underpins our thesis? As our sister service, Global Alpha Sector Strategy, has highlighted in this week's report, the Yale Crash Confidence index has hit 100%, indicating that all of the respondents surveyed expect the stock market to go up in 2017. Moreover, the Minneapolis Fed's market-based implied probability of a 20% or more selloff in the S&P 500 has fallen below 10%, the lowest level since 2007.1 With this high degree of complacency, a rollover in the global economic surprise index represents a major risk for the asset most levered to the global industrial sector (Chart I-1). To us, the key behind the 2016 rebound in global industrial activity was China. While Chinese growth is not about to experience a sharp slowdown, it is unlikely to improve further. To begin with, Chinese monetary conditions are already rolling over (Chart I-2). The big improvement in this indicator in 2016 was the crucial ingredient behind the rebound in global trade, global industrial activity, and all the assets levered to these phenomena. Chart I-1Surprises Are Not ##br##Growing Anymore Chart I-2Chinese Monetary Conditions ##br##Are Tightening We are seeing tentative signs of a mini liquidity crunch emerging in the Chinese interbank system. Seven-day repo rates, a key benchmark for Chinese lending terms, have surged from 3.8% at the end of last week to 5.5% on Tuesday, before settling at 5%, the highest level in two and a half years (Chart I-3). By allowing this volatility, policymakers are most likely sending a warning shot to the Chinese real estate sector, which has been a key driver of Chinese metal demand in 2016. This sector alone accounts for 20% and 32% of global refined copper and steel consumption, respectively. Also, as we have highlighted previously, fiscal stimulus was another key factor behind the floor put under Chinese industrial production and fixed asset investment last year. However, Chinese fiscal spending peaked at a 25% yoy growth rate in November 2015 and is now near 0%. This suggests that a key source of stimulus in China has been removed. It is true that Chinese fiscal stimulus is heavily conducted through credit policy. In this context, the recent rise in Chinese borrowing rates does indicate that the Chinese authorities are not intent in jacking up growth anymore. The reduced growth target for this year is a clear re-affirmation of this change in focus. We are seeing signs that these adjustments are starting to bite. The growth rate of new capex projects started has rolled over and is now flirting with the zero line. As Chart I-4 highlights, this indicator provided a very positive signal for the AUD last year and is now forewarning potential risks. Chart I-3Is The PBoC Sending A Message##br## To The Real Estate Industry? Chart I-4Big Risk For##br## The AUD Additionally, the Canadian venture exchange, an index of high risk, small-cap Canadian equities has historically displayed a tight correlation with Chinese GDP growth (Chart I-5). This market is experiencing a negative divergence between its MACD and prices, potentially an early sign that investors are beginning to worry about China. Risk assets globally are not ready for these developments. In fact, EM spreads are hovering near cycle lows, junk spreads are extremely narrow, the VIX is also near cycle lows, and our global complacency indicator suggests that investors are not ready for negative Chinese surprises (Chart I-6). Not only would a negative surprise out of China cause a repricing of all these factors, but periods of market stress - even shallow stress - are associated with rising correlation among assets and among individual equities. The low level of correlation among S&P 500 constituents has been an important factor behind the fall in the VIX and the rise in margin debt. A rise in risk aversion could get turbo-charged by a rectification of these low correlations, prompting a temporary wave of debt liquidation (Chart I-7). Chart I-5A Key China Gauge Is Losing Momentum Chart I-6Complacency Abounds Chart I-7Correlation Risk In this environment, U.S. stocks could easily correct by 5% to 10%. EM stocks may have even more downside as they are more directly exposed to the biggest risk factor: China. From a currency market perspective, this means that defensive currencies could outperform pro-cyclical ones. This is why we remain long the USD against a basket of commodity currencies, but short against the yen - the most countercyclical currency of all. We also are long the euro against the AUD. These views make our publication more cautious about the near-term outlook than BCA's house view. Bottom Line: Risks beyond the outlook for tax cuts in the U.S. lurk in the background. The Chinese authorities have moved away from stimulating the economy, and some early cracks are showing. A collapse is not in the cards, but given the high degree of complacency present across markets, a disappointment in a supposedly perfect environment would create a headwind for EM and commodity currencies but boost the defensive EUR and JPY. Why Long EUR/AUD Tactically? While the negative view on the AUD fits cleanly in the narrative described above, our motivation to be long the euro is more multifaceted: The euro area has negative nominal interest rates and a current-account surplus of 3.3% of GDP, meaning it exhibits key characteristics of a funding currency. In a risk-off event where unforeseen FX market volatility rises, funding currencies perform well. We expect a further normalization of the French OAT / German bunds spread as we get closer to the French election. Macron is beating Le Pen by more than 20% in second-round polling (Chart I-8). This gap is five times greater than the advantage Clinton held over Trump at a similar point in the U.S. presidential campaign. As we argued in a joint Special Report co-published with our Geopolitical Strategy team seven weeks ago, this kind of advantage is highly unlikely to be overcome by May 7. Thus, the euro area break-up risk premium can narrow between now and then.2 Finally, the number of investors expecting rising short and long rates has bottomed in Europe relative to the U.S. Historically, this indicator has provided valuable lead on EUR/USD. It is currently painting a tactically bullish story for the euro (Chart I-9). Moreover, in the event of market stress, with investors pricing in two more rate hikes by year end in the U.S., but none in Europe, the scope for temporary downward revisions in the U.S. is higher than in Europe. This could put more upward pressure on this indicator and therefore, the euro. Chart I-8Macron: En Marche! Chart I-9Short-Term Euro Upside Together, these factors suggest that the euro could rebound toward 1.12 before the middle of 2017. Again, our favored currency to play this move is against the AUD. EUR/USD: Short-Term Gain But Long-Term Pain Chart I-10Monetary Policy Is The ##br##Common Shock In Europe What about the longer term dynamics for the euro? We are more skeptical of the common currency's ability to rally durably, and we are expecting the euro to fall below parity by mid-2018. Based on our months-to-hike indicator, the market expects the ECB to hike by the fall of 2018. We disagree and think the first hike could come much later. While the economic rebound in Europe is real, it seems to be very dependent on the high degree of easing that has been put in place by the ECB. As Chart I-10 illustrates, the credit impulse - a measure underpinning domestic economic activity - and the euro have moved very closely together. While we do not imply that the credit impulse's rebound has reflected the fall in the euro, their tight co-movement has been driven by a similar factor: easy money. Thus, a removal of that easy money could prompt a reversal of that domestic improvement. Even more crucially, the conditions in the periphery are what really matters to the ECB. At the beginning of the millennium, the ECB was acting as Germany's central bank, keeping rates too low for the periphery, but alleviating Germany's deflationary tendencies. Today, the ECB behaves as the periphery's central bank. Germany seems ready to handle higher interest rates, but the same is not true for most other European countries. To begin with, even within the core, wage dynamics remain tepid. French and Dutch wages continue to slow while Austrian wage growth has collapsed near 0% (Chart I-11A). If the situation is poor in most core countries, it is dismal in the periphery. Wages are still contracting in Greece and Portugal, and growing at a sub 1% pace in Spain and Italy (Chart I-11B). These differentiated wage trends reflect the fact that worker shortages in the periphery are simply inexistent, while in Germany, they are commonplace (Chart I-12). Chart I-11AOnly Germany Is Witnessing##br## Strong Wages... Chart I-11BOnly Germany Is Witnessing ##br##Strong Wages... Chart I-12...Because Germany Has The##br## Tightest Labor Market.... As a result, the dynamics in core inflation remain muted. German core inflation has been extremely stable near 1% for six years now, but is hitting record lows levels of 0.3% in France (Chart I-13A and Chart I-13B). Core inflation also remains near 0% in most peripheral nations. Chart I-13A...Explaining Europe's Bifurcated Core Inflations Chart I-13B...Explaining Europe's Bifurcated Core Inflations When the Fed first increased rates in 2015, U.S. wages were growing at 2%. This is a far cry from current levels in Europe. Moreover, the first U.S. rate hike was a mistake considering the subsequent deceleration in growth and poor performance of risk assets. Thus, the Fed experience is probably not an example for the ECB to emulate. Moreover, rising interest rates represent a risk for debt servicing ratios in many European countries, limiting the ECB's ability to hike if nominal growth does not pick up further. The Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, and France rank amongst the countries with the highest private-sector debt servicing costs as a percent of income. Meanwhile Italy and Portugal score extremely poorly when this metric is applied to the public sector (Chart I-14). The Italian and Portuguese cases are especially worrisome as rising stress caused by rising rates will further lift government rates. An argument has also been made that for the ECB, what matters is the headline rate of inflation. We would argue that since Draghi became the leader, this inflation measure is less relevant. But nonetheless, let's temporarily entertain this premise. It has also been argued that if European and U.S. statistical agencies treated housing similarly, inflation on both sides of the Atlantic would be the same. As Chart I-15 illustrates, this is no longer true. Chart I-14Debt Service Payments Are ##br## A Problem In Europe Chart I-15European Inflation Is Lower, ##br##No Matter What This line of reasoning also forgets that since 2014, the U.S. has endured a 22% appreciation in the trade-weighted dollar, which could have already curtailed nearly 1% to U.S. GDP growth, a significant amount of monetary tightening. However, the euro has greatly depreciated over this time frame, representing a large monetary easing. Due to these highly divergent monetary backdrops, one can deduce that endogenous inflationary pressures are much greater in the U.S. than in the euro area. All these factors suggest that it will be hard for the ECB to increase rates by the end of 2018. Thus, on a cyclical basis we would fade this recent massive fall in the ECB's months-to-hike metric (Chart I-16). On the U.S. ledger, the labor market is clearly tightening and the U6 unemployment rate is now congruent with levels where wages have gained traction in previous cycles (Chart I-17). This suggests that the market is correct to expect the Fed to hike much more aggressively in the coming years. In fact, while the near future might be filled with political complexity, we continue to expect fiscal stimulus to materialize in the U.S by 2018, suggesting upside risk to the Fed's forecast. Chart I-16Too Soon! Chart I-17The U.S. Labor Market Is Tight Finally, equilibrium real rates in Europe are probably substantially lower than in the U.S. Not only have European interest rates been historically lower than in the U.S., but also, slower population growth alone would justify lower neutral rates. This highlights that the scope for the ECB to hike is limited compared to the Fed. These bifurcated monetary dynamics will continue to support the USD on a 12-18 months basis, and as a corollary, hurt the euro despite its apparent cheapness on a PPP basis. Bottom Line: The months-to-hike in the euro area has fallen to less than 20 months. While Germany could handle higher rates, poor wage and core inflation dynamics in the rest of the euro area suggest it is still much too early to increase rates. Moreover, without a more significant pick-up in growth, many European nations will face dire debt-servicing situations if the ECB hikes rates durably. Meanwhile, the U.S. is moving closer to full employment, a situation warranting higher rates. The euro could fall below parity by mid-2018. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Caveat Emptor" dated March 24, 2017 available at gss.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution" dated February 3, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gps.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 March weakness has been because of a mix of monetary and fiscal disappointments. The Fed's "unhike" initiated the downtrend as markets were surprised by the dovish tone of the Fed's communications. Now, President Trump and his team are facing difficulties passing the American Health Care Act. Markets are extrapolating this difficulty to the realm of fiscal policy in general. Nevertheless, it is unlikely for the DXY to breach the 98-99 support level this month. The stronger current account number of USD -112.4 billion was supported by high foreign income, suggesting a key warning sign for the USD cyclical bull market is not present. Stronger new home sales monthly growth of 6.1% highlights that domestic economic activity remains robust, meaning the Fed is unlikely to disappoint over the life of the business cycle. Report Links: USD, Oil Divergences Will Continue As Storage Draws - March 17, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Political risks have been exaggerated in Europe, with the Dutch and Austrian elections confirming that populist successes in Europe are overstated. As such, the French election will likely be market-bullish with a Le Pen defeat. This entails a further normalization of OAT / Bund spreads, and a short-term bullish outlook for the euro, which is likely to settle above 1.10. Corroborating this view, the MACD is currently above 0 and outpacing the signal line, a bullish development. Inflationary pressures are building up in Europe with German PPI at 3.1% annually in February. However, outside Germany, even the core, let alone the periphery, seems to be struggling, with poor wage growth. The ECB will therefore need to stay easy for longer to protect the euro area's weakest members, capping the long-term upside to rates and the euro. Report Links: Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 The French Revolution - February 3, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 The yen has continued to rally, with USD/JPY trading below 111 over the last couple of days. We continue to be bullish on the yen on a tactical basis, as we believe that the global industrial sector will fall short of investors' expectations. This is an environment where the dollar will probably appreciate against EM currencies, but falter against the yen. On a cyclical basis we remain yen-bearish, as U.S. rates should continue to go up, while Japanese rates will continue to be anchored around 0%. The Bank of Japan will continue with this policy, as the depreciation of the yen has given a boost to exports, which are now growing at 11.3% on a yearly basis, as well as to the economy as a whole, which should yield higher inflation expectations over time. Report Links: Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 The British pound rallied on Tuesday following the unexpected surge in headline inflation in February from 1.8% to 2.3%. This number is significant, because inflation has broken through the BoE's target. The central bank remains cautious, as the MPC pointed out that the rise in inflation is not domestic, but rather a reflection of the fall in the pound. However, we believe that internal inflationary pressures might start to emerge: the U.K. economy is doing much better than expected and the labor market is tight. Recent data highlights this, and opens the possibility that the pound could rally, particularly against the euro: Retail sales growth and retail sales ex fuel growth came in at 3.7% and 4.1% respectively, outperforming expectations. The CBI Distributive Trades Survey monthly growth also beat expectations, coming in at 9%. