Money/Credit/Debt

Highlights We highlighted last month that investors should remain slightly overweight risk assets, but should also hold safe havens given the preponderance of risks. Some of the risks have since faded and the sweet spot for equities is continuing, but the potential for a correction remains elevated. Geopolitics will no doubt remain a threat for 'risk on' trades, although we may be at peak tensions with respect to North Korea. Our models point to an acceleration in growth in the major economies. Our capital spending indicators suggest that animal spirits are stirring in the business sector. In the U.S., fiscal stimulus is back on the table and investors are looking beyond the negative short-term impact of the hurricanes to the growth-enhancing rebuilding that will follow. It is also positive for the stock-to-bond return ratio that our bullish oil scenario is playing out. Stay long oil-related plays. There is a good chance that this year's downtrend in the dollar and government bond yields is over. The rise in both may be halting, but the risks are to the upside now that disappointments on U.S. growth and inflation have likely ended (notwithstanding the hurricane-distorted economic data in the near term). The Phillips curve is not dead. We do not expect Fed balance sheet normalization on its own to be a major headwind for risk assets. The bigger threat is a sudden and sharp re-assessment of the outlook for interest rates in the major countries. Our base-case view is that inflation will only grind higher in the major countries. It should be slow enough that the associated backup in bond yields does not derail the rally in risk assets, but the danger of a sharper bond market adjustment means that investors should continue to be on the conservative side. Feature It was 'risk on' in financial markets in September, despite a less dovish tone among the major central banks. The reason is that the synchronized global growth outlook continues to gather momentum, supporting the earnings backdrop, but inflation remains dormant in the major countries outside of the U.K. Investors believe that calm inflation readings will allow central banks to proceed cautiously and avoid taking risks with growth, extending the expansion in GDP and earnings. The North Korean situation changes from day to day, but investors appear to be more comfortable with it at the margin. In the U.S., fiscal stimulus is back on the table and investors are looking beyond the negative short-term impact of the hurricanes to the growth-enhancing rebuilding that will follow. Finally, rising oil prices will lift earnings in the energy patch. These developments spurred investors to embrace risk assets and carry trades again in September. However, value is poor and signs of froth are accumulating. For example, equity investors are employing record amounts of margin debt to lever up investments. The Bank for International Settlements highlighted in its Quarterly Review that margin debt outstanding in 2015 was higher than during the dotcom boom (and it has surely increased since then). The global volume of outstanding leveraged loans continues to set new highs even as covenant standards slip. Risk assets are being supported by a three-legged stool: solid earnings growth, low bond yields and depressed bond market volatility. The latter is a reflection of current market expectations that dormant inflation will continue to constrain central bankers. We agree that the economic growth and earnings outlook is positive on a 6-12 month horizon. The main item that could upset the sweet spot for risk assets, outside of a geopolitical event, is an awakening in inflation. This would shatter the consensus view that the bond market will remain well behaved. Markets are priced for little change in the inflation backdrop even in the long term. Our base-case view is that inflation will grind higher in the major countries, although it should be slow enough that the associated backup in bond yields does not derail the rally in risk assets in the next 6-12 months. But the risk of a sharper bond market adjustment means that investors should continue to be conservative (although slightly tilted to risk-over-safety). Getting Used To North Korea It appears that investors are becoming increasingly desensitized to provocation from the rogue state. Our geopolitical experts argued that the risk of a full-out war with the U.S. was less than 10%, but they warned that there could be a market-rattling political crisis or even a military skirmish before Pyongyang returned to the negotiating table. However, we may be at peak tensions now, based on several key developments over the past month. First, both China and Russia, two North Korean allies, have turned up the pressure. China appears to be enforcing sanctions according to Chinese trade data vis-à-vis North Korea (Chart I-1). Both China and Russia have also agreed to reduce fuel supplies. And there is evidence that U.S. and North Korea have held unofficial diplomatic talks behind the scenes. The implication is that North Korea is responding to pressure now that its critical fuel supplies are at risk. Chart I-1China Getting Tougher With NK We cannot rule out more goading from Kim Jong Un, especially with a busy political calendar in Asia this fall: the Korean Worker's Party's anniversary on October 10, the Chinese midterm leadership reshuffle on October 11-25, Japanese elections on October 22, and Trump's visit to the region in mid-November. Nevertheless, it would require a major provocation (i.e. a direct attack on the U.S. or its allies) for Pyongyang to escalate tensions from current levels. This would require the North to be very reckless with its own strategic assets, given that the U.S. would likely conduct a proportional retaliation against any serious attack. The recent backup in Treasury yields and yen pullback suggest that investors do not think tensions will escalate that far. We agree, but obviously the situation is fluid. Trump Trades Back In Play? U.S. politics have also become more equity-friendly and bond-bearish at the margin. The risk of a debt ceiling standoff has been delayed until December following President Trump's deal with the Democrats. We do not think that this represents a radical shift toward bipartisanship, but it is warning from the President that the GOP had better get cracking on tax legislation. The House Budget committee passed a FY2018 budget resolution in late July that included "reconciliation instructions" for tax legislation. Such a budget resolution approved by the Congress as a whole would allow for tax cuts that are not fully offset by spending cuts, with the proviso that the tax reductions sunset after a defined number of years. It is difficult to see tax legislation being passed before year end, but the first quarter of 2018 is certainly possible. Markets will begin to price in the legislation well before it is passed, which means that the so-called Trump trades are likely to see a revival. In particular, the legislation should favor small caps and boost the dollar. This year's devastating hurricane activity will also lift U.S. growth in 2018. History shows that natural disasters have only a passing effect on the U.S. economy and financial markets. Following the short-term negative economic impact, rebuilding adds to growth with the Federal government footing part of the bill. A 2016 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that federal spending after major hurricanes can add as much as 0.6% to GDP. CBO notes that the lion's share of the economic impact is in the first year after a storm, with most of those expenditures helping victims to obtain food and shelter, fund search and rescue operations, and protect critical infrastructure. Federal outlays for public infrastructure occur after the first year and provide a much smaller lift to GDP (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Federal Government Outlays For Hurricane Relief Oil: Inventories Are Correcting Chart I-3Oil Inventory Correction To Lift Prices It is also positive for the stock-to-bond return ratio that our bullish oil scenario is playing out. Our energy strategists highlight that global oil demand is booming, at a time when the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) lowered its estimated shale oil output by 200,000 bpd for the third quarter. This confirms our contention that the EIA has overestimated the pace of the shale production response during 2017. Taken together, these factors helped to improve the global net demand/supply balance by 600,000 bpd. The drawdown in global oil inventories is thus likely to continue (Chart I-3). Looking to next year, crude prices could go even higher with an extension of the OPEC/Russian production cuts beyond March 2018 and continued strong growth in global oil demand. The synchronized global expansion is reflected in rising oil demand from all parts of the world. Soft Industrial Production Readings Won't Last We have highlighted global and regional industrial production as important indicators of both economic growth corporate earnings. It is therefore a little disconcerting that our aggregate for industrial production in the advanced economies has suddenly lost momentum (Chart I-4). We are inclined to fade the recent softening for a few reasons. First, much of it is due to weakness in the U.S. where hurricanes affected the August figures. Second, most of our leading indicators remain very constructive. Chart I-5 present a simple model for real GDP growth for the G4 economies based on our consumer and capital spending indicators. Real GDP growth will continue to accelerate for the G4 economies as a group according to the model. Our aggregate consumer indicator appears to have peaked at a high level, but the capex indicator is blasting off. The bullish capital spending reading is unanimous across the major economies (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Animal Spirits Are Stirring... Chart I-5...Contributing To Stronger G4 Economic Growth Chart I-6Capital Goods Indicators Are Surging The Eurozone is particularly strong on both the consumer and business fronts, suggesting that euro strength has not undermined growth. Conversely, the U.K. is at the weak end of the spectrum based on the drop in its consumer spending indicator. This is the main reason why we do not believe the Bank of England will be able to make good on its warning of a rate hike this year (see below). Robust capital goods imports for our 20-country aggregate supports the view that animal spirits are stirring in boardrooms in the advanced economies (Chart I-4, third panel). These imports and our capital spending indicators suggest that the small pullback in advanced-economy industrial production will not last, purchasing managers' indexes will remain elevated, and the acceleration in global export activity is just getting started. Even U.S. small business sector has shifted into a higher gear in terms of hiring and capital spending according to the NFIB survey. These trends will favor industrial stocks, especially versus utilities. Central Banks Shedding