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 As mentioned last week, the AUD's strength was a temporary feat. Before declining, the Aussie was initially lifted by high house price growth of 7.7% annually for 4Q2016, really surpassing expectations. The RBA minutes highlighted a need for the current monetary policy to remain very accommodative: labor market conditions remain mixed, household perceptions of personal finances is at average levels, wage growth remains subdued, and inflation is expected to rise only slowly. The outlook for the AUD is therefore likely to remain poor. Corroborating this view is a contracting Westpac Leading Index number of -0.1% that may be foretelling weak data. Report Links: AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Yesterday, the RBNZ kept its policy rate unchanged at 1.75%. Governor Graeme Wheeler once again asserted that the kiwi remains overvalued, although he welcomed the recent depreciation of the trade-weighted kiwi. More depreciation might be in the cards, particularly against the U.S. dollar and the yen. Global FX Vol stands at very low levels, thus any uptick could severely hamper the NZD, a carry currency. Furthermore, the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions will likely weigh on commodity currencies. Nonetheless, the NZD could perform well against the AUD as domestic inflationary pressures in Australia are much weaker than in New Zealand. Additionally, the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions should be more harmful for the AUD, given that iron is more sensitive to economic activity than dairy products. Report Links: Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The oil-based currency has sustained the recent oil shocks well, helped by the USD's weakness. Indeed, Canadian data has generally been positive: Manufacturing shipments increased 0.6% monthly in January, much above the expected -0.4%; Wholesale sales increased 3.3% in January on a monthly basis; Monthly retail sales picked up to 2.2% and 1.7% when autos are excluded; The 2017 government budget marginally loosened fiscal policy. As the greenback is likely to display further downside, the short-term outlook for USD/CAD is negative. This is corroborated by the negatively trending MACD line. However, Governor Poloz is likely to maintain a dovish tilt relative to the Fed, signifying longer-term CAD weakness. Report Links: AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Following the surge in the Euro, EUR/CHF has moved back to 1.07. This has eased some pressure off the SNB, which was active in the foreign exchange market to preserve the floor in this cross. The early returns of this policy seem positive, as data is showing a gradual recovery in Switzerland: The SNB's trimmed mean core inflation measure (TM15) is now in positive territory and continues to rise. Swiss PMI has surged so far this year, and now stands at the highest level since 2011. So far these improvements are not enough to prompt a change in policy by the SNB, as inflation needs to be sustained at a higher level and corroborated by wages. Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor economic developments in Switzerland to assess whether the SNB could remove its floor under EUR/CHF. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has been relatively flat this week, as the sharp decline in oil has been offset by a downturn in the U.S. dollar. The outlook for the krone remains poor though, as the economy is weak, and inflation is falling quickly. Recent data illustrates this: After a gradual slowdown, non-financial business credit is now heading into outright contraction. Employment is contracting at a 1% rate, while wages are contracting at a 4% pace. Core inflation has plunged to 1.5% from its peak of 4% around 6 months ago. This poor economic outlook leads us to believe that the dovish bias of the Norges Bank will stay entrenched for the time being, putting downward pressure on the krone. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Inflationary pressures continue to emerge in Sweden. We believe these pressures are likely to pick up further. USD/SEK has broken down below a key trend line that has underpinned its rally since May 2016, suggesting that as the euro continues to rebound, the SEK will also outperform the USD. However, it remains to be seen if the SEK can outperform the euro: while the SEK tends to be more sensitive to the dollar's weakness than the euro, the Riksbank is likely to want to make sure that the early signs of inflation in Sweden do indeed generate a durable way out of any deflationary tendencies in this economy. This means that the Swedish central bank is likely to try to weigh on any strength in the SEK, especially against the euro. However, as inflation is indeed coming back, the Riksbank will likely be forced to abandon its super-dovish stance later this year. The SEK will ultimately rally further against the euro on a 12-18 months basis. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

The aim of this Special Report is to elaborate on and explain the different views on China that have coexisted at BCA in recent years. Although BCA strives to achieve consensus among its strategists, this is not always possible, as has been the case with China. Peter Berezin of the Global Investment Strategy service and Yan Wang of China Investment Strategy have been positive, while Arthur Budaghyan of Emerging Markets Strategy has been negative on both China's business cycle and China-related plays. The focal points of divergence are centered on how Peter, Yan, and Arthur view and explain the relationship between savings, debt, and the misallocation of capital, as well as how they see China's potential roadmap going forward. The debate is moderated by BCA Global Strategist Caroline Miller. Caroline: Peter and Yan, the world - including the Chinese government - is climbing a wall of worry about China's debt load. Why are you guys still smiling? How many Maotai did you have last night? Peter: I don't know what a Maotai is, but I am sure that if I had more than one I wouldn't be smiling this morning. But yes, I am not as worried as Arthur that China is in the midst of an unsustainable credit bubble. Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors in the global equity market (Chart 1). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 2). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 3). Chart 1Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 2Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 3Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy Yes, there is a lot of debt in China. But there is a lot of savings too. In fact, to a large extent, China's high debt levels are just a function of its high saving rate. The evidence suggests that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies (Chart 4). China sits close to the trend line, implying that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 4Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Arthur: Allow me to both agree and disagree with Peter. No, there is no bubble in Chinese equities, but yes, there is a bubble and euphoria in China's property market. Property prices have risen exponentially and are extremely high by any metric. Chinese bank equity valuations have already adjusted, but bank stocks could still sell off if their profits shrink considerably, as I expect. Bank shares are not expensive, but not cheap either, if one adjusts for non-performing loans. I concur that China's property market adjustment will likely resemble that of Hong Kong as opposed to that of the U.S. As Peter noted, in Hong Kong in the late 1990s, property prices plunged by 70%, but few homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. Yet property starts/construction also collapsed by 80% (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong's Property: ##br##Few Mortgage Defaults ##br##But Collapse In Construction Presently in China, the risk is not mortgage defaults but a renewed drop in property construction as well as other types of capital spending. Less construction/capital spending entails less demand for commodities, materials/chemicals and industrial goods. China's residential and non-residential construction activity will contract anew as speculative/investment demand for property weakens. Yan: I agree with Peter that China's rising debt is fundamentally a function of the country's abundant savings. Moreover, the fact that the country's massive savings pool is primarily intermediated via the banking sector and other debt instruments exacerbates the debt buildup. If a country's savings are primarily intermediated by the stock market through equity financing, then high savings do not necessarily lead to high debt, as "savers" become "shareholders" rather than "creditors." In China's case, the country's still relatively undeveloped and volatile equity market has not yet been able to play a meaningful role in financial intermediation. Instead, banks still play a dominant role channeling financial resources. In other words, China's high savings and a banking-centric financial intermediation system are key drivers of the ever-rising debt level. In fact, as long as these two features persist, the country's debt will inevitably continue to rise, as it simply reflects the accumulated savings. Caroline: Arthur, does this line up with how you think about the relationship between savings and debt? Arthur: My thesis has been that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, euphoric behavior among Chinese banks and the shadow banking system - and not the natural result of the country's "excess savings," as Peter and Yan have argued. What economists call "savings" or "excess savings," non-economists refer to as "overproduction" or "excess capacity." This is about concepts, not about China. In economic science, the term "savings" is used to denote the number of goods and services that a nation has produced but not consumed - i.e., they can be used for investment or exports. Peter and Yan are using this textbook definition of "savings." Hence, by "savings" or "excess savings" they mean "excess production." Logically, the glut of goods and services does not flow to banks and create deposits. In brief, "savings" or "excess savings" are real economic variables and have nothing to do with bank deposits - i.e., "monetary savings." Peter, Yan and many other commentators make this mistake by mixing up national savings - which is literally output of goods and services that were not consumed by households and government - with "monetary savings," i.e., deposits in the banking system. I have no doubt China has had a high savings rate, i.e., it has had overcapacity and over-production in a number of sectors. The textbook concept of national savings is calculated as a residual from the national accounts and balance of payments. In particular: Savings - Investments = Current Account Balance and Savings = Investments + Current Account Balance A few remarks on the economic interpretation of this equation are in order. First, in any country, "excess" national savings over investment, i.e., current account surpluses, lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but has no implication on domestic loan creation.1 Second, a country that invests a lot and does not run a large current account deficit will have a high savings rate as per the economic textbook's definition of national savings. The opposite also holds true. Critically, national or household savings are in no way linked to the amount of deposits at banks. When households decide to save a part of their income, they do not create new deposits or "monetary savings." They save deposits that already exist in the banking system. To sum up, the amount of deposits in the banking system does not change as a result of households' decision to save a part of their income. When a person gets paid in cash and deposits that cash in a bank as a savings deposit, there is no new money created either. That cash was a deposit and was withdrawn from a bank a few days before, and now this cash returns to the banking system as a deposit again. In this case, the amount of total outstanding money supply in the economy (cash plus deposits) has not changed. In general, when a bank receives a deposit, it does not create new money, or "monetary savings." The deposit simply moves from one bank to another or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. When a country enjoys a lot of overcapacity, strong bank loans or money growth will not cause inflation and interest rates will stay low, encouraging more borrowing. This is why in Peter's Chart 4 there is a positive correlation between the national savings rate and debt-to-GDP ratio across countries. Overcapacity entails low inflation; the latter keeps nominal interest rates low, which in turn entices more borrowing and debt build-up. In brief, the linkage between national savings/excess capacity and the credit-to-GDP ratio is indirect via subdued inflation and low interest rates that encourage debt build-up. Caroline: Arthur, you have made the case that savings are not a constraint to loan origination. Can you elaborate? Arthur: The banking system does not intermediate "savings" or "excess savings" from the real economy into loans. The commercial banking system as a whole creates deposits at the time it originates loans. This is true of all countries. Indeed, whenever commercial banks make a loan, they simultaneously create a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart 6). In other words, bank loan origination creates deposits and money.2 Chart 6Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits China's banking system has a lot of deposits because banks have created too many loans. In addition, a bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it originates. It still requires some liquidity to settle its net balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it may not require liquidity to "back up" the loan. There are many variables that constrain bank loan origination, but they do not include national savings or "excess savings." We discussed these constraints in detail in our EMS report titled Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses.3 Finally, when central banks opt to keep short-term interest rates steady, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. This point is greatly relevant to China. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money) (Chart 7). As a result, nowadays the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks. Chart 7The PBoC Has Begun Targeting Rates In Recent Years It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. The PBoC decides whether or not to accommodate banks' liquidity needs by allowing interest rates to rise or fall, or by keeping them steady.4 To conclude, what habitually drives credit booms in any country are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers - not national savings. This has been the case in China too. Caroline: Peter, do you agree with Arthur's assessment? Peter: I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds of monetary theory, but let me briefly address two distinct points that I think Arthur is making. The first is the claim that the ability of banks to create money "out of thin air" is somehow not constrained by the volume of bank reserves and cash in circulation (the so - called "monetary base"). The second is the claim that there is no meaningful link between savings and deposits. I think Arthur is wrong on both counts. On the first claim, it is true that when a bank issues a loan, it also creates a deposit. To the extent that bank deposits are treated as "money," this expands the money supply. This is simply the "money multiplier" taught in introductory economics classes. Where Arthur's logic falls short is in his implicit assumption that all lending translates into additional bank deposits. It doesn't have to. Some of the deposits will be withdrawn and kept as cash. Governments have complete control over how much cash there is in circulation by virtue of their monopoly over the printing press. As long as cash exists, central banks can influence the broad money supply via open market operations. By the way, this is true even in banking systems where there are no reserve requirements. Regarding Arthur's claim that lending can occur without savings, this is often true when someone is borrowing money to buy an asset. However, it is generally not true if they are borrowing money to finance new spending. Let me offer a concrete, albeit somewhat whimsical, example to illustrate this point. Suppose I am living in a closed economy where no one saves anything. Now, let's imagine that I decide to throw a party for myself and need to borrow $1000 to do this. Who is going to provide me with the resources? Well, we just said that no one wants to save, so "something" has to adjust for me to have my party. That "something" is the interest rate. In order to entice someone to spend a bit less, the bank (on my behalf) will offer depositors a higher interest rate. If rates rise by enough, someone will decide to forego a bit of consumption today in order to have more consumption tomorrow. In other words, my decision to borrow must result in someone else's decision to save. So do savings create debt or does debt create savings? The answer is both: interest rates adjust to ensure that the two end up being different sides of the same coin. Caroline: Yan, what's your perspective on China's high debt profile? What could you be missing? Yan: As you can see Arthur and I view China's debt profile through different theoretical lenses. I don't think we can fully reconcile our different frameworks on the matter, but we hope our debate can deepen clients' own understanding of this issue, so they can make up their own minds. What I do want to stress is that those analysts who fear that China's corporate debt problem constitutes an alarming systemic financial risk focus exclusively on the rapid increase in the country's debt-to-GDP ratio. While undoubtedly there is merit to this ratio, I think it is also important to validate this judgement by looking at other indicators. In our previous research, we looked beyond this widely cited conventional indicator for corroborating evidence of a "debt bubble." Our findings suggest that the level of Chinese corporate sector leverage is not as precarious as widely perceived. For example, in the Chinese corporate sector, the area of China's economy where investors worry most about leverage, the debt-to-asset ratio of China's industrial sector has been falling since the late 1990s, down to 56% from 62%, contrary to popular belief (Chart 8). State-owned enterprises have witnessed an increase in their debt-to-asset ratio since the global financial crisis, but it has barely reached late 1990s levels, and has actually rolled over in recent years. Meanwhile, SOEs are a shrinking part of the overall economy and therefore, when looked at in conjunction with the private sector, have not moved the needle on the broader trend of corporate balance sheet "deleveraging." This stands in stark contrast to Japan's corporate sector at the peak of its debt bubble. In the early 1990s, Japan's corporate sector debt-to-asset ratio topped out at 78% when the country's "balance sheet recession" began (Chart 9). Even after two decades of deleveraging, Japan's current corporate debt-to-asset ratio is comparable to China's. To validate this conclusion, we also calculated several other key ratios to compare the leverage situation of Chinese listed companies relative to their global peers. Ratios such as liability-to-assets, net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage assess both leverage levels and debt servicing capacity. As Chart 10 shows, our extensive survey, both from the top down and the bottom up, suggests that China's leverage situation is comparable if not superior to its global peers. Chart 8The Leverage Picture From A Balance Sheet Perspective Chart 9Japan's Debt Bubble And Deleveraging Chart 10Leverage Ratios: How China Compares Therefore, I think we should be skeptical about the widely held view that China's corporate sector leverage is precariously high. It is at a minimum inaccurate, if not misleading, to rely solely on the debt-to-GDP ratio to reach such an ominous conclusion. Caroline: Arthur, I take it you don't agree? Arthur: Since January 2009, China's corporate and household debt has risen by RMB 130 trillion (about US$ 19 trillion) or by 100% of GDP (Chart 11). I do not believe even the most sophisticated financial/credit systems can allocate such amounts of credit in such a short time and not misallocate capital. By capital misallocation, I am implying investments in projects that do not generate sufficient cash flow to service debt. The accounting value (valuation) of assets is irrelevant in these cases; the cash flow generation is critical. The debt-to-GDP ratio is a much more superior measure to debt-to-asset-ratio. The basis is that the GDP is a proxy for cash flow, while accounting value of assets could be extremely inflated during a credit bubble. To be sure, I am not suggesting that all investments in China have gone sour. Nobody knows the extent of capital misallocation in China. But I suspect it is large enough to make a difference for the macro outlook/business cycle. Caroline: Peter, you have made the comparison between China today and Japan in the 1990s. Could you expand on that? Peter: Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 12). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government ended up having to absorb the private sector's excess savings through its own dissaving. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 13). Chart 11China: The Credit Boom Chart 12Japan Relied On Fiscal Largesse And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 13China: Debt Increased When ##br##The Current Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (please see Chart 8). In effect, China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere": They are a necessary evil. Caroline: Arthur, your thoughts? Arthur: What Peter and Yan in effect propose is that Chinese banks should continue creating credit/money "out of thin air" in order to create demand for these "excess" goods, i.e., overcapacity sectors. In a nutshell, a number of Chinese companies made bad decisions by over expanding capacity, and now banks have to continue lending/creating demand to justify these bad investments. As a result, persisting explosive credit growth has allowed these unviable or zombie enterprises to survive, and they are not compelled to restructure. This is not how capitalism and markets work. This is de facto socialism. Socialism usually does not lead to prosperity. One of the key reasons behind the failure of socialist economic models is that productivity growth in socialist systems is very low, often close to zero. The basis is that productivity growth is generated not by government officials but by the private sector and entrepreneurs. China's economic success over the past 35 years or so has been due to allowing private enterprises to function and flourish - not because government officials necessarily made correct business and investment decisions. I am for countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. However, the credit boom in China has gone well beyond the countercyclical policy framework. The concept of countercyclical policies does not suggest that the government or public banks should continue to spend in perpetuity to support fundamentally unviable businesses that invested too much and created excess capacity. Besides, "countercyclical" means for a couple of years. China has been expanding bank/credit/money for about nine years - since January 2009. Peter and Yan argue that they should keep doing it further. If the authorities do what Peter and Yan propose, investors should be structurally - not cyclically - bearish on Chinese stocks. Chart 14There Has Been No Shortage ##br##Of Demand Since 2010 The basis is that a socialist growth model is not friendly for shareholders. Shareholders often lose money when companies operate for maximizing employment rather than profits. This is why Chinese SOEs and bank stocks trade at low multiples - because they destroy capital and value for their shareholders. Notably, "overproduction" and "excess capacity" could be an outcome of either a demand downturn or oversupply/overproduction. Keynes recommended countercyclical policies to fill the gaps when demand shrinks. Chart 15Fiscal Outlays & Credit Origination ##br##Are Close To 50% Of GDP In China's case, there has been no domestic demand downturn to warrant multi-year countercyclical policies. China did the right thing in early 2009 to offset its export plunge amid the Global Financial Crisis, and it helped the global economy recover. However, since 2010 global demand and mainland exports have been stable (Chart 14), making the extended and ongoing credit boom in China unwarranted and excessive. As to the argument that most credit should be counted as a form of fiscal spending, I do not think Chinese policymakers themselves would agree with this statement. In fact, if this is correct, it would mean that government officials are allocating about 50% of GDP each year. Chart 15 illustrates general (central plus local) government spending and annual credit origination as a share of GDP. How fast would productivity grow in an economy where government bureaucrats allocate 50% of GDP annually? It is true that China's central government has a low debt load so it can afford to take over a large chunk of corporate debt. If and when they do so, I will change my view. So far, they have not done this, and will likely only contemplate such a policy move when things get really messy. Investors do not want to be long China plays going into such a scenario. That said, a tactical buying opportunity could emerge when the government takes over a large chuck of corporate debt. Caroline: Yan, how worried should we be about the misallocation of capital in China? Yan: Every economy experiences some level of capital misallocation. The real question is whether China's level of capital misallocation is more serious than that of its global peers. Theoretically, if a country has a bigger capital misallocation problem than others, the economy should have systemically lower capacity utilization, weaker pricing power, and lower profitability. These metrics are easily cross-referenced: Chart 16 contextualizes China's industrial sector capacity utilization ratio relative to global peers. By and large, most countries' capacity utilization ratios hover around 80%, not much different from China's, especially since the 2000s. In fact, barring some obvious outliers, capacity utilization ratios across countries have been largely synchronized, reflecting the ebb and flow of the global business cycle. Chart 16Capacity Utilization: A Global Perspective Industrial sector output prices have shown similar swings (Chart 17). Almost all countries suffered producer price deflation in recent years, and are now experiencing a synchronized upturn in wholesale pricing power. China's falling PPI was widely regarded as a tell-tale sign of misallocation of capital. Conversely, this was in fact more a reflection of stagnating global aggregate demand and weak resource prices worldwide than structurally weak pricing power among Chinese manufacturers. Chart 17Producer Prices: A Global Perspective Similarly, Chinese listed companies' deteriorating Return on Equity (ROE) was again singled out as a sign of capital misallocation. This view is easily debunked by Chart 18, as ROEs have fallen in all major markets. In fact, Chinese companies' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global averages. Even some Chinese sectors that have been derided as being plagued by massive overcapacity and inefficiency such as materials and energy exhibit ROEs almost identical to their global peers. The important point is that we should put China in a global context, rather than analyzing it in isolation. Some Chinese firms' efficiency and profitability have weakened notably over the past several years, but to me, this is more of a reflection of the sluggish global macro backdrop, rather than an indictment of China's discrete growth model. Caroline: Turning to the investment implications, Yan, how does the debt bubble concern impact your view on Chinese equities? Yan: Global investors' widespread concerns over Chinese debt levels and other macro issues have contaminated Chinese stocks with a broad-brushed bearish undertone. Chinese equities have been unduly punished, underweighted and under-owned for many years. As shown in Chart 19, Chinese investable stocks' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global benchmark, and have followed similar cyclical fluctuations. However, their stock prices are trading at massive discounts to the global benchmarks, based on conventional yardsticks (Chart 19). This in my view represents the "China risk premium," which is unjustified and unsustainable. I expect the misperception will eventually unwind, and Chinese shares will be re-rated. This is the fundamental factor supporting my positive view on Chinese equities. Strategically it makes sense to overweight Chinese stocks against their global peers. Chart 18Chinese ROEs Are Not Inferior To Global Peers Chart 19Chinese Equities' Large Valuation Gap Caroline: Arthur, how does your view impact your outlook for investment prospects in China and the rest of the emerging markets space? Arthur: There has not been any adjustment in China's corporate leverage. Deleveraging in China has not yet started. On the contrary, the credit bubble is getting larger. I mean the credit-to-GDP ratio continues rising exponentially and credit and bank loan growth remain in double digits (Chart 20). It is very risky to be bullish on financial assets linked to a bubble when the adjustment has not yet begun. It is like running in front of a steamroller trying to collect pennies. Besides, when there is a major imbalance in the system like the credit bubble happening in China now, I tend to overplay the importance of marginal policy tightening and underplay the significance of easing. Recent marginal policy tightening in China - in particular the clampdown on shadow banking, including banks' off-balance-sheet asset expansion - will cause credit growth to decelerate. This is a major risk to Chinese and EM growth in the second half of this year (Chart 21). Chart 20China: Money/Credit Is Still Booming Chart 21Is China's Recovery At Risk? Even if China does not have a full-blown crisis, we are likely to experience another down leg in China plays, commodities and EM risk assets similar to the second half of 2015, when Chinese import volumes contracted and global markets tanked. A few words about the potential adjustment trajectory are in order. I have been negative on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets since 2010, but I have never used the word "crisis." China may or may not have a crisis, but investors holding risk assets exposed to China's growth will suffer considerable losses again similar to the 2011-16 period. It is essential to differentiate cyclical from structural growth drivers. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, China will move toward a socialist model and structural growth will tumble. That said, the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart 22. Chart 22Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation And Inflation If we assume China's productivity is currently growing at a rate of about 5.5-6% (which is already very high and hard to sustain), and if the country embarks on a socialist path, odds are that productivity growth will drop by 50-100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1-3%. This path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably one of these mini-cycles. How can investors invest in this scenario? The stylized mini-cycles depicted in Chart 22 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. In short, investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Caroline: Peter, is it all that bad? Peter: I think Arthur is too pessimistic. Investors have been predicting a Japanese debt crisis for years. It hasn't materialized and probably won't. They are making the same mistake about China. If China averts a debt crisis, as I think is likely, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions in local-currency terms. For global bonds, the implications are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Caroline: Yan, do domestic politics play into your outlook for the RMB versus the dollar and on a trade-weighted basis? What is your outlook for monetary policy given recent signs of improving economic momentum? Yan: How President Donald Trump will deal with China on the RMB issue is a wildcard. Recent rhetoric suggests that the new U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal protocol to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from Candidate Trump's repeated campaign trail promises. If the U.S. Treasury follows the formal process laid out in the statute, it is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator in the next semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the criteria for that label at the moment. The odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB have ebbed. From China's domestic perspective, how the People's Bank of China intends to manage the exchange rate is also a thorny issue. From a long term point of view, the PBoC clearly wants to achieve a free-floating exchange rate, but the recent downward pressure on the RMB due to elevated capital outflows has forced the PBoC to heavily intervene to prevent a vicious, disorderly cycle, in which currency depreciation and capital flight reinforce each other. In terms of monetary policy, China's improving economic momentum has allowed the PBoC to follow the Fed in raising short-term interest rates. However, tighter capital account control measures will remain in place until the downward pressure on the RMB from capital outflow dissipates. Moreover, investors have been overwhelmingly focused on the negative economic effects of a weaker RMB, somehow ignoring the reality that as the world's largest manufacturer and exporter, China also stands to benefit from a weaker currency. In my view, the depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB since 2015 has played a critical role in reflating the Chinese economy (Chart 23). A weaker RMB has helped producer prices to reflate, and lowered the real cost of funding for manufacturers, which in turn has eased China's monetary conditions and supported cyclical growth improvement. In this vein, the downside of the RMB should be self-limiting, as the reflationary impact of a weaker exchange rate will help boost Chinese growth, which in turn will reduce downward pressure on the currency. Caroline: Peter and Arthur, is rampant capital flight still a risk? Where do you see the RMB heading over the coming 12-18 months? Peter: I think the RMB will weaken somewhat over the coming year, but that is more a reflection of my bullish view on the dollar than a bearish view on the yuan. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has just been an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding four years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese corporate external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 24). At this point, most of the hot money has exited the country and hence, I expect the pace of capital outflows to subside. Chart 23A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery Chart 24The Rise And Fall Of Corporate Foreign Credit Nevertheless, the chronic shortfall of domestic demand that I described earlier will keep pressure on the Chinese government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. This requires a weak currency. Thus, while I don't expect the yuan to plummet, I don't expect it to soar either. Arthur: I believe the RMB is set to depreciate by 10% or more against the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months or so. The Chinese yuan is not expensive, but it will stay under downward pressure because the mainland banking system has created too many yuan. When the supply of money goes vertical, its price drops. It seems the Chinese people are sensing there is too much RMB floating around, and they are trying to get rid of local currency. They have been overpaying for properties and have been shifting their wealth into foreign currencies. Finally, in China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart 25, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate turned negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart 25, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Chart 25Real Deposit Rate Is Negative In brief, I expect capital outflows to persist and policymakers to allow the currency to depreciate further. Caroline: Peter/Yan/Arthur: Final thoughts: What are each of you watching for signs that China's macro landscape is evolving as you expect? Conversely, what would signal that your assessment has missed the mark? Peter: I am watching for signs of a policy mistake. Until China can reorient its economy towards one that is more consumer-centric, it will have to rely on high levels of investment to sustain aggregate demand. Any attempt to aggressively curb debt growth will only backfire. Arthur talks about resource misallocation from subpar investment projects, but there is no worse resource misallocation than a person who wants a job but can't find one. I am also watching trade policy. I don't think a trade war between China and the U.S. is in the cards for the time being, but if the U.S. economy turns down in 2019, as I expect, Trump will be backed into a corner. And with another election looming, he will strike out at China. That could trigger a global trade war. Yan: I agree with Peter that we should watch for policy mistakes and some sort of "Trump shock," both of which constitute downside risks. A less talked-about risk is potential growth overheating, which could require much tighter policy, leading to greater economic volatility. In fact, some cyclical indicators that are tightly linked to industrial activity have rebounded sharply, which is also reflected in the rebound in some raw materials prices. If exports get a further boost from continued improvement in the U.S. economy, the possibility of China's economy overheating cannot be completely dismissed. Another potential trouble spot is the housing market. The Chinese authorities have begun to tighten housing policy, but developers appear to be gearing up for another construction cycle. Sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators have soared. Historically, construction machine sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 26). If history is any guide, the renewed strength in construction equipment sales could be a harbinger of an impending boom in new home construction. This is good news for business activity and GDP growth, but probably antithetical to policymakers' broad agenda. We will follow up on these issues closely in our future reports. Arthur: The key variables to watch are various interest rates, credit/loan growth and inflation - in addition to keeping an eye on lending standards and credit demand. Recent increases in borrowing costs amid the enormous credit overhang give me confidence to argue that China's credit origination and economic growth are bound to decelerate later this year. A billion-dollar question is whether the recent rise in China's consumer inflation is transitory or the beginning of a notable uptrend (Chart 27). If consumer price inflation rises to 3% and higher, the game will be over - interest rates will need to go up and credit growth will tumble. If interest rates do not rise amid intensifying inflationary pressures, capital outflows will escalate and the currency will depreciate a lot. Chart 26An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 27China: Inflation Is Picking Up I will be wrong if policymakers manage to slow down credit growth from 11-12% toward 7-8% or so without generating notable economic weakness. This can occur only if productivity growth in China accelerates meaningfully. It is difficult to observe productivity growth in real time - it is a black box. 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?" dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

The aim of this Special Report is to elaborate on and explain the different views on China that have coexisted at BCA in recent years. Although BCA strives to achieve consensus among its strategists, this is not always possible, as has been the case with China. Peter Berezin of the Global Investment Strategy service and Yan Wang of China Investment Strategy have been positive, while Arthur Budaghyan of Emerging Markets Strategy has been negative on both China's business cycle and China-related plays. The focal points of divergence are centered on how Peter, Yan, and Arthur view and explain the relationship between savings, debt, and the misallocation of capital, as well as how they see China's potential roadmap going forward. The debate is moderated by BCA Global Strategist Caroline Miller. Caroline: Peter and Yan, the world - including the Chinese government - is climbing a wall of worry about China's debt load. Why are you guys still smiling? How many Maotai did you have last night? Peter: I don't know what a Maotai is, but I am sure that if I had more than one I wouldn't be smiling this morning. But yes, I am not as worried as Arthur that China is in the midst of an unsustainable credit bubble. Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors in the global equity market (Chart 1). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 2). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 3). Chart 1Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 2Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 3Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy Yes, there is a lot of debt in China. But there is a lot of savings too. In fact, to a large extent, China's high debt levels are just a function of its high saving rate. The evidence suggests that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies (Chart 4). China sits close to the trend line, implying that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 4Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Arthur: Allow me to both agree and disagree with Peter. No, there is no bubble in Chinese equities, but yes, there is a bubble and euphoria in China's property market. Property prices have risen exponentially and are extremely high by any metric. Chinese bank equity valuations have already adjusted, but bank stocks could still sell off if their profits shrink considerably, as I expect. Bank shares are not expensive, but not cheap either, if one adjusts for non-performing loans. I concur that China's property market adjustment will likely resemble that of Hong Kong as opposed to that of the U.S. As Peter noted, in Hong Kong in the late 1990s, property prices plunged by 70%, but few homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. Yet property starts/construction also collapsed by 80% (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong's Property: ##br##Few Mortgage Defaults ##br##But Collapse In Construction Presently in China, the risk is not mortgage defaults but a renewed drop in property construction as well as other types of capital spending. Less construction/capital spending entails less demand for commodities, materials/chemicals and industrial goods. China's residential and non-residential construction activity will contract anew as speculative/investment demand for property weakens. Yan: I agree with Peter that China's rising debt is fundamentally a function of the country's abundant savings. Moreover, the fact that the country's massive savings pool is primarily intermediated via the banking sector and other debt instruments exacerbates the debt buildup. If a country's savings are primarily intermediated by the stock market through equity financing, then high savings do not necessarily lead to high debt, as "savers" become "shareholders" rather than "creditors." In China's case, the country's still relatively undeveloped and volatile equity market has not yet been able to play a meaningful role in financial intermediation. Instead, banks still play a dominant role channeling financial resources. In other words, China's high savings and a banking-centric financial intermediation system are key drivers of the ever-rising debt level. In fact, as long as these two features persist, the country's debt will inevitably continue to rise, as it simply reflects the accumulated savings. Caroline: Arthur, does this line up with how you think about the relationship between savings and debt? Arthur: My thesis has been that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, euphoric behavior among Chinese banks and the shadow banking system - and not the natural result of the country's "excess savings," as Peter and Yan have argued. What economists call "savings" or "excess savings," non-economists refer to as "overproduction" or "excess capacity." This is about concepts, not about China. In economic science, the term "savings" is used to denote the number of goods and services that a nation has produced but not consumed - i.e., they can be used for investment or exports. Peter and Yan are using this textbook definition of "savings." Hence, by "savings" or "excess savings" they mean "excess production." Logically, the glut of goods and services does not flow to banks and create deposits. In brief, "savings" or "excess savings" are real economic variables and have nothing to do with bank deposits - i.e., "monetary savings." Peter, Yan and many other commentators make this mistake by mixing up national savings - which is literally output of goods and services that were not consumed by households and government - with "monetary savings," i.e., deposits in the banking system. I have no doubt China has had a high savings rate, i.e., it has had overcapacity and over-production in a number of sectors. The textbook concept of national savings is calculated as a residual from the national accounts and balance of payments. In particular: Savings - Investments = Current Account Balance and Savings = Investments + Current Account Balance A few remarks on the economic interpretation of this equation are in order. First, in any country, "excess" national savings over investment, i.e., current account surpluses, lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but has no implication on domestic loan creation.1 Second, a country that invests a lot and does not run a large current account deficit will have a high savings rate as per the economic textbook's definition of national savings. The opposite also holds true. Critically, national or household savings are in no way linked to the amount of deposits at banks. When households decide to save a part of their income, they do not create new deposits or "monetary savings." They save deposits that already exist in the banking system. To sum up, the amount of deposits in the banking system does not change as a result