Dovish Feathers The synchronized global growth pickup is also reflected in our Central Bank Monitors, which are all near or above the zero line (Chart I-7). The Monitors gauge pressure on central banks to adjust policy. Current readings are consistent with the relatively more hawkish tone by central bankers in Canada, the U.S., the Eurozone and the U.K. Chart I-7Central Bank Monitors Support Less Dovish Policymakers The violent reaction in the gilt market to the Bank of England's hint that it could hike rates in the next few months highlights the vulnerability of bond markets to any shift by central bankers in a less dovish direction. In this case, we do not believe the BoE will be able to follow through with its rate hike plan. The leading economic indicators are softening and inflation is about to roll over now that the pound has bottomed. In contrast, bunds are quite vulnerable to a more hawkish tilt at the European Central Bank (ECB). Eurozone policymakers confirmed at their September meeting that they plan to announce in October a reduction in the asset purchase program, to take effect in 2018. The ECB revised up its growth forecast for 2017, and left the subsequent two years unchanged. The inflation forecast was trimmed by 0.1 percentage points in 2018 and 2019. The fact that this year's surge in the euro was not enough to move the needle much on the ECB's projections speaks volumes about the central bank's confidence in the current European economic expansion, as well as its comfort level with the rising currency. Our fixed income strategists believe that the full extent of ECB tapering is not yet fully discounted in the European bond market. Phillips Curve: It's Not Dead, Just Resting Chart I-8U.S. Inflation Turning to the Fed, the bond market did not get the dovish tone it was expecting from September's FOMC meeting. Policymakers left a December rate hike on the table, as Chair Yellen downplayed this year's lagging inflation data as well as the impact of the hurricanes on the economy. Not surprisingly, the odds of a December rate hike have since jumped to 70%. The Fed announced its plan to begin shrinking its balance sheet beginning in October. In the press conference, Yellen tried to disassociate balance sheet policy from the rate outlook. Balance sheet adjustment will be on autopilot, such that short-term interest rates will be the Fed's main policy instrument going forward. While the Fed plans to deliver another rate increase in December, it will require at least a small rise in inflation. Policymakers were no doubt pleased that annual CPI core inflation edged up in August and the 3-month rate of change has moved back to 2% (Chart I-8). The CPI diffusion index also moved above the zero line, indicating that the soft patch in the inflation data may be over, although the diffusion index for the PCE inflation data fell back to the zero line. Table I-1 presents the major contributors to the 0.9 percentage point decline in the year-over-year headline CPI inflation rate since February. Energy accounts for the majority of the decline, at 0.6 percentage points. New cars, shelter, medical services and wireless telephone services account for the remainder. The deflationary wireless price effect is now unwinding, but medical services is a wildcard and our shelter model suggests that this large part of the CPI index will probably not help to lift inflation this year. Thus, higher inflation must come largely from non-shelter core services, which is the component most closely correlated with wages. Investors remain unconvinced by Yellen's assertion that the soft patch in the inflation data reflects transitory factors. Indeed, market-based long-term inflation expectations remain well below the Fed's target, and they even fell a little following the FOMC meeting. Table I-1Contribution To Change In Headline ##br##Inflation (February -August, 2017) One FOMC member is becoming increasingly alarmed by the market's disbelief that the Fed will hit the 2% target even in the long run (Chart I-9). In a recent speech, Governor Brainard noted that both market-based and survey evidence on inflation expectations have drifted lower in the post-Lehman years. More recently, long-term inflation breakeven rates and CPI swaps have been surprisingly sticky in the face of the rebound in oil prices. In the Fed's view, monetary policy can be used effectively in response to shifts in the cyclical drivers of inflation. However, if inflation expectations were to become unanchored, then inflation's long-run trend would be altered and monetary policy would become less effective. Japan is a glaring example of what could be the endpoint. Brainard's fears have not yet affected the FOMC consensus, which is loath to throw the Phillips curve model into the dust bin just yet. We agree that the Phillips curve is not dead. Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist for the BCA Global Investment Strategy Service, argued in a recent Special Report that the often-cited reasons for why the Phillips curve has become defunct - decreased union bargaining power, a more globalized economy, and technological trends - are less convincing than they appear. The Fed simply has to be patient because the U.S. is only now reaching the kinked part of the Phillips Curve (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Worrying Trends For The FOMC Chart I-10U.S. Wage Growth Accelerates Once The Unemployment Rate Falls Below 5% (1997-2017) Moreover, our global fixed income team has made the case that the global output gap must be taken into consideration.1 Chart I-11 presents the percentage of OECD economies that have an unemployment rate below the NAIRU rate, along with inflation in the services and goods sectors of the developed markets. While the correlation between this global NAIRU indicator and realized inflation rates declined in the years after the recession, the linkages have improved over the past couple of years. The fact that the global NAIRU indicator is only now back to pre-Lehman levels suggests that inflationary pressure could finally be near an inflection point. Market expectations for the path of real GDP growth and the unemployment rate are roughly in line with the FOMC's central tendency forecast. However, the wide gulf between the FOMC and the market on the path of interest rates remains a potential catalyst for a correction in risk assets if market rates ratchet higher. Fed balance sheet runoff could also be problematic in this regard. QE Unwind: How Much Of A Risk? Many investors equate the surge in asset prices in the years after the Great Financial Crisis with central bank largesse. Won't a reversal of this policy be negative for both bonds and stocks? Fed balance sheet runoff, together with ECB tapering and less buying by the Bank of Japan, will certainly change the supply/demand backdrop for the G4 government bond markets in 2018. We have updated our projection for the net flow of government bonds available to the private sector, taking into consideration the supply that is absorbed by central banks and other official institutions (Chart I-12). The top panel shows that the net supply of Treasurys to the private sector never contracted in recent years, but the bottom panel highlights that the net supply of G4 government bonds as a group was negative for 2015, 2016 and 2017. Central banks and other official buyers had to bid-away bonds from the private sector during these years. Chart I-11Global Slack Matters Chart I-12Major Swing In Government ##br##Bond Supply In 2018 We project that the net supply will swing from a contraction of almost $600 billion in 2017 to a positive net flow of almost US$200 billion next year. The Fed's projected runoff accounts for most of the swing. The supply/demand effect might push up term premia a little. Nonetheless, as discussed in this month's Special Report beginning on page 19, the balance sheet unwind is not the key threat to bonds and stocks. Rather, the main risk is the overly benign central bank outlook that is priced into the bond market. Real 5-year bond yields, five years forward, are still extremely depressed because the market has discounted negative real short-term interest rates out to 2022 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Real Forward Short-Term Rates Time For The Nikkei To Shine Equity bourses took September's backup in bond yields in stride. Indeed, the S&P 500 and Nikkei broke to new highs during the month. The Euro Stoxx 50 also sprang to life, although has not yet reached fresh highs in local currency terms. The solid earnings backdrop remains a key support for the market. We highlighted our EPS forecasts in last month's report. Nothing of significance has changed on this front. The latest data suggest that operating margins may be peaking, but the diffusion index does not suggest an imminent decline (Chart I-14). Meanwhile, our upbeat economic assessment discussed above means that top line expansion should keep EPS growing solidly into the first half of 2018 at the global level. EPS growth will likely decelerate toward the end of next year to mid-single digits. Chart I-14Operating Margins Approaching A Peak? We still see a case for the Nikkei to outperform the S&P 500, at least in local currencies. Japan is on the cheap side according to our top-down indicator (Chart I-15). Japanese earnings are highly geared to economic growth at home and abroad. Japanese EPS is in an uptrend versus the U.S. in both local and common currencies (Chart I-16). We do not expect to see a peak in EPS growth until mid-2018, a good six months after the expected top in the U.S. Moreover, an Abe win in the October 22 election would mean that policy will remain highly reflationary in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Chart I-15Valuation: Japan Cheap To The U.S., But Not Europe Chart I-16Japanese Earnings Outperforming The U.S. European stocks are a tougher call. On the plus side, the economy is flying high and there are no warning signs that this is about to end. There is hope for structural reform in France after Macron's election win this year. We give Macron's proposed labor market reforms high marks because they compare favorably with those of Spain and Germany, which helped to diminish structural unemployment in those two countries. Many doubt that Macron's reforms will see the light of day, but our geopolitical team believes that investors are underestimating the chances. The German election in September poured cold water on recent enthusiasm regarding accelerated European integration. This is because Merkel will likely have to deal with a larger contingent of Euroskeptics in the grand coalition that emerges in the coming months. However, we do not expect political developments in Germany to be a headwind for the Eurozone stock market. On the negative side, European stocks do not appear cheap to the U.S. after adjusting for the structural discount (Chart I-15). Moreover, this year's euro bull phase will take a bite out of earnings. As noted in last month's Overview, euro strength so far this year will lop three to four percentage points off of EPS