of households' decision to save a part of their income. When a person gets paid in cash and deposits that cash in a bank as a savings deposit, there is no new money created either. That cash was a deposit and was withdrawn from a bank a few days before, and now this cash returns to the banking system as a deposit again. In this case, the amount of total outstanding money supply in the economy (cash plus deposits) has not changed. In general, when a bank receives a deposit, it does not create new money, or "monetary savings." The deposit simply moves from one bank to another or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. When a country enjoys a lot of overcapacity, strong bank loans or money growth will not cause inflation and interest rates will stay low, encouraging more borrowing. This is why in Peter's Chart 4 there is a positive correlation between the national savings rate and debt-to-GDP ratio across countries. Overcapacity entails low inflation; the latter keeps nominal interest rates low, which in turn entices more borrowing and debt build-up. In brief, the linkage between national savings/excess capacity and the credit-to-GDP ratio is indirect via subdued inflation and low interest rates that encourage debt build-up. Caroline: Arthur, you have made the case that savings are not a constraint to loan origination. Can you elaborate? Arthur: The banking system does not intermediate "savings" or "excess savings" from the real economy into loans. The commercial banking system as a whole creates deposits at the time it originates loans. This is true of all countries. Indeed, whenever commercial banks make a loan, they simultaneously create a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart 6). In other words, bank loan origination creates deposits and money.2 Chart 6Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits China's banking system has a lot of deposits because banks have created too many loans. In addition, a bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it originates. It still requires some liquidity to settle its net balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it may not require liquidity to "back up" the loan. There are many variables that constrain bank loan origination, but they do not include national savings or "excess savings." We discussed these constraints in detail in our EMS report titled Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses.3 Finally, when central banks opt to keep short-term interest rates steady, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. This point is greatly relevant to China. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money) (Chart 7). As a result, nowadays the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks. Chart 7The PBoC Has Begun Targeting Rates In Recent Years It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. The PBoC decides whether or not to accommodate banks' liquidity needs by allowing interest rates to rise or fall, or by keeping them steady.4 To conclude, what habitually drives credit booms in any country are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers - not national savings. This has been the case in China too. Caroline: Peter, do you agree with Arthur's assessment? Peter: I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds of monetary theory, but let me briefly address two distinct points that I think Arthur is making. The first is the claim that the ability of banks to create money "out of thin air" is somehow not constrained by the volume of bank reserves and cash in circulation (the so - called "monetary base"). The second is the claim that there is no meaningful link between savings and deposits. I think Arthur is wrong on both counts. On the first claim, it is true that when a bank issues a loan, it also creates a deposit. To the extent that bank deposits are treated as "money," this expands the money supply. This is simply the "money multiplier" taught in introductory economics classes. Where Arthur's logic falls short is in his implicit assumption that all lending translates into additional bank deposits. It doesn't have to. Some of the deposits will be withdrawn and kept as cash. Governments have complete control over how much cash there is in circulation by virtue of their monopoly over the printing press. As long as cash exists, central banks can influence the broad money supply via open market operations. By the way, this is true even in banking systems where there are no reserve requirements. Regarding Arthur's claim that lending can occur without savings, this is often true when someone is borrowing money to buy an asset. However, it is generally not true if they are borrowing money to finance new spending. Let me offer a concrete, albeit somewhat whimsical, example to illustrate this point. Suppose I am living in a closed economy where no one saves anything. Now, let's imagine that I decide to throw a party for myself and need to borrow $1000 to do this. Who is going to provide me with the resources? Well, we just said that no one wants to save, so "something" has to adjust for me to have my party. That "something" is the interest rate. In order to entice someone to spend a bit less, the bank (on my behalf) will offer depositors a higher interest rate. If rates rise by enough, someone will decide to forego a bit of consumption today in order to have more consumption tomorrow. In other words, my decision to borrow must result in someone else's decision to save. So do savings create debt or does debt create savings? The answer is both: interest rates adjust to ensure that the two end up being different sides of the same coin. Caroline: Yan, what's your perspective on China's high debt profile? What could you be missing? Yan: As you can see Arthur and I view China's debt profile through different theoretical lenses. I don't think we can fully reconcile our different frameworks on the matter, but we hope our debate can deepen clients' own understanding of this issue, so they can make up their own minds. What I do want to stress is that those analysts who fear that China's corporate debt problem constitutes an alarming systemic financial risk focus exclusively on the rapid increase in the country's debt-to-GDP ratio. While undoubtedly there is merit to this ratio, I think it is also important to validate this judgement by looking at other indicators. In our previous research, we looked beyond this widely cited conventional indicator for corroborating evidence of a "debt bubble." Our findings suggest that the level of Chinese corporate sector leverage is not as precarious as widely perceived. For example, in the Chinese corporate sector, the area of China's economy where investors worry most about leverage, the debt-to-asset ratio of China's industrial sector has been falling since the late 1990s, down to 56% from 62%, contrary to popular belief (Chart 8). State-owned enterprises have witnessed an increase in their debt-to-asset ratio since the global financial crisis, but it has barely reached late 1990s levels, and has actually rolled over in recent years. Meanwhile, SOEs are a shrinking part of the overall economy and therefore, when looked at in conjunction with the private sector, have not moved the needle on the broader trend of corporate balance sheet "deleveraging." This stands in stark contrast to Japan's corporate sector at the peak of its debt bubble. In the early 1990s, Japan's corporate sector debt-to-asset ratio topped out at 78% when the country's "balance sheet recession" began (Chart 9). Even after two decades of deleveraging, Japan's current corporate debt-to-asset ratio is comparable to China's. To validate this conclusion, we also calculated several other key ratios to compare the leverage situation of Chinese listed companies relative to their global peers. Ratios such as liability-to-assets, net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage assess both leverage levels and debt servicing capacity. As Chart 10 shows, our extensive survey, both from the top down and the bottom up, suggests that China's leverage situation is comparable if not superior to its global peers. Chart 8The Leverage Picture From A Balance Sheet Perspective Chart 9Japan's Debt Bubble And Deleveraging Chart 10Leverage Ratios: How China Compares Therefore, I think we should be skeptical about the widely held view that China's corporate sector leverage is precariously high. It is at a minimum inaccurate, if not misleading, to rely solely on the debt-to-GDP ratio to reach such an ominous conclusion. Caroline: Arthur, I take it you don't agree? Arthur: Since January 2009, China's corporate and household debt has risen by RMB 130 trillion (about US$ 19 trillion) or by 100% of GDP (Chart 11). I do not believe even the most sophisticated financial/credit systems can allocate such amounts of credit in such a short time and not misallocate capital. By capital misallocation, I am implying investments in projects that do not generate sufficient cash flow to service debt. The accounting value (valuation) of assets is irrelevant in these cases; the cash flow generation is critical. The debt-to-GDP ratio is a much more superior measure to debt-to-asset-ratio. The basis is that the GDP is a proxy for cash flow, while accounting value of assets could be extremely inflated during a credit bubble. To be sure, I am not suggesting that all investments in China have gone sour. Nobody knows the extent of capital misallocation in China. But I suspect it is large enough to make a difference for the macro outlook/business cycle. Caroline: Peter, you have made the comparison between China today and Japan in the 1990s. Could you expand on that? Peter: Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 12). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government ended up having to absorb the private sector's excess savings through its own dissaving. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 13). Chart 11China: The Credit Boom Chart 12Japan Relied On Fiscal Largesse And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 13China: Debt Increased When ##br##The Current Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (please see Chart 8). In effect, China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere": They are a necessary evil. Caroline: Arthur, your thoughts? Arthur: What Peter and Yan in effect propose is that Chinese banks should continue creating credit/money "out of thin air" in order to create demand for these "excess" goods, i.e., overcapacity sectors. In a nutshell, a number of Chinese companies made bad decisions by over expanding capacity, and now banks have to continue lending/creating demand to justify these bad investments. As a result, persisting explosive credit growth has allowed these unviable or zombie enterprises to survive, and they are not compelled to restructure. This is not how capitalism and markets work. This is de facto socialism. Socialism usually does not lead to prosperity. One of the key reasons behind the failure of socialist economic models is that productivity growth in socialist systems is very low, often close to zero. The basis is that productivity growth is generated not by government officials but by the private sector and entrepreneurs. China's economic success over the past 35 years or so has been due to allowing private enterprises to function and flourish - not because government officials necessarily made correct business and investment decisions. I am for countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. However, the credit boom in China has gone well beyond the countercyclical policy framework. The concept of countercyclical policies does not suggest that the government or public banks should continue to spend in perpetuity to support fundamentally unviable businesses that invested too much and created excess capacity. Besides, "countercyclical" means for a couple of years. China has been expanding bank/credit/money for about nine years - since January 2009. Peter and Yan argue that they should keep doing it further. If the authorities do what Peter and Yan propose, investors should be structurally - not cyclically - bearish on Chinese stocks. Chart 14There Has Been No Shortage ##br##Of Demand Since 2010 The basis is that a socialist growth model is not friendly for shareholders. Shareholders often lose money when companies operate for maximizing employment rather than profits. This is why Chinese SOEs and bank stocks trade at low multiples - because they destroy capital and value for their shareholders. Notably, "overproduction" and "excess capacity" could be an outcome of either a demand downturn or oversupply/overproduction. Keynes recommended countercyclical policies to fill the gaps when demand shrinks. Chart 15Fiscal Outlays & Credit Origination ##br##Are Close To 50% Of GDP In China's case, there has been no domestic demand downturn to warrant multi-year countercyclical policies. China did the right thing in early 2009 to offset its export plunge amid the Global Financial Crisis, and it helped the global economy recover. However, since 2010 global demand and mainland exports have been stable (Chart 14), making the extended and ongoing credit boom in China unwarranted and excessive. As to the argument that most credit should be counted as a form of fiscal spending, I do not think Chinese policymakers themselves would agree with this statement. In fact, if this is correct, it would mean that government officials are allocating about 50% of GDP each year. Chart 15 illustrates general (central plus local) government spending and annual credit origination as a share of GDP. How fast would productivity grow in an economy where government bureaucrats allocate 50% of GDP annually? It is true that China's central government has a low debt load so it can afford to take over a large chunk of corporate debt. If and when they do so, I will change my view. So far, they have not done this, and will likely only contemplate such a policy move when things get really messy. Investors do not want to be long China plays going into such a scenario. That said, a tactical buying opportunity could emerge when the government takes over a large chuck of corporate debt. Caroline: Yan, how worried should we be about the misallocation of capital in China? Yan: Every economy experiences some level of capital misallocation. The real question is whether China's level of capital misallocation is more serious than that of its global peers. Theoretically, if a country has a bigger capital misallocation problem than others, the economy should have systemically lower capacity utilization, weaker pricing power, and lower profitability. These metrics are easily cross-referenced: Chart 16 contextualizes China's industrial sector capacity utilization ratio relative to global peers. By and large, most countries' capacity utilization ratios hover around 80%, not much different from China's, especially since the 2000s. In fact, barring some obvious outliers, capacity utilization ratios across countries have been largely synchronized, reflecting the ebb and flow of the global business cycle. Chart 16Capacity Utilization: A Global Perspective Industrial sector output prices have shown similar swings (Chart 17). Almost all countries suffered producer price deflation in recent years, and are now experiencing a synchronized upturn in wholesale pricing power. China's falling PPI was widely regarded as a tell-tale sign of misallocation of capital. Conversely, this was in fact more a reflection of stagnating global aggregate demand and weak resource prices worldwide than structurally weak pricing power among Chinese manufacturers. Chart 17Producer Prices: A Global Perspective Similarly, Chinese listed companies' deteriorating Return on Equity (ROE) was again singled out as a sign of capital misallocation. This view is easily debunked by Chart 18, as ROEs have fallen in all major markets. In fact, Chinese companies' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global averages. Even some Chinese sectors that have been derided as being plagued by