growth by the middle of next year. Our model suggests that this will be overwhelmed by the robust economic expansion at home and abroad, but profit growth could fall to 5%, which is likely to be well short of that in the U.S. and Japan (local currency). Still, a lot of the negative impact of the currency on profits may already be discounted as forward earnings have been revised down. On balance, we remain overweight European stocks versus the U.S. (currency hedged). However, it appears that Japan has more latitude to outperform. Dollar: Finally Finding A Floor? Chart I-17Has The Dollar Found Bottom? The Fed's determination to stick with the 'dot plot' may have finally placed a floor under the dollar. Before the September FOMC meeting, the market had all but priced out any rate hikes between now and the end of 2018. Both the U.S. economic surprise index and the inflation surprise index have turned up relative to the G10 (Chart I-17). The dollar has more upside if we are past the period of maximum bond market strength and moving into in a window in which U.S. economic and inflation surprises will 'catch up' with the other major economies. Technically, investors appear to be quite short the dollar, especially versus the euro. Bullish sentiment on the euro is highlighted by the fact that the currency has deviated substantially from the interest rate parity relationship. Euro positioning is thus bullish the dollar from a contrary perspective. Nonetheless, our currency experts are more bullish the dollar versus the yen. Given that inflation expectations have softened in Japan and wage growth is still lacking, the Bank of Japan will have to stick with its zero percent 10-year JGB target. The yen will be forced lower versus the dollar as the U.S. yield curve shifts up. We also like the loonie. The Bank of Canada (BoC) pulled the trigger in September for the second time this year, lifting the overnight rate to 1%. Policymakers gave themselves some "wiggle room" on the outlook, but more tightening is on the way barring a significant slowdown in growth, another spike in the C$, or a housing meltdown. The statement said that the loonie's rise partly reflected the relative strength of the Canadian economy, which implies that it is justified by the fundamentals. It does not appear that the C$ has reached a "choke point" in the eyes of the central bank. Investment Conclusions: We highlighted in our last issue that investors should remain slightly overweight risk assets, but should also hold safe haven assets given the preponderance of risks. Some of the risks have since faded and the sweet spot for risk assets is continuing. We remain upbeat on global economic growth and earnings. Nonetheless, both stocks and bonds remain vulnerable to any upside surprises on inflation, especially in the U.S. While the positive trends in stock indexes and corporate bond spreads should continue over the coming 6-12 months, there is a good chance that this year's downtrend in the dollar and government bond yields is over. The rise in both may be halting, but the risks are to the upside now that disappointments on U.S. growth and inflation have likely ended (notwithstanding the hurricane-distorted economic data in the near term). The Phillips curve is not dead, which means that it is only a matter of time before inflation begins to find a little traction. Higher oil prices will also provide a tailwind for headline inflation. Geopolitics will no doubt remain a threat for 'risk on' trades, but we may be past the worst in terms of North Korean tension. We also do not expect Fed balance sheet normalization to be a major headwind for risk assets. Nonetheless, the anticipated swing the supply of G4 government bonds to private investors would serve to add to selling pressure in the fixed-income space if inflation is rising in the U.S. and/or Europe at the same time. In other words, the risk relates more to expected policy rates than the Fed's balance sheet. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, long oil related plays, slightly short in duration in the fixed income space, and long inflation protection. We also recommend returning to long positions on the U.S. dollar. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 28, 2017 Next Report: October 26, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com II. Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind Liquidity is the lifeblood of the economy and financial markets, but it is a slippery concept that means different things to different people. Liquidity falls into four categories: monetary, balance sheet, financial market transaction liquidity, and funding liquidity. Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired. Funding liquidity is as important as monetary liquidity for financial markets. It has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) lows, but it is far from frothy. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. The unwind should not affect transactions liquidity or balance sheet liquidity. It should not affect the broad monetary aggregates either. The bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then funding liquidity should remain adequate and risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets, unless it is offset with increased T-bill issuance. However, a smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Liquidity has been an integral part of BCA's approach to financial markets going back to the early days of the company under the tutelage of Editor-in-Chief Hamilton Bolton from 1949 to 1968. Bolton was ahead of his time in terms of developing monetary indicators to forecast market trends. Back then, the focus was on bank flows such as the volume of checks cashed because capital markets were still developing and most credit flowed through the banking system. Times changed, monetary policy implementation evolved and financial markets became more important and sophisticated. When money targeting became popular among central banks in the 1970s, central bank liquidity analysis focused more on the broader monetary aggregates. These and other monetary data were used extensively by Anthony Boeckh, BCA's Editor-in-Chief from the 1968 to 2002, to forecast the economy and markets. He also highlighted the importance of balance sheet liquidity (holdings of liquid assets), and its interplay with rising debt levels. Martin Barnes continued with these themes when writing about the Debt Supercycle in the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. "Liquidity" is a slippery concept, and it means different things to different people. In this Special Report, we describe BCA's approach to liquidity and highlight its critical importance for financial markets. We provide a list of indicators to watch, and also outline how the pending shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet could affect overall liquidity conditions. A Primer On Liquidity We believe there are four types of liquidity that are all interrelated: Central Bank Liquidity: Bank reserves lie at the heart of central bank liquidity. Reserves are under the direct control of the central bank, which are used as a tool to influence general monetary conditions in the economy. The latter are endogenous to the system and also depend on the private sector's desire to borrow, spend and hold cash. Bullish liquidity conditions are typically associated with plentiful bank reserves, low interest rates and strong growth in the monetary aggregates. Balance Sheet Liquidity: A high level of balance sheet liquidity means that plenty of short-term assets are available to meet emergencies. The desire of households, companies and institutional investors to build up balance sheet liquidity would normally increase when times are bad, and decline when confidence is high. Thus, one would expect strong economic growth to be associated with declining balance sheet liquidity, and vice versa when the economy is weak. Of course, deteriorating balance sheet liquidity during good times is a negative sign to the extent that households or business are caught in an illiquid state when the economy turns down, jobs are lost and loans are called. Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: This refers to the ability to make transactions in securities without triggering major changes in prices. Financial institutions provide market liquidity to securities markets through their trading activities. Funding Liquidity: The ability to borrow to fund positions in financial markets. Financial institutions provide funding liquidity to borrowers through their lending activities. The conditions under which these intermediaries can fund their own balance sheets, in turn, depend on the willingness of banks and the shadow banking system to interact with them. The BIS definition of funding liquidity is a broad concept that captures a wide range of channels. It includes the capacity of intermediaries that participate in the securitization chain to access the necessary funding to originate loans, to acquire loans for packaging into securities, and finance various kinds of guarantees. The availability and turnover of collateral for loans is also very important for generating funding liquidity, as we discuss below. These types of liquidity are interrelated in various ways, and can positively or negatively reinforce each other. It is the interaction of these factors that determines the economy's overall ease of financing. See Box II-1 for more details. BOX II-1 How Liquidity Is Inter-Related Central bank liquidity, which is exogenously determined, is the basis for private liquidity creation (the combination of market transaction and funding liquidity). The central bank determines the short-term risk-free rate and the official liquidity that is provided to the banking system. If the central bank hikes rates or provides less official liquidity, appetite for private lending begins to dry up. Private sector liquidity is thus heavily influenced by monetary policy, but can develop a life of its own, overshooting to the upside and downside with swings in investor confidence and risk tolerance. Financial market liquidity and funding liquidity are closely interrelated. When times are good, markets are liquid and funding liquidity is ample. But when risk tolerance takes a hit, a vicious circle between market transaction and funding liquidity develops. The BIS highlights the procyclical nature of private liquidity, which means that it tends to exhibit boom-bust cycles that generate credit excesses that are followed by busts.1 The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 is a perfect example. The Fed lifted the fed funds rate by 400 basis points between 2004 and 2006. Nonetheless, the outsized contraction in private liquidity, resulting from the plunge in asset prices related to U.S. mortgage debt, was a key driver of the crash in risk asset prices. Liquidity Indicators: What To Watch (1) Monetary Liquidity Key measures of central bank liquidity include the monetary base and the broad money aggregates, such as M1 and M2 (Chart II-1). Central banks control the amount of reserves in the banking system, which is part of base money, but they do not control the broad monetary aggregates. The latter is determined by the desire to hold cash and bank deposits, as well as the demand and supply of credit. Box II-2 provides some background on the monetary transmission process and quantitative easing. BOX II-2 The Monetary Transmission Process And Qe Before the Great Recession and Financial Crisis, the monetary authorities set the level of short-term interest rates through active management of the level of bank reserves. Reserves were drained as policy tightened, and were boosted when policies eased. The level of bank reserves affected banks' lending behavior, and shifts in interest rates affected the spending and investment decisions of consumers and businesses. Of course, it has been a different story since the financial crisis. Once short-term interest rates reached the zero bound, the Fed and some other central banks adopted "quantitative easing" programs designed to depress longer-term interest rates by aggressively buying bonds and thereby stuffing the banking system with an excessive amount of reserves. Many feared the onset of inflation when QE programs were first announced because investors worried that this would contribute to a massive increase in credit and the overall money supply. Indeed, there could have been hyper-inflation if banks had gone on a lending spree. But this never happened. Banks were constrained by insufficient capital ratios, loan losses and intense regulation, while consumers and businesses had no appetite for acquiring more debt. The result was that the money multiplier - the ratio of broad money to the monetary base - collapsed (top panel in Chart II-1). Bank lending standards eventually eased and credit demand recovered. Broad money growth has been volatile since 2007 but, despite quantitative easing, it has been roughly in line with the decade before. The broad aggregates lost much of their predictive power after the 1980s. Financial innovation, such as the use of debit cards and bank machines, changed the relationship between broad money on one hand, and the economy or financial markets on the other. Despite the structural changes in the economy, investors should still keep the monetary aggregates and the other monetary indicators discussed below in their toolbox. While the year-to-year wiggles in M2, for example, have not been good predictors of growth or inflation on a one or two year horizon, Chart II-2 shows that there is a long-term relationship between money and inflation when using decade averages. Chart II-1The Monetary Aggregates Chart II-2Long-Run Relationship Between M2 And Inflation Other monetary indicators to watch: M2 Divided By Nominal GDP (Chart II-3): When money growth exceeds that of nominal GDP, it could be interpreted as a signal that there is more than enough liquidity to facilitate economic activity. The excess is then available to purchase financial assets. Monetary Conditions Index (Chart II-3): This combines the level of interest rates and the change in the exchange rate into one indicator. The MCI has increased over the past year, indicating a tightening of monetary conditions, but is still very low by historical standards. Dollar Based Liquidity (Chart II-3): This includes Fed holdings of Treasurys and U.S. government securities held in custody for foreign official accounts. Foreign Exchange Reserves (Chart II-3): Central banks hold reserves in the form of gold, or cash and bonds denominated in foreign currencies. For example, when the People's Bank of China accumulates foreign exchange as part of its management of the RMB, it buys government bonds in other countries, thereby adding to liquidity globally. Interest Rates Minus Nominal GDP Growth (Chart II-4): Nominal GDP growth can be thought of as a proxy for the return on capital. If interest rates are below the return on capital, then there is an incentive for firms to borrow and invest. The opposite is true if interest rates are above GDP growth. Currently, short-term rates are well below nominal GDP, signaling that central bank liquidity is plentiful. Chart II-3Monetary Indicators (I) Chart II-4Monetary Indicators (II) (2) Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-5 presents the ratio of short-term assets to total liabilities for the corporate and household sectors. It is a measure of readily-available cash or cash-like instruments that make it easier to weather economic downturns and/or credit tightening phases. The non-financial corporate sector is in very good shape from this perspective. The seizure of the commercial paper market during the GFC encouraged firms to hold more liquid assets on the balance sheet. However, the uptrend began in the early 1990s and likely reflects tax avoidance efforts. Households are also highly liquid when short-term assets are compared to income. Liquidity as a share of total discretionary financial portfolios is low, but this is not surprising given extraordinarily unattractive interest rates. The banking system is being forced to hold more liquid assets under the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio requirement (Chart II-6). This is positive from the perspective of reducing systemic risk, but it has negative implications for funding liquidity, as we will discuss below. Chart II-5Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-6Bank Balance Sheet Liquidity (3) Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: Transactions volumes and bid-ask spreads are the main indicators to watch to gauge financial market transaction liquidity. There was a concern shortly after the GFC that the pullback in risk-taking by important market-makers could severely undermine market liquidity, leading to lower transaction volumes and wider bid-ask spreads. The focus of concern was largely on the corporate bond market given the sharply reduced footprint of investment banks. The Fed's data on primary dealer positioning in corporates shows a massive decline from the pre-crisis peak in 2007 (Chart II-7). This represents a decline from over 10% of market cap to only 0.3%. The smaller presence of dealers could create a liquidity problem for corporate debt, especially if market-making dealers fail to adequately match sellers with buyers during market downturns. Yet, as highlighted by BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy team, corporate bond markets have functioned well since the dark days of the Lehman crisis.2 Reduced dealer presence has not resulted in any unusual widening of typical relationships like the basis between Credit Default Swaps and corporate bond spreads. Other market participants, such as Exchange Traded Funds, have taken up the slack. Daily trading volume as a percent of market cap has returned to pre-Lehman levels in the U.S. high-yield market, although this is not quite the case for the investment-grade market (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Less Market Making Chart II-8Corporate Bond Trading Volume That said, it is somewhat worrying that average trade sizes in corporates are smaller now compared to pre-crisis levels - perhaps as much as 20% smaller according to estimates by the New York Fed. This is likely the result of the reduced risk-taking by the dealers and the growing share of direct electronic trading. Thus, it may feel like liquidity is impaired since it now takes longer to execute a large bond trade, even though transaction costs for individual trades have not been increasing. The bottom line is that financial market liquidity is not as good as in the pre-Lehman years. This is not a problem at the moment, but there could be some dislocations in the fixed-income space during the next period of severe market stress when funding liquidity dries up. (3) Funding Liquidity: There are few direct measures of funding liquidity. Instead, one can look for its "footprint" or confirming evidence, such as total private sector credit. If credit is growing strongly, it is a sign that funding liquidity is ample. Box II-3 explains why international credit flows are also important to watch for signs of froth in lending. BOX II-3 The Importance Of International Credit Flows The BIS highlights that swings in international borrowing amplify domestic credit trends. Cross border lending tends to display even larger boom-bust cycles than domestic credit, as can be seen in the major advanced economies in the lead up to the GFC, as well as some Asian countries just before the Asian crisis in the late 1990s (Chart II-9). When times are good, banks and the shadow banking system draw heavily on cross-border sources of funds, such that international credit expansion tends to grow faster during boom periods than the credit granted domestically by banks located in the country. Since G4 financial systems intermediate a major share of global credit, funding conditions within the G4 affect funding conditions globally, as BIS research shows.3 This research also demonstrates that financial cycles have become more highly correlated across economies due to increased financial integration. Booms in credit inflows from abroad are also associated with a low level of the VIX, which is another sign of ample funding liquidity conditions (Chart II-10). These periods of excessive funding almost always end with a financial crisis and a spike in the VIX. Chart II-9International Credit Is Highly Cyclical Chart II-10International Credit Booms Lead Spikes In The VIX Other measures of funding liquidity to watch include: Chart II-11Market Measures Of Funding Liquidity Libor-OIS Spread (Chart II-11): This is a measure of perceived credit risk of LIBOR-panel banks. The spread tends to widen during periods of banking sector stress. Spreads are currently low by historical standards. However, libor will be phased out by 2021, such that a replacement for this benchmark rate will have to be found by then. Bond-CDS Basis (Chart II-11): The basis is roughly the average difference between each bond's yield spread to Treasurys and the cost of insuring the bond in the CDS market. Arbitrage should keep these two spreads closely aligned, but increases in funding costs tied to balance sheet constraints during periods of market stress affect this arbitrage opportunity, allowing the two spreads to diverge. The U.S. high-yield or investment grade bond markets are a good bellweather, and at the moment they indicate relatively good funding liquidity. FX Basis Swap (Chart II-11): This is analogous to the bond-CDS basis. It reflects the cost of hedging currencies, which is critically important for international investors and lending institutions. The basis swap widens when there is financial stress, reflecting a pullback in funding liquidity related to currencies. The FX swap basis widened during the GFC and, unlike other spreads, has not returned to pre-Lehman levels (see below). Bank Leverage Ratios (Chart II-12): The ratio of loans to deposits is a measure of leverage in the banking system. Banks boost leverage during boom times and thereby provide more loans and funding liquidity to buy securities. In the U.S., this ratio has plunged since 2007 