massive overcapacity and inefficiency such as materials and energy exhibit ROEs almost identical to their global peers. The important point is that we should put China in a global context, rather than analyzing it in isolation. Some Chinese firms' efficiency and profitability have weakened notably over the past several years, but to me, this is more of a reflection of the sluggish global macro backdrop, rather than an indictment of China's discrete growth model. Caroline: Turning to the investment implications, Yan, how does the debt bubble concern impact your view on Chinese equities? Yan: Global investors' widespread concerns over Chinese debt levels and other macro issues have contaminated Chinese stocks with a broad-brushed bearish undertone. Chinese equities have been unduly punished, underweighted and under-owned for many years. As shown in Chart 19, Chinese investable stocks' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global benchmark, and have followed similar cyclical fluctuations. However, their stock prices are trading at massive discounts to the global benchmarks, based on conventional yardsticks (Chart 19). This in my view represents the "China risk premium," which is unjustified and unsustainable. I expect the misperception will eventually unwind, and Chinese shares will be re-rated. This is the fundamental factor supporting my positive view on Chinese equities. Strategically it makes sense to overweight Chinese stocks against their global peers. Chart 18Chinese ROEs Are Not Inferior To Global Peers Chart 19Chinese Equities' Large Valuation Gap Caroline: Arthur, how does your view impact your outlook for investment prospects in China and the rest of the emerging markets space? Arthur: There has not been any adjustment in China's corporate leverage. Deleveraging in China has not yet started. On the contrary, the credit bubble is getting larger. I mean the credit-to-GDP ratio continues rising exponentially and credit and bank loan growth remain in double digits (Chart 20). It is very risky to be bullish on financial assets linked to a bubble when the adjustment has not yet begun. It is like running in front of a steamroller trying to collect pennies. Besides, when there is a major imbalance in the system like the credit bubble happening in China now, I tend to overplay the importance of marginal policy tightening and underplay the significance of easing. Recent marginal policy tightening in China - in particular the clampdown on shadow banking, including banks' off-balance-sheet asset expansion - will cause credit growth to decelerate. This is a major risk to Chinese and EM growth in the second half of this year (Chart 21). Chart 20China: Money/Credit Is Still Booming Chart 21Is China's Recovery At Risk? Even if China does not have a full-blown crisis, we are likely to experience another down leg in China plays, commodities and EM risk assets similar to the second half of 2015, when Chinese import volumes contracted and global markets tanked. A few words about the potential adjustment trajectory are in order. I have been negative on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets since 2010, but I have never used the word "crisis." China may or may not have a crisis, but investors holding risk assets exposed to China's growth will suffer considerable losses again similar to the 2011-16 period. It is essential to differentiate cyclical from structural growth drivers. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, China will move toward a socialist model and structural growth will tumble. That said, the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart 22. Chart 22Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation And Inflation If we assume China's productivity is currently growing at a rate of about 5.5-6% (which is already very high and hard to sustain), and if the country embarks on a socialist path, odds are that productivity growth will drop by 50-100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1-3%. This path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably one of these mini-cycles. How can investors invest in this scenario? The stylized mini-cycles depicted in Chart 22 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. In short, investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Caroline: Peter, is it all that bad? Peter: I think Arthur is too pessimistic. Investors have been predicting a Japanese debt crisis for years. It hasn't materialized and probably won't. They are making the same mistake about China. If China averts a debt crisis, as I think is likely, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions in local-currency terms. For global bonds, the implications are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Caroline: Yan, do domestic politics play into your outlook for the RMB versus the dollar and on a trade-weighted basis? What is your outlook for monetary policy given recent signs of improving economic momentum? Yan: How President Donald Trump will deal with China on the RMB issue is a wildcard. Recent rhetoric suggests that the new U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal protocol to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from Candidate Trump's repeated campaign trail promises. If the U.S. Treasury follows the formal process laid out in the statute, it is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator in the next semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the criteria for that label at the moment. The odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB have ebbed. From China's domestic perspective, how the People's Bank of China intends to manage the exchange rate is also a thorny issue. From a long term point of view, the PBoC clearly wants to achieve a free-floating exchange rate, but the recent downward pressure on the RMB due to elevated capital outflows has forced the PBoC to heavily intervene to prevent a vicious, disorderly cycle, in which currency depreciation and capital flight reinforce each other. In terms of monetary policy, China's improving economic momentum has allowed the PBoC to follow the Fed in raising short-term interest rates. However, tighter capital account control measures will remain in place until the downward pressure on the RMB from capital outflow dissipates. Moreover, investors have been overwhelmingly focused on the negative economic effects of a weaker RMB, somehow ignoring the reality that as the world's largest manufacturer and exporter, China also stands to benefit from a weaker currency. In my view, the depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB since 2015 has played a critical role in reflating the Chinese economy (Chart 23). A weaker RMB has helped producer prices to reflate, and lowered the real cost of funding for manufacturers, which in turn has eased China's monetary conditions and supported cyclical growth improvement. In this vein, the downside of the RMB should be self-limiting, as the reflationary impact of a weaker exchange rate will help boost Chinese growth, which in turn will reduce downward pressure on the currency. Caroline: Peter and Arthur, is rampant capital flight still a risk? Where do you see the RMB heading over the coming 12-18 months? Peter: I think the RMB will weaken somewhat over the coming year, but that is more a reflection of my bullish view on the dollar than a bearish view on the yuan. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has just been an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding four years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese corporate external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 24). At this point, most of the hot money has exited the country and hence, I expect the pace of capital outflows to subside. Chart 23A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery Chart 24The Rise And Fall Of Corporate Foreign Credit Nevertheless, the chronic shortfall of domestic demand that I described earlier will keep pressure on the Chinese government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. This requires a weak currency. Thus, while I don't expect the yuan to plummet, I don't expect it to soar either. Arthur: I believe the RMB is set to depreciate by 10% or more against the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months or so. The Chinese yuan is not expensive, but it will stay under downward pressure because the mainland banking system has created too many yuan. When the supply of money goes vertical, its price drops. It seems the Chinese people are sensing there is too much RMB floating around, and they are trying to get rid of local currency. They have been overpaying for properties and have been shifting their wealth into foreign currencies. Finally, in China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart 25, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate turned negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart 25, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Chart 25Real Deposit Rate Is Negative In brief, I expect capital outflows to persist and policymakers to allow the currency to depreciate further. Caroline: Peter/Yan/Arthur: Final thoughts: What are each of you watching for signs that China's macro landscape is evolving as you expect? Conversely, what would signal that your assessment has missed the mark? Peter: I am watching for signs of a policy mistake. Until China can reorient its economy towards one that is more consumer-centric, it will have to rely on high levels of investment to sustain aggregate demand. Any attempt to aggressively curb debt growth will only backfire. Arthur talks about resource misallocation from subpar investment projects, but there is no worse resource misallocation than a person who wants a job but can't find one. I am also watching trade policy. I don't think a trade war between China and the U.S. is in the cards for the time being, but if the U.S. economy turns down in 2019, as I expect, Trump will be backed into a corner. And with another election looming, he will strike out at China. That could trigger a global trade war. Yan: I agree with Peter that we should watch for policy mistakes and some sort of "Trump shock," both of which constitute downside risks. A less talked-about risk is potential growth overheating, which could require much tighter policy, leading to greater economic volatility. In fact, some cyclical indicators that are tightly linked to industrial activity have rebounded sharply, which is also reflected in the rebound in some raw materials prices. If exports get a further boost from continued improvement in the U.S. economy, the possibility of China's economy overheating cannot be completely dismissed. Another potential trouble spot is the housing market. The Chinese authorities have begun to tighten housing policy, but developers appear to be gearing up for another construction cycle. Sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators have soared. Historically, construction machine sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 26). If history is any guide, the renewed strength in construction equipment sales could be a harbinger of an impending boom in new home construction. This is good news for business activity and GDP growth, but probably antithetical to policymakers' broad agenda. We will follow up on these issues closely in our future reports. Arthur: The key variables to watch are various interest rates, credit/loan growth and inflation - in addition to keeping an eye on lending standards and credit demand. Recent increases in borrowing costs amid the enormous credit overhang give me confidence to argue that China's credit origination and economic growth are bound to decelerate later this year. A billion-dollar question is whether the recent rise in China's consumer inflation is transitory or the beginning of a notable uptrend (Chart 27). If consumer price inflation rises to 3% and higher, the game will be over - interest rates will need to go up and credit growth will tumble. If interest rates do not rise amid intensifying inflationary pressures, capital outflows will escalate and the currency will depreciate a lot. Chart 26An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 27China: Inflation Is Picking Up I will be wrong if policymakers manage to slow down credit growth from 11-12% toward 7-8% or so without generating notable economic weakness. This can occur only if productivity growth in China accelerates meaningfully. It is difficult to observe productivity growth in real time - it is a black box. 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?" dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

The aim of this Special Report is to elaborate on and explain the different views on China that have coexisted at BCA in recent years. Although BCA strives to achieve consensus among its strategists, this is not always possible, as has been the case with China. Peter Berezin of the Global Investment Strategy service and Yan Wang of China Investment Strategy have been positive, while Arthur Budaghyan of Emerging Markets Strategy has been negative on both China's business cycle and China-related plays. The focal points of divergence are centered on how Peter, Yan, and Arthur view and explain the relationship between savings, debt, and the misallocation of capital, as well as how they see China's potential roadmap going forward. The debate is moderated by BCA Global Strategist Caroline Miller. Caroline: Peter and Yan, the world - including the Chinese government - is climbing a wall of worry about China's debt load. Why are you guys still smiling? How many Maotai did you have last night? Peter: I don't know what a Maotai is, but I am sure that if I had more than one I wouldn't be smiling this morning. But yes, I am not as worried as Arthur that China is in the midst of an unsustainable credit bubble. Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors in the global equity market (Chart 1). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 2). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 3). Chart 1Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 2Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 3Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy Yes, there is a lot of debt in China. But there is a lot of savings too. In fact, to a large extent, China's high debt levels are just a function of its high saving rate. The evidence suggests that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies (Chart 4). China sits close to the trend line, implying that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 4Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Arthur: Allow me to both agree and disagree with Peter. No, there is no bubble in Chinese equities, but yes, there is a bubble and euphoria in China's property market. Property prices have risen exponentially and are extremely high by any metric. Chinese bank equity valuations have already adjusted, but bank stocks could still sell off if their profits shrink considerably, as I expect. Bank shares are not expensive, but not cheap either, if one adjusts for non-performing loans. I concur that China's property market adjustment will likely resemble that of Hong Kong as opposed to that of the U.S. As Peter noted, in Hong Kong in the late 1990s, property prices plunged by 70%, but few homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. Yet property starts/construction also collapsed by 80% (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong's Property: ##br##Few Mortgage Defaults ##br##But Collapse In Construction Presently in China, the risk is not mortgage defaults but a renewed drop in property construction as well as other types of capital spending. Less construction/capital spending entails less demand for commodities, materials/chemicals and industrial goods. China's residential and non-residential construction activity will contract anew as speculative/investment demand for property weakens. Yan: I agree with Peter that China's rising debt is fundamentally a function of the country's abundant savings. Moreover, the fact that the country's massive savings pool is primarily intermediated via the banking sector and other debt instruments exacerbates the debt buildup. If a country's savings are primarily intermediated by the stock market through equity financing, then high savings do not necessarily lead to high debt, as "savers" become "shareholders" rather than "creditors." In China's case, the country's still relatively undeveloped and volatile equity market has not yet been able to play a meaningful role in financial intermediation. Instead, banks still play a dominant role channeling financial resources. In other words, China's high savings and a banking-centric financial intermediation system are key drivers of the ever-rising debt level. In fact, as long as these two features persist, the country's debt will inevitably continue to rise, as it simply reflects the accumulated savings. Caroline: Arthur, does this line up with how you think about the relationship between savings and debt? Arthur: My thesis has been that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, euphoric behavior among Chinese banks and the shadow banking system - and not the natural result of the country's "excess savings," as Peter and Yan have argued. What economists call "savings" or "excess savings," non-economists refer to as "overproduction" or "excess capacity." This is about concepts, not about China. In economic science, the term "savings" is used to denote the number of goods and services that a nation has produced but not consumed - i.e., they can be used for investment or exports. Peter and Yan are using this textbook definition of "savings." Hence, by "savings" or "excess savings" they mean "excess production." Logically, the glut of goods and services does not flow to banks and create deposits. In brief, "savings" or "excess savings" are real economic variables and have nothing to do with bank deposits - i.e., "monetary savings." Peter, Yan and many other commentators make this mistake by mixing up national savings - which is literally output of goods and services that were not consumed by households and government - with "monetary savings," i.e., deposits in the banking system. I have no doubt China has had a high savings rate, i.e., it has had overcapacity and over-production in a number of sectors. The textbook concept of national savings is calculated as a residual from the national accounts and balance of payments. In particular: Savings - Investments = Current Account Balance and Savings = Investments + Current Account Balance A few remarks on the economic interpretation of this equation are in order. First, in any country, "excess" national savings over investment, i.e., current account surpluses, lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but has no implication on domestic loan creation.1 Second, a country that invests a lot and does not run a large current account deficit will have a high savings rate as per the economic textbook's definition of national savings. The opposite also holds true. Critically, national or household savings are in no way linked to the amount of deposits at banks. When households decide to save a part of their income, they do not create new deposits or "monetary savings." They save deposits that already exist in the banking system. To sum up, the amount of deposits in the banking system does not change as a result of households' decision to save a part of their income. When a person gets paid in cash and deposits that cash in a bank as a savings deposit, there is no new money created either. That cash was a deposit and was withdrawn from a bank a few days before, and now this cash returns to the banking system as a deposit again. In this case, the amount of total outstanding money supply in the economy (cash plus deposits) has not changed. In general, when a bank receives a deposit, it does not create new money, or "monetary savings." The deposit simply moves from one bank to another or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. When a country enjoys a lot of overcapacity, strong bank loans or money growth will not cause inflation and interest rates will stay low, encouraging more borrowing. This is why in Peter's Chart 4 there is a positive correlation between the national savings rate and debt-to-GDP ratio across countries. Overcapacity entails low inflation; the latter keeps nominal interest rates low, which in turn entices more borrowing and debt build-up. In brief, the linkage between national savings/excess capacity and the credit-to-GDP ratio is indirect via subdued inflation and low interest rates that encourage debt build-up. Caroline: Arthur, you have made the case that savings are not a constraint to loan origination. Can you elaborate? Arthur: The banking system does not intermediate "savings" or "excess savings" from the real economy into loans. The commercial banking system as a whole creates deposits at the time it originates loans. This is true of all countries. Indeed, whenever commercial banks make a loan, they simultaneously create a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart 6). In other words, bank loan origination creates deposits and money.2 Chart 6Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits China's banking system has a lot of deposits because banks have created too many loans. In addition, a bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it originates. It still requires some liquidity to settle its net balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it may not require liquidity to "back up" the loan. There are many variables that constrain bank loan origination, but they do not include national savings or "excess savings." We discussed these constraints in detail in our EMS report titled Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses.3 Finally, when central banks opt to keep short-term interest rates steady, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. This point is greatly relevant to China. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money) (Chart 7). As a result, nowadays the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks. Chart 7The PBoC Has Begun Targeting Rates In Recent Years It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. The PBoC decides whether or not to accommodate banks' liquidity needs by allowing interest rates to rise or fall, or by keeping them steady.4 To conclude, what habitually drives credit booms in any country are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers - not national savings. This has been the case in China too. Caroline: Peter, do you agree with Arthur's assessment? Peter: I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds of monetary theory, but let me briefly address two distinct points that I think Arthur is making. The first is the claim that the ability of banks to create money "out of thin air" is somehow not constrained by the volume of bank reserves and cash in circulation (the so - called "monetary base"). The second is the claim that there is no meaningful link between savings and deposits. I think Arthur is wrong on both counts. On the first claim, it is true that when a bank issues a loan, it also creates a deposit. To the extent that bank deposits are treated as "money," this expands the money supply. This is simply the "money multiplier" taught in introductory economics classes. Where Arthur's logic falls short is in his implicit assumption that all lending translates into additional bank deposits. It doesn't have to. Some of the deposits will be withdrawn and kept as cash. Governments have complete control over how much cash there is in circulation by virtue of their monopoly over the printing press. As long as cash exists, central banks can influence the broad money supply via open market operations. By the way, this is true even in banking systems where there are no reserve requirements. Regarding Arthur's claim that lending can occur without savings, this is often true when someone is borrowing money to buy an asset. However, it is generally not true if they are borrowing money to finance new spending. Let me offer a concrete, albeit somewhat whimsical, example to illustrate this point. Suppose I am living in a closed economy where no one saves anything. Now, let's imagine that I decide to throw a party for myself and need to borrow $1000 to do this. Who is going to provide me with the resources? Well, we just said that no one wants to save, so "something" has to adjust for me to have my party. That "something" is the interest rate. In order to entice someone to spend a bit less, the bank (on my behalf) will offer depositors a higher interest rate. If rates rise by enough, someone will decide to forego a bit of consumption today in order to have more consumption tomorrow. In other words, my decision to borrow must result in someone else's decision to save. So do savings create debt or does debt create savings? The answer is both: interest rates adjust to ensure that the two end up being different sides of the same coin. Caroline: Yan, what's your perspective on China's high debt profile? What could you be missing? Yan: As you can see Arthur and I view China's debt profile through different theoretical lenses. I don't think we can fully reconcile our different frameworks on the matter, but we hope our debate can deepen clients' own understanding of this issue, so they can make up their own minds. What I do want to stress is that those analysts who fear that China's corporate debt problem constitutes an alarming systemic financial risk focus exclusively on the rapid increase in the country's debt-to-GDP ratio. While undoubtedly there is merit to this ratio, I think it is also important to validate this judgement by looking at other indicators. In our previous research, we looked beyond this widely cited conventional indicator for corroborating evidence of a "debt bubble." Our findings suggest that the level of Chinese corporate sector leverage is not as precarious as widely perceived. For example, in the Chinese corporate sector, the area of China's economy where investors worry most about leverage, the debt-to-asset ratio of China's industrial sector has been falling since the late 1990s, down to 56% from 62%, contrary to popular belief (Chart 8). State-owned enterprises have witnessed an increase in their debt-to-asset ratio since the global financial crisis, but it has barely reached late 1990s levels, and has actually rolled over in recent years. Meanwhile, SOEs are a shrinking part of the overall economy and therefore, when looked at in conjunction with the private sector, have not moved the needle on the broader trend of corporate balance sheet "deleveraging." This stands in stark contrast to Japan's corporate sector at the peak of its debt bubble. In the early 1990s, Japan's corporate sector debt-to-asset ratio topped out at 78% when the country's "balance sheet recession" began (Chart 9). Even after two decades of deleveraging, Japan's current corporate debt-to-asset ratio is comparable to China's. To validate this conclusion, we also calculated several other key ratios to compare the leverage situation of Chinese listed companies relative to their global peers. Ratios such as liability-to-assets, net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage assess both leverage levels and debt servicing capacity. As Chart 10 shows, our extensive survey, both from the top down and the bottom up, suggests that China's leverage situation is comparable if not superior to its global peers. Chart 8The Leverage Picture From A Balance Sheet Perspective Chart 9Japan's Debt Bubble And Deleveraging Chart 10Leverage Ratios: How China Compares Therefore, I think we should be skeptical about the widely held view that China's corporate sector leverage is precariously high. It is at a minimum inaccurate, if not misleading, to rely solely on the debt-to-GDP ratio to reach such an ominous conclusion. Caroline: Arthur, I take it you don't agree? Arthur: Since January 2009, China's corporate and household debt has risen by RMB 130 trillion (about US$ 19 trillion) or by 100% of GDP (Chart 11). I do not believe even the most sophisticated financial/credit systems can allocate such amounts of credit in such a short time and not misallocate capital. By capital misallocation, I am implying investments in projects that do not generate sufficient cash flow to service debt. The accounting value (valuation) of assets is irrelevant in these cases; the cash flow generation is critical. The debt-to-GDP ratio is a much more superior measure to debt-to-asset-ratio. The basis is that the GDP is a proxy for cash flow, while accounting value of assets could be extremely inflated during a credit bubble. To be sure, I am not suggesting that all investments in China have gone sour. Nobody knows the extent of capital misallocation in China. But I suspect it is large enough to make a difference for the macro outlook/business cycle. Caroline: Peter, you have made the comparison between China today and Japan in the 1990s. Could you expand on that? Peter: Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 12). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government ended up having to absorb the private sector's excess savings through its own dissaving. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 13). Chart 11China: The Credit Boom Chart 12Japan Relied On Fiscal Largesse And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 13China: Debt Increased When ##br## The Current Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (please see Chart 8). In effect, China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere": They are a necessary evil. Caroline: Arthur, your thoughts? Arthur: What Peter and Yan in effect propose is that Chinese banks should continue creating credit/money "out of thin air" in order to create demand for these "excess" goods, i.e., overcapacity sectors. In a nutshell, a number of Chinese companies made bad decisions by over expanding capacity, and now banks have to continue lending/creating demand to justify these bad investments. As a result, persisting explosive credit growth has allowed these unviable or zombie enterprises to survive, and they are not compelled to restructure. This is not how capitalism and markets work. This is de facto socialism. Socialism usually does not lead to prosperity. One of the key reasons behind the failure of socialist economic models is that productivity growth in socialist systems is very low, often close to zero. The basis is that productivity growth is generated not by government officials but by the private sector and entrepreneurs. China's economic success over the past 35 years or so has been due to allowing private enterprises to function and flourish - not because government officials necessarily made correct business and investment decisions. I am for countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. However, the credit boom in China has gone well beyond the countercyclical policy framework. The concept of countercyclical policies does not suggest that the government or public banks should continue to spend in perpetuity to support fundamentally unviable businesses that invested too much and created excess capacity. Besides, "countercyclical" means for a couple of years. China has been expanding bank/credit/money for about nine years - since January 2009. Peter and Yan argue that they should keep doing it further. If the authorities do what Peter and Yan propose, investors should be structurally - not cyclically - bearish on Chinese stocks. Chart 14There Has Been No Shortage ##br##Of Demand Since 2010 The basis is that a socialist growth model is not friendly for shareholders. Shareholders often lose money when companies operate for maximizing employment rather than profits. This is why Chinese SOEs and bank stocks trade at low multiples - because they destroy capital and value for their shareholders. Notably, "overproduction" and "excess capacity" could be an outcome of either a demand downturn or oversupply/overproduction. Keynes