and shows no sign of turning up. Primary Dealers Securities Lending (Chart II-13): This is a direct measure of funding liquidity. Primary dealers make loans to other financial institutions with the purpose of buying securities, thereby providing both funding liquidity and market liquidity. Historically, shifts in dealer lending have been correlated with bid-ask spreads in the Treasury market. Securities lending is also correlated with the S&P 500, although it does not tend to lead the stock market. Dealer loans soared prior to 2007, before collapsing in 2008. Total loans have recovered, but have not reached pre-crisis highs, consistent with stricter regulations that forced the deleveraging of dealer balance sheets. Chart II-12U.S. Bank Leverage Chart II-13Securities Lending And Margin Debt NYSE Margin Debt (Chart II-13): Another direct measure of funding liquidity. The uptrend in recent years has been steep, although it is less impressive when expressed relative to market cap. Bank Lending Standards (Chart II-14): These surveys reflect bank lending standards for standard loans to the household or corporate sectors, but their appetite for lending for the purposes of securities purchases is no doubt highly correlated. Lending standards tightened in 2016 due to the collapse in oil prices, but they have started to ease again this year. Table II-1 provides a handy list of liquidity indicators split into our four categories. Taking all of these indicators into consideration, we would characterize liquidity conditions in the U.S. as fairly accommodative, although not nearly as abundant as the period just prior to the Lehman event. Monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the GFC, is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years according to several important indicators such as bank leverage. Moreover, the Fed is set to begin the process of unwinding the massive amount of monetary liquidity provided by its quantitative easing program. Chart II-14Bank Lending Standards Table II-1Liquidity Indicators To Watch Fed Balance Sheet Shrinkage: What Impact On Liquidity? Given that the era of quantitative easing has been a positive one for risk assets, it is unsurprising that investors are concerned about the looming unwind of the Fed's massive balance sheet. For example, Chart II-15 demonstrates the correlation between the change in G4 balances sheets and both the stock market and excess returns in the U.S. high-yield market. Chart II-16 presents our forecast for how quickly the Fed's balance sheet will contract. Following last week's FOMC meeting we learned that balance sheet reduction will begin October 1. For the first three months the Fed will allow a maximum of $6 billion in Treasurys and $4 billion in MBS to run off each month. Those caps will increase in steps of $6 billion and $4 billion, respectively, every three months until they level off at $30 billion per month for Treasurys and $20 billion per month for MBS. Chart II-15G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets Chart II-16Fed Balance Sheet We have received no official guidance on the level of bank reserves the Fed will target for the end of the run-off process. However, New York Fed President William Dudley recently recommended that this level should be higher than during the pre-QE period, and should probably fall in the $400 billion to $1 trillion range.4 In our forecasts we assume that bank reserves will level-off once they reach $650 billion. In that scenario the Fed's balance sheet will shrink by roughly $1.4 trillion by 2021. The level of excess reserves in the banking system will decline by a somewhat larger amount ($1.75 trillion). In terms of the impact of balance sheet shrinkage on overall liquidity conditions, it is useful to think about the four categories of liquidity described above. (1) Monetary Liquidity The re-absorption of excess reserves will mean that base money will contract (i.e. the sum of bank reserves held at the Fed and currency in circulation). However, we do not expect this to have a noticeable impact on the broader monetary aggregates, credit growth, the economy or inflation, outside of any effect it might have on the term premium in the bond market. The reasoning is that all those excess reserves did not have a major impact on growth and inflation when they were created in the first place. This was because the credit channel of monetary policy was blocked by a lack of demand (private sector deleveraging) and limited bank lending capacity (partly due to regulation). Banks were also less inclined to lend due to rising loan losses. Removing the excess reserves should have little effect on banks' willingness or ability to make new loans. In terms of asset prices, some investors believe that when the excess reserves were created, a portion of it found its way out of the banking system and was used to buy assets directly. That is not the case. The excess reserves were left idle, sitting on deposit at the Fed. They did not "leak" out and were not used to purchase assets. Thus, fewer excess bank reserves do not imply any forced selling. Nonetheless, the QE program certainly affected asset prices indirectly via the portfolio balance effect. Asset purchases supported both the economy and risk assets in part via a weaker dollar and to the extent that the policy lifted confidence in the system. But most importantly, QE depressed long-term interest rates, which are used to discount cash flows when valuing financial assets. QE boosted risk-seeking behavior and the search for yield, partly through the signaling mechanism that convinced investors that short-term rates would stay depressed for a long time. The result was a decline in measures of market implied volatility, such as the MOVE and VIX indexes. Could Bond Yields Spike? The risk is that the portfolio balance effect goes into reverse as the Fed unwinds the asset purchases. The negative impact on risk assets will depend importantly on the bond market's response. As highlighted in the Overview section, there will be a sharp swing in the flow of G4 government bonds available to the private sector, from a contraction of US$800 billion in 2017 to an increase of US$600 billion in 2018. Focusing on the U.S. market, empirical estimates suggest that the Fed's shedding of Treasurys could boost the 10-year yield by about 80 basis points because the private sector will require a higher term premium to absorb the higher flow of bonds. However, the impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: Banks are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years in order to meet the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio. The BCA U.S. Bond Strategy service argues that growing bank demand for Treasurys in the coming years will absorb much of the net flow of Treasurys that the Fed is no longer buying.5 As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. It is difficult to estimate how it will shake out, but the point is that forward guidance will help to limit the impact of the shrinking Fed balance sheet on bond yields. Indeed, the Fed is trying hard to sever the link in investors' minds between balance sheet policy and signaling about future rate hikes, as highlighted by Chair Yellen's Q&A session following the September FOMC meeting. The bottom line is that the impact on monetary liquidity of a smaller Fed balance sheet should be minimal, although long-term bond yields will be marginally higher as a result. That said, much depends on inflation. If the core PCE inflation rate were to suddenly shift up to the 2% target or above, then bond prices will be hit hard, the VIX will surge and risk assets will sustain some damage. The prospect of a more aggressive pace of monetary tightening would undermine funding liquidity, compounding the negative impact on risk assets. (2) Funding Liquidity Chart II-17Tri-Party Repo Market Has Shrunk By unwinding its balance sheet, the Fed will be supplying securities into the market and removing cash. This will be occurring at a time when transactions in the tri-party repo market have fallen to less than half of their peak in 2007 due to stricter regulation (Chart II-17). This market has historically been an important source of short-term funding, helping to meet the secular rise in demand for short-term, low-risk instruments, largely from non-financial corporations, asset managers and foreign exchange reserve funds. If the Fed drains reserves from the system and T-bill issuance does not increase substantially to compensate, a supply shortage of short-maturity instruments could develop. We can see how this might undermine the Fed's ability to shift short-term interest rates higher under its new system of interest rate management, where reverse repos and the interest rate paid on reserves set the floor for other short-term interest rates. However, at the moment we do not see the risk that fewer excess reserves on its own will negatively affect funding liquidity. Again, any impact on funding liquidity would likely be felt via a sharp rise in interest rates and pullback in the portfolio balance effect, which would occur if inflation turns up. But this has more to do with rising interest rates than the size of the Fed's balance sheet. Indeed, balance sheet shrinkage could actually improve funding liquidity provided via the bilateral repo market, securities-lending, derivatives and prime brokerage channels. These are important players in the collateral supply chain. A recent IMF working paper emphasizes that collateral flows are just as important in credit creation as money itself.6 Collateral refers to financial instruments that are used as collateral to fund positions, which can be cash or cash-like equivalents. Since pledged collateral can be reused over and over, it can generate significantly more total lending than the value of the collateral itself. The Fed's overnight reverse-repo facility includes restrictions that the collateral accessed from its balance sheet can only be used in the tri-party repo system. Thus, the Fed's presence in the collateral market has reduced the "velocity of collateral." Table II-2 shows that the reuse rate of collateral, or its velocity, has fallen from 3.0 in 2007 to 1.8 in 2015. Table II-2Collateral Velocity The combination of tighter capital regulations and Fed asset purchases has severely limited the available space on bank balance sheets to provide funding liquidity. Regulations force banks to carry more capital for a given level of assets. Fed asset purchases have forced a large portion of those assets to be held as reserves, limiting banks' activity in the bilateral repo market. There is much uncertainty surrounding this issue, but it appears that an unwind the Fed's balance sheet will free up some space on bank balance sheets, possibly permitting more bilateral repo activity and thus a higher rate of collateral velocity. It may also relieve concerns about a shortage of safe-haven assets. Nonetheless, we probably will not see a return of collateral velocity to 2007 levels because stricter capital regulations will still be in place. What About Currency Swaps? Some have argued that this removal of cash could also lead to an appreciation of the U.S. dollar. In particular, Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse has observed a correlation between U.S. bank reserves and FX basis swap spreads.7 There is also a strong correlation between FX swap spreads and the U.S. dollar (Chart II-18). Chart II-18FX Basis Swap And Reserves One possible chain of events is that, as the Fed drains cash from the market, there will be less liquidity in the FX swap market. Basis swap spreads will widen as a result, and this will cause the dollar to appreciate. In this framework, the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. However, it is also possible that the chain of causation runs in the other direction. The BIS has proposed a model8 where a stronger dollar weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets. This causes them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, leading to wider basis swap spreads. In this model, a strong dollar leads to wider basis swap spreads and not the reverse. If this is the correct direction of causation, then we should not expect any impact on the dollar from the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. At the moment it is impossible to tell which of the above two theories is correct. All we can do is monitor the correlation between reserves, FX basis swap spreads and the dollar going forward. Conclusions: Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired and/or constrained relative to the pre-Lehman years. Funding liquidity has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis lows, but it is far from frothy. More intense regulation means that funding liquidity will probably never again be as favorable for risk assets as it was before the crisis. But, hopefully, efforts by the authorities to reduce perceived systemic risk mean that funding liquidity may not be as quick to dry up as was the case in 2008, in the event of another negative shock. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. However, we believe that the bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated and difficult to forecast. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets. However, this is more a problem in terms of the Fed's ability to raise interest rates than for funding liquidity. A smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Ryan Swift Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy 1 D. Domanski, I. Fender and P. McGuire, "Assessing Global Liquidity," BIS Quarterly Review (December 2011). 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017," dated July 18, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 E. Cerutti, S. Claessens and L. Ratnovski, "A Primer on 'Global Liquidity'," CEPR Policy Portal (June 8, 2014). 4 William C. Dudley, "The U.S. Economic Outlook and the Implications for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York (September 07, 2017). 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind," dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 M. Singh, "Collateral Reuse and Balance Sheet Space," IMF Working Paper (May 2017). 7 Alexandra Scaggs, "Where would you prefer your balance sheet: Banks, or the Federal Reserve?" Financial Times Alphaville (April 13, 2017). 8 S. Avdjiev, W. Du, C. Koch, and Hyun S.Shin, "The dollar, bank leverage and the deviation from covered interest parity," BIS Working Papers No.592 (Revised July 2017). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equity indexes in the U.S. and Japan broke out to new highs in September. European stocks surged as well. Investors embraced risk assets in the month on a solid earnings backdrop, strong economic indicators, continuing low inflation and revived hopes for fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and Japan, among other factors. Our indicators do not warn of any near-term stumbling blocks for the bull market. Our monetary indicator continues to hover only slightly on the restrictive side. Our equity composite technical indicator may be rolling over, but it must fall below zero to send a 'sell' signal. The speculation index is elevated, but bullish equity sentiment is only a little above the long-term mean. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 tends to increase whenever the 12-month forward EPS estimate is rising. The latter is in a solid uptrend that should continue based on the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index. Valuation remains poor, but has not yet reached our threshold of overvaluation. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in August for the second consecutive month. We introduced the RPI in the July report. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. and Japanese WTPs are trending sideways, and Europe could be rolling over. While this is a little worrying because they indicate that flows into equity markets have moderated recently, the indicators have to clearly turn down to provide a bearish signal for stocks. Flows into the U.S. appear to be more advanced relative to Japan and the Eurozone, suggesting that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the latter two markets than for the U.S. market. Oversold conditions for the U.S. dollar are being worked off, but our technical indicator is still positive for the currency. The greenback looks expensive based on PPP, but is less so on other measures. We are positive in the near term. Our composite technical indicator for U.S. Treasurys is at neutral. Bond valuation is also at neutral based on our long-standing model. However, other models that specifically incorporate global economic factors suggest that the 10-year Treasury is still more than 30 basis points on the expensive side. Stay below benchmark in duration. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Duration: As long as inflation shows signs of stabilizing during the next couple of months the Fed will lift rates again in December. Stay at below-benchmark duration and remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Credit Cycle: The process of corporate sector re-leveraging is well underway, but the corporate bond trade still has further to run. In fact, the second quarter decline in net leverage likely prolongs the length of time that overweight corporate bond positions will be profitable. Economy & Inflation: While households are no longer paying down debt, the pace of re-leveraging has so far been slow. With delinquency rates already starting to rise for certain classes of consumer credit, we see household debt growth as remaining tepid at best. Feature Janet Yellen struck a somewhat hawkish tone in her press conference following last week's FOMC meeting, as did the post-meeting statement and Summary of Economic Projections (SEP). Predictably, the bond market sold off and is now priced for 39 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of 2018 (Chart 1). While this is still well below the 100 bps predicted in the SEP, it proved sufficient to send the 2-year Treasury yield to a new cycle high (Chart 1, bottom panel). The Fed also announced the unwind of its balance sheet, as had been widely anticipated, and Yellen took great pains to stress that the pace of balance sheet reduction will not be altered unless the economy encounters a shock severe enough to send the fed funds rate back to zero. As was discussed in last week's report,1 this is a calculated move by the Fed meant to sever the link between the balance sheet and expectations about the future path of rate hikes. The SEP showed that most FOMC participants still expect to lift rates once more this year, and that only four out of 16 believe the Fed should stand pat, the same number as in June. However, expectations for one more hike this year are most likely contingent on inflation showing some further signs of strength. To see this, we note that the real fed funds rate is very close to at least one popular estimate of its equilibrium level (Chart 2). With inflation still below the Fed's target it is imperative that an accommodative monetary policy stance is maintained. Practically, this means keeping the real fed funds rate below equilibrium so that economic slack can be absorbed and inflation can rise. If inflation stays flat and the Fed hikes in December, then the real fed funds rate will move above the Laubach-Williams estimate of equilibrium. Chart 1Fed Pushes Yields Higher Chart 2Funds Rate Must Stay Below Neutral We calculate that if the Fed delivers a 25 basis point hike in December, then year-over-year core PCE inflation must rise from its current 1.41% to 1.63% for the real fed funds rate to stay below its neutral level (Chart 2, bottom panel). This squares with the Fed's central tendency forecast that calls for core PCE inflation between 1.5% and 1.6% by the end of the year. In our view, as long as inflation shows further signs of stabilizing and moves toward the Fed's central tendency range during the next couple of months, then the Fed will likely lift rates again in December. However, if inflation resumes its recent downtrend, then the Fed will take a pass. Inflation Expectations: Yellen vs. Brainard Perhaps the most interesting detail to emerge from last week's FOMC meeting is that the committee is so far rejecting Governor Lael Brainard's claim that inflation expectations have become unanchored to the downside. As we discussed in a recent report,2 inflation expectations are critical to the Fed's way of thinking about inflation. In the Fed's view, monetary policy can be used effectively in response to shifts in the cyclical drivers of inflation. However, if inflation expectations were to become unanchored, it would suggest that inflation's long run trend had been altered. This would make monetary policy much less effective, and a timely return of inflation to target much less likely. Governor Brainard views the recent weakness in inflation as suggesting that inflation expectations have in fact become unmoored. As evidence she points to the low levels of: TIPS breakeven inflation rates (Chart 3, top panel) Chart 3Inflation Expectations Household inflation expectations from the University of Michigan survey (Chart 3, panel 2) 5-year, 5-year forward CPI forecasts derived from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF) (Chart 3, panel 3) In contrast, at her post-meeting press conference Chair Yellen pointed to median 10-year forecasts from the SPF as evidence that inflation expectations remain well-anchored (Chart 3, bottom panel). Although, she also admitted that she is unable to explain why inflation has fallen this year: I can't say I can easily point to a sufficient set of factors that explain this year why inflation has been this low. I've mentioned a few idiosyncratic things, but frankly, the low inflation is more broad-based than just idiosyncratic things. What matters for bond investors is that TIPS breakeven inflation rates, a measure of the compensation for inflation protection embedded in nominal bond yields, are well below levels that are usually seen when core inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 1.84%. We expect it will