recommended countercyclical policies to fill the gaps when demand shrinks. Chart 15Fiscal Outlays & Credit Origination ##br##Are Close To 50% Of GDP In China's case, there has been no domestic demand downturn to warrant multi-year countercyclical policies. China did the right thing in early 2009 to offset its export plunge amid the Global Financial Crisis, and it helped the global economy recover. However, since 2010 global demand and mainland exports have been stable (Chart 14), making the extended and ongoing credit boom in China unwarranted and excessive. As to the argument that most credit should be counted as a form of fiscal spending, I do not think Chinese policymakers themselves would agree with this statement. In fact, if this is correct, it would mean that government officials are allocating about 50% of GDP each year. Chart 15 illustrates general (central plus local) government spending and annual credit origination as a share of GDP. How fast would productivity grow in an economy where government bureaucrats allocate 50% of GDP annually? It is true that China's central government has a low debt load so it can afford to take over a large chunk of corporate debt. If and when they do so, I will change my view. So far, they have not done this, and will likely only contemplate such a policy move when things get really messy. Investors do not want to be long China plays going into such a scenario. That said, a tactical buying opportunity could emerge when the government takes over a large chuck of corporate debt. Caroline: Yan, how worried should we be about the misallocation of capital in China? Yan: Every economy experiences some level of capital misallocation. The real question is whether China's level of capital misallocation is more serious than that of its global peers. Theoretically, if a country has a bigger capital misallocation problem than others, the economy should have systemically lower capacity utilization, weaker pricing power, and lower profitability. These metrics are easily cross-referenced: Chart 16 contextualizes China's industrial sector capacity utilization ratio relative to global peers. By and large, most countries' capacity utilization ratios hover around 80%, not much different from China's, especially since the 2000s. In fact, barring some obvious outliers, capacity utilization ratios across countries have been largely synchronized, reflecting the ebb and flow of the global business cycle. Chart 16Capacity Utilization: A Global Perspective Industrial sector output prices have shown similar swings (Chart 17). Almost all countries suffered producer price deflation in recent years, and are now experiencing a synchronized upturn in wholesale pricing power. China's falling PPI was widely regarded as a tell-tale sign of misallocation of capital. Conversely, this was in fact more a reflection of stagnating global aggregate demand and weak resource prices worldwide than structurally weak pricing power among Chinese manufacturers. Chart 17Producer Prices: A Global Perspective Similarly, Chinese listed companies' deteriorating Return on Equity (ROE) was again singled out as a sign of capital misallocation. This view is easily debunked by Chart 18, as ROEs have fallen in all major markets. In fact, Chinese companies' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global averages. Even some Chinese sectors that have been derided as being plagued by massive overcapacity and inefficiency such as materials and energy exhibit ROEs almost identical to their global peers. The important point is that we should put China in a global context, rather than analyzing it in isolation. Some Chinese firms' efficiency and profitability have weakened notably over the past several years, but to me, this is more of a reflection of the sluggish global macro backdrop, rather than an indictment of China's discrete growth model. Caroline: Turning to the investment implications, Yan, how does the debt bubble concern impact your view on Chinese equities? Yan: Global investors' widespread concerns over Chinese debt levels and other macro issues have contaminated Chinese stocks with a broad-brushed bearish undertone. Chinese equities have been unduly punished, underweighted and under-owned for many years. As shown in Chart 19, Chinese investable stocks' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global benchmark, and have followed similar cyclical fluctuations. However, their stock prices are trading at massive discounts to the global benchmarks, based on conventional yardsticks (Chart 19). This in my view represents the "China risk premium," which is unjustified and unsustainable. I expect the misperception will eventually unwind, and Chinese shares will be re-rated. This is the fundamental factor supporting my positive view on Chinese equities. Strategically it makes sense to overweight Chinese stocks against their global peers. Chart 18Chinese ROEs Are Not Inferior To Global Peers Chart 19Chinese Equities' Large Valuation Gap Caroline: Arthur, how does your view impact your outlook for investment prospects in China and the rest of the emerging markets space? Arthur: There has not been any adjustment in China's corporate leverage. Deleveraging in China has not yet started. On the contrary, the credit bubble is getting larger. I mean the credit-to-GDP ratio continues rising exponentially and credit and bank loan growth remain in double digits (Chart 20). It is very risky to be bullish on financial assets linked to a bubble when the adjustment has not yet begun. It is like running in front of a steamroller trying to collect pennies. Besides, when there is a major imbalance in the system like the credit bubble happening in China now, I tend to overplay the importance of marginal policy tightening and underplay the significance of easing. Recent marginal policy tightening in China - in particular the clampdown on shadow banking, including banks' off-balance-sheet asset expansion - will cause credit growth to decelerate. This is a major risk to Chinese and EM growth in the second half of this year (Chart 21). Chart 20China: Money/Credit Is Still Booming Chart 21Is China's Recovery At Risk? Even if China does not have a full-blown crisis, we are likely to experience another down leg in China plays, commodities and EM risk assets similar to the second half of 2015, when Chinese import volumes contracted and global markets tanked. A few words about the potential adjustment trajectory are in order. I have been negative on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets since 2010, but I have never used the word "crisis." China may or may not have a crisis, but investors holding risk assets exposed to China's growth will suffer considerable losses again similar to the 2011-16 period. It is essential to differentiate cyclical from structural growth drivers. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, China will move toward a socialist model and structural growth will tumble. That said, the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart 22. Chart 22Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation And Inflation If we assume China's productivity is currently growing at a rate of about 5.5-6% (which is already very high and hard to sustain), and if the country embarks on a socialist path, odds are that productivity growth will drop by 50-100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1-3%. This path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably one of these mini-cycles. How can investors invest in this scenario? The stylized mini-cycles depicted in Chart 22 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. In short, investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Caroline: Peter, is it all that bad? Peter: I think Arthur is too pessimistic. Investors have been predicting a Japanese debt crisis for years. It hasn't materialized and probably won't. They are making the same mistake about China. If China averts a debt crisis, as I think is likely, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions in local-currency terms. For global bonds, the implications are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Caroline: Yan, do domestic politics play into your outlook for the RMB versus the dollar and on a trade-weighted basis? What is your outlook for monetary policy given recent signs of improving economic momentum? Yan: How President Donald Trump will deal with China on the RMB issue is a wildcard. Recent rhetoric suggests that the new U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal protocol to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from Candidate Trump's repeated campaign trail promises. If the U.S. Treasury follows the formal process laid out in the statute, it is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator in the next semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the criteria for that label at the moment. The odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB have ebbed. From China's domestic perspective, how the People's Bank of China intends to manage the exchange rate is also a thorny issue. From a long term point of view, the PBoC clearly wants to achieve a free-floating exchange rate, but the recent downward pressure on the RMB due to elevated capital outflows has forced the PBoC to heavily intervene to prevent a vicious, disorderly cycle, in which currency depreciation and capital flight reinforce each other. In terms of monetary policy, China's improving economic momentum has allowed the PBoC to follow the Fed in raising short-term interest rates. However, tighter capital account control measures will remain in place until the downward pressure on the RMB from capital outflow dissipates. Moreover, investors have been overwhelmingly focused on the negative economic effects of a weaker RMB, somehow ignoring the reality that as the world's largest manufacturer and exporter, China also stands to benefit from a weaker currency. In my view, the depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB since 2015 has played a critical role in reflating the Chinese economy (Chart 23). A weaker RMB has helped producer prices to reflate, and lowered the real cost of funding for manufacturers, which in turn has eased China's monetary conditions and supported cyclical growth improvement. In this vein, the downside of the RMB should be self-limiting, as the reflationary impact of a weaker exchange rate will help boost Chinese growth, which in turn will reduce downward pressure on the currency. Caroline: Peter and Arthur, is rampant capital flight still a risk? Where do you see the RMB heading over the coming 12-18 months? Peter: I think the RMB will weaken somewhat over the coming year, but that is more a reflection of my bullish view on the dollar than a bearish view on the yuan. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has just been an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding four years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese corporate external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 24). At this point, most of the hot money has exited the country and hence, I expect the pace of capital outflows to subside. Chart 23A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery Chart 24The Rise And Fall Of Corporate Foreign Credit Nevertheless, the chronic shortfall of domestic demand that I described earlier will keep pressure on the Chinese government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. This requires a weak currency. Thus, while I don't expect the yuan to plummet, I don't expect it to soar either. Arthur: I believe the RMB is set to depreciate by 10% or more against the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months or so. The Chinese yuan is not expensive, but it will stay under downward pressure because the mainland banking system has created too many yuan. When the supply of money goes vertical, its price drops. It seems the Chinese people are sensing there is too much RMB floating around, and they are trying to get rid of local currency. They have been overpaying for properties and have been shifting their wealth into foreign currencies. Finally, in China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart 25, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate turned negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart 25, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Chart 25Real Deposit Rate Is Negative In brief, I expect capital outflows to persist and policymakers to allow the currency to depreciate further. Caroline: Peter/Yan/Arthur: Final thoughts: What are each of you watching for signs that China's macro landscape is evolving as you expect? Conversely, what would signal that your assessment has missed the mark? Peter: I am watching for signs of a policy mistake. Until China can reorient its economy towards one that is more consumer-centric, it will have to rely on high levels of investment to sustain aggregate demand. Any attempt to aggressively curb debt growth will only backfire. Arthur talks about resource misallocation from subpar investment projects, but there is no worse resource misallocation than a person who wants a job but can't find one. I am also watching trade policy. I don't think a trade war between China and the U.S. is in the cards for the time being, but if the U.S. economy turns down in 2019, as I expect, Trump will be backed into a corner. And with another election looming, he will strike out at China. That could trigger a global trade war. Yan: I agree with Peter that we should watch for policy mistakes and some sort of "Trump shock," both of which constitute downside risks. A less talked-about risk is potential growth overheating, which could require much tighter policy, leading to greater economic volatility. In fact, some cyclical indicators that are tightly linked to industrial activity have rebounded sharply, which is also reflected in the rebound in some raw materials prices. If exports get a further boost from continued improvement in the U.S. economy, the possibility of China's economy overheating cannot be completely dismissed. Another potential trouble spot is the housing market. The Chinese authorities have begun to tighten housing policy, but developers appear to be gearing up for another construction cycle. Sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators have soared. Historically, construction machine sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 26). If history is any guide, the renewed strength in construction equipment sales could be a harbinger of an impending boom in new home construction. This is good news for business activity and GDP growth, but probably antithetical to policymakers' broad agenda. We will follow up on these issues closely in our future reports. Arthur: The key variables to watch are various interest rates, credit/loan growth and inflation - in addition to keeping an eye on lending standards and credit demand. Recent increases in borrowing costs amid the enormous credit overhang give me confidence to argue that China's credit origination and economic growth are bound to decelerate later this year. A billion-dollar question is whether the recent rise in China's consumer inflation is transitory or the beginning of a notable uptrend (Chart 27). If consumer price inflation rises to 3% and higher, the game will be over - interest rates will need to go up and credit growth will tumble. If interest rates do not rise amid intensifying inflationary pressures, capital outflows will escalate and the currency will depreciate a lot. Chart 26An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 27China: Inflation Is Picking Up I will be wrong if policymakers manage to slow down credit growth from 11-12% toward 7-8% or so without generating notable economic weakness. This can occur only if productivity growth in China accelerates meaningfully. It is difficult to observe productivity growth in real time - it is a black box. 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?" dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.