return to a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that year-over-year core PCE inflation reaches 2%. In Yellen's view, inflationary pressures are strong enough for this process to play out with the Fed still being able to gradually lift rates, once more this year and then three more times in 2018. But the longer that inflation fails to rebound as Yellen expects, the more likely it becomes that the committee will come around to Brainard's view and scale back the pace of hikes. A slower expected pace of rate hikes will lend support to inflation and TIPS breakevens, and in either scenario we would expect TIPS breakevens to reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range by the end of the cycle. The uncertainty surrounds what level of real rates will be required to achieve that outcome. In that regard we are more inclined toward Yellen's view. Inflation will soon follow growth indicators higher,3 and the Fed will be able to deliver a pace of rate hikes similar to what it currently projects. But with so few rate hikes priced into the curve, we think the investment implications are the same in either scenario. Investors should stay at below-benchmark duration and remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Bonds In The Long-Run? The Fed's median projection for the level of longer-run interest rates also declined last week, from 3% to 2.75%. It is now only 8 bps above the 5-year, 5-year forward Treasury yield (Chart 4). Chart 4Fed Slowly Embracing A Low Neutral Rate In general, we think the 5-year, 5-year Treasury yield should be equal to the nominal interest rate expected to prevail in the longer-run plus a small risk premium. In that respect, the yield still looks a tad low compared to the Fed's forecast, although the gap has narrowed considerably. While we would not want to hinge our investment strategy on the accuracy of the Fed's longer-run interest rate forecast, it is notable that the Fed continues to price-in a future where the equilibrium interest rate remains depressed. Please see the Economy & Inflation section (below) for a discussion of the longer-run outlook for the fed funds rate. Corporate Credit Cycle Prolonged Second quarter Financial Accounts (formerly Flow of Funds) data were released last week, allowing us to update some of our credit cycle indicators. Chart 5 shows that, historically, three conditions must be met before the credit cycle turns and we experience a period of sustained corporate bond underperformance. Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) must be in "deteriorating health" territory, signaling that the corporate sector is aggressively taking on debt (Chart 5, panel 2). Monetary policy must be restrictive. This can be signaled by the real federal funds rate crossing above its equilibrium level (Chart 5, panel 3), or an inversion of the yield curve (Chart 5, panel 4). Banks must be tightening standards on commercial & industrial loans (Chart 5, bottom panel). So far this cycle only the first criterion has been met and while the CHM remains firmly in "deteriorating health" territory, it actually took a sizeable turn toward zero in Q2. The marginal improvement in corporate health was broad based across all six of our monitor's components (Chart 6). Even return on capital, which had been in free fall, managed to move higher (Chart 6, panel 3). Chart 5Credit Cycle Indicators Chart 6Corporate Health Monitor Components Box 1Corporate Health Monitor Components The slower pace of deterioration in corporate health can mostly be chalked up to surging profit growth. EBITD4 growth outpaced debt growth in Q2, sending our measure of net leverage lower (Chart 7). Year-over-year EBITD growth is now within striking distance of corporate debt growth for the first time since 2015 (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Can Leverage Reverse Its Uptrend? It is rare for corporate spreads to tighten while leverage is rising. So in that regard the tick lower in leverage probably extends the period of time we can remain overweight corporate bonds in a U.S. fixed income portfolio. Chart 8Profit Outlook Still Positive Since 1973, we calculate that investment grade corporate bonds have outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries in 62% of six month periods, for an average annualized excess return of 45 bps. In prior research5 we showed that, during the same timeframe, when leverage rose for two consecutive quarters corporate bonds outperformed in only 45% of the following six month periods, for an average annualized excess return of -190 bps. This quarter's decline in leverage breaks a streak of two consecutive increases. But what about going forward? Further declines in leverage will depend on whether profit growth can sustain its recent strength. While some moderation is likely, our leading profit indicators suggest that growth will remain firm for the remainder of the year (Chart 8). Total business sales less inventories have hooked a tad lower, but are still consistent with solid profit growth (Chart 8, panel 1). Industrial production growth also rolled over last month, but that reflects temporary weakness related to Hurricane Harvey. Continued elevated readings from the ISM manufacturing index suggest that underlying demand is strong (Chart 8, panel 2). Meanwhile, dollar weakness continues to provide a tailwind for profit growth (Chart 8, panel 3), and our profit margin proxy has also ticked higher (Chart 8, bottom panel). Our profit margin proxy has risen due to weakness in unit labor costs. While tightening labor markets should cause the corporate wage bill to increase, a late-cycle rebound in productivity growth will ensure that unit labor cost growth stays muted compared to other wage growth measures. We made the case for a late-cycle rebound in productivity growth driven by stronger non-residential investment in a recent report.6 That being said, mounting wage pressures will likely cause margins to narrow next year, although a sharp margin-driven hit to profit growth is not likely in the next few quarters. Bottom Line: The process of corporate sector re-leveraging is well underway, but the corporate bond trade still has further to run. In fact, the second quarter decline in net leverage likely prolongs the length of time that overweight corporate bond positions will be profitable. Economy & Inflation: Household Re-leveraging Still A Slog As was noted above, both model-driven estimates and FOMC forecasts posit that the real equilibrium fed funds rate is very low by historical standards. One school of thought, secular stagnation, views the low equilibrium rate as a permanent state of affairs. While another, the "headwinds" thesis, claims that the fall-out from the financial crisis is keeping the equilibrium rate low for now, but that it will rise as the vestiges of the crisis start to fade. In this second theory, the major headwind keeping the equilibrium rate temporarily low would be the slow pace of household re-leveraging. Chart 9 shows the correlation between the Laubach-Williams estimate of the real equilibrium fed funds rate and growth in household debt. Household debt has only recently started to increase, and even today it is growing at a historically slow pace. So far this has not translated into strong enough growth to push the equilibrium interest rate higher, perhaps because the modest debt growth is occurring off quite a low base. Overall household debt is no longer falling relative to disposable income, but it has also not yet started to rise (Chart 9, panel 2). Whether you fall into the secular stagnation or headwinds camp, we would argue that the pace of household re-leveraging will remain tepid, keeping a lid on the equilibrium interest rate for quite some time. Household debt is dominated by housing, where still-tight lending standards and a lack of savings on the part of potential first-time homebuyers remain semi-permanent features of the economic landscape that will take a long time to disappear. Outside of housing, consumers have been adding debt fairly aggressively, especially in the non-revolving (auto loan and student loan) spaces (Chart 9, bottom panel). The problem is that in those areas where consumers have been adding debt (credit cards, auto loans and student loans), we are also seeing delinquency rates start to rise (Chart 10). Chart 9Household Debt & The Neutral Rate Chart 10Consumer Credit Delinquency Rates Delinquency rates are elevated compared to pre-crisis levels for both auto loans and student loans. For credit cards, where the re-leveraging is not as far advanced, delinquency rates remain low but have started to increase. It is only in the mortgage market, where re-leveraging has not occurred, that delinquencies remain low. The fact that delinquency rates have already started to increase for auto loans, student loans and credit cards suggests that there is limited scope to add further debt in those areas. Bottom Line: While households are no longer paying down debt, the pace of re-leveraging has so far been slow. With delinquency rates already starting to rise for certain classes of consumer credit, we see household debt growth as remaining tepid at best. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind", dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation. 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights EM EPS growth is set to decelerate significantly and will likely turn negative in 2018 based on the China/EM money/credit indicators. All measures of Chinese broad money growth have fallen to a record low signifying a major growth slump. The two pillars of the EM currency rally - strong growth in China that manifests in higher commodities prices and lower U.S. bond yields- are set to reverse. EM equities and credit markets relative performance versus their DM peers is about to relapse. A new fixed-income trade: receive 2-year swap rates in Mexico / pay 2-year swap rates in the U.S. Feature Last week we were on the road, meeting with some of our U.S. East Coast clients. This week we address some of the common questions we received. Q: Why do you think EM profits will relapse in the next six-to-nine months, given both global and EM growth continue to show strength? A: Our reluctance to change our view on EM risk assets in general and equities in particular has to do with EM/China business cycle/corporate profit indicators. Several indicators for EM profits - which have exhibited very good track records - presently forecast a material slowdown and possibly a contraction in EM EPS starting late this year and well into next year. In particular, China's broad and narrow money impulses lead EM EPS by about nine months, and are currently signaling that EPS growth is set to peak and begin to decline in the next nine months (Chart I-1). What's more, a few business cycle indicators from Korea and Taiwan, such as nominal manufacturing production and manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratios, corroborate a peak in EM EPS growth (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM EPS Is Set to Decelerate ##br##And Probably Contract Chart I-2More Signs Of Relapse##br## In EM EPS Growth Importantly, the EM corporate earnings slowdown will not occur in a vacuum. It will transpire amid a slowdown in Asian trade and lower commodities prices. In particular: China's broad money M3 impulse leads domestic industrial orders, nominal manufacturing production and imports (Chart I-3). Even though Asian export data were strong in August, China's container freight index signals a slowdown in Asian trade lies ahead (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China: M3 Impulse And Domestic Demand Chart I-4Asian Export Growth To Slow The Chinese broad money impulse also points to a rollover in Korean, Taiwanese, other EM as well as DM countries' shipments to the mainland (Chart I-5). This is how the slowdown in China's money/credit will hurt corporate profits in EM as well as in DM sectors with substantial exposure to Chinese growth. Besides, China's broad money impulse leads industrial metals prices in general and iron ore prices in particular (Chart I-6). This signifies downside risks to commodities producers. Finally, China's yield curve suggests that mainland manufacturing PMI will roll over after its recent ascent (Chart I-7). Chart I-5Shipments To China Are At Risk Chart I-6Industrial Metals Prices Have Peaked Chart I-7China: The Yield Curve And Manufacturing PMI In short, China has been gradually tightening monetary policy, which has already manifested in record-low broad money growth. The next phase is evidence of a material deterioration in sales and profits among China-exposed plays. The EM stock markets are unlikely to ignore it. Q: It seems you are putting a lot of emphasis on China's broad money M3 measure. Why do you look at your version of Chinese broad money M3 and not at official M2 and total social financing (TSF)? A: Over the past several months we have done a lot of research and analysis on China's money and credit, and believe that our broad money M3 measure and private and public credit aggregate calculated by BIS are presently better measures of money and credit than official broad money M2 and TSF: First, the TSF data have become distorted because of the local government financing vehicles (LGFV) debt swap program. Specifically, according to the LGFV debt swap mechanics, starting in 2015 provincial governments began issuing bonds that have been purchased by banks. The amount of bonds issued was RMB 3.2 trillion in 2015, RMB 4.9 trillion in 2016 and expected to be RMB 4.8 trillion in 2017. This amounts to total issuance of RMB 12.9 trillion since the commencement of the program. As the next step, local governments were supposed to transfer the proceeds from these bond issuances to their LGFVs, with the latter using the money to pay down their debt. The ultimate goal of the program is to shift the debt from LGFVs to provincial governments, as the latter's creditworthiness is much better than the former. This has also reduced interest rates on the debt as provincial governments borrow at lower interest rates than LGFVs. All that said, it is unclear how much of their debt LGFVs have repaid. The main problem with using TSF data is knowing the amount of proceeds from the issued debt swap bonds that were used to pay down LGFV debt. If the entire amount of these bonds issued by provincial governments was used to pay down LGFV debt, there would not be an impact on economic activity, and only a very short-term impact on money supply. When banks buy bonds from non-banks (including governments), they create new money. When debtors (including governments and their entities) pay down debt to banks, money is destroyed. Nevertheless, both official M1 growth and our measure of broad money (M3) were too strong in 2015 and 2016 – i.e., they remained strong much longer than would have been justified by the LGFV debt swap. Furthermore, private and public credit, M2 and M3 money measures have decoupled from TSF since the middle of 2015 (Chart I-8A). TSF adjusted for the LGFV debt swap – the latter is added to TSF – has also diverged from official M2, our broad money M3 and BIS’s private and public credit measures (Chart I-8B). This corroborates that TSF data can no longer serve as a reliable measure of credit/money origination. Chart I-8AChina: TSF Has Diverged From ##br##Other Money/Credit Measures Chart I-8BChina: TSF Adjusted For LGFV Debt Swap Has Also Decoupled From Money/Credit Measures Markedly, paying down debt by LGFVs should have reduced corporate debt outstanding by RMB 12.9 trillion, which would represent a 12% drop from the RMB 112 trillion outstanding at the end of 2015. However, corporate debt has continued to expand rapidly, even as government debt has surged. Given all of the above, we doubt all of the proceeds from bonds issued within the LGFV debt swap program were immediately used to repay LGFV debt. Instead, we suspect the proceeds from the bond issuance might have been at least partially invested into the economy in 2016, in defiance of the rules of LGFV debt swap operation. We played down the rise in M1 in late 2015 and early 2016 because we regarded it as temporary, reflecting the LGFV debt swap program. In retrospect, it was a mistake - this was one of the main reasons we did not heed the message from recovering money growth in early 2016 to turn cyclically positive on China's growth, and consequently on commodities and broader EM. Provided we do not know what portion of LGFV debt was repaid and when, corporate credit and total social financing data have become difficult to interpret. Chart I-8A and Chart I-8B demonstrate that TSF with and without the LGFV debt swap has diverged from private and public debt since the middle of 2015 when the LGFV debt swap program commenced. Apparently, one no longer can rely on TSF or adjust it by the amount of LGFV debt swap to gauge money and credit creation in China. In this context, the aggregate of private and public credit is a much more appropriate measure of credit provision and debt creation than TSF. The basis is because it includes both private and public debt. Indeed, the reshuffling of debt between local governments and LGFVs (the latter are treated as enterprises in China's banking statistics), does not affect either aggregate borrowing or amount of debt held in the economy. Second, when credit numbers are distorted, one needs to resort to money supply measures to judge credit dynamics. The reason is because financial engineering and, in the case of China, the LGFV debt swap program, can obscure the amount of outstanding credit, but they cannot conceal the amount of money banks create when they lend or purchase bonds or any other asset. Money is created when a bank originates claims on non-banks, and money is destroyed when a debt is paid back to the bank. Accordingly, money traces debt creation by banks. Banks can disguise their assets, and corporations and governments can conceal their liabilities, but none of them can camouflage the amount of money in circulation. In short, we trace money to gauge the amount of private and public sector borrowing from banks. This is why we have calculated various measures of money in China to overcome the shortcomings of the TSF. Specifically, we have calculated broad money M3 (see details of our calculation below) and credit-money. The latter is the sum of commercial banks' assets such as claims on non-financial institutions, claims on other financial institutions, claims on government and claim on other resident sectors and commerical banks' as well as the central bank's foreign currency assets. Chart I-9 demonstrates various measures of broad money and outstanding credit: official M2, our measure of broad money M3, our credit-money measure, and private and public debt (source BIS). Importantly, all measures of money and private and public credit suggest that credit origination/money creation was very strong in 2015 and 2016, and that it has slowed substantially in 2017. In brief, the message from various measures of money/credit is consistent. Chart I-9China: Money/Credit Growth Has Decelerated To New Lows Interestingly, broad money M3 rose by RMB 21 trillion in 2015, RMB 20 trillion in 2016 and by only RMB 16.5 trillion in the past 12 months through end of August. This is why the M3 impulse - a change in money flows - has turned negative since early this year. Third, we prefer our broad money measure M3 to official M2 because it is more consistent with the BIS's measure of private and public credit. It has also served as a better tool in forecasting the 2016-2017 recovery in Chinese growth. As can be seen in Chart 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on previous pages, the M3 impulse - its second derivative - has a great track record in forecasting China's business cycle dynamics. The acceleration in M2 growth in 2015-16 was milder than one would expect in order to achieve meaningful acceleration in nominal economic activity. M2 growth was more subdued than a rise in both private and public debt (Chart I-9). We suspect that M2 is no longer an encompassing measure of broad money in China, and therefore we have calculated other measures of broad money to gauge true money/credit creation. Chart I-10China: Consumer Price Inflation Is Rising Broad money consists of various liabilities of commercial banks. While the official M2 includes many of their liabilities such as corporate demand deposits, corporate time deposits and personal deposits. It does not include some others. We have added the following commercial banks' liabilities - transferable deposits and other deposits which are not included in M2, liabilities to other financial corporations and other liabilities - to M2 to produce a more all-inclusive measure of broad money M3. Q: Why can't the Chinese authorities stimulate and revive growth again, like they have done many times in the past? A: Of course, they can. However, if the authorities begin easing monetary/credit and fiscal policies now, it will affect growth six to nine months down the road. Based on money and credit indicators shown in the charts above, growth is set to slow over the next nine months because of the time lag that money/credit has on the economy. In the next six to nine months, economic activity and corporate profits are likely to decelerate considerably, based on the monetary/credit tightening that has already occurred in China. Provided China-related financial markets in general and EM risk assets in particular have so far not discounted the slowdown suggested by China's money/credit indicators, they are very vulnerable. Finally, the magnitude of the impending growth slump is likely to be large, as evidenced by the substantial decline in these money and credit indicators that has already occurred. In brief, policymakers have been tightening credit/money creation, and it has not yet impacted financial markets. Furthermore, inflation is rising in China (Chart I-10) and policymakers are unlikely to start easing before they witness a major growth slump. Until the latter becomes visible in economic data and on the ground, financial markets leveraged to mainland growth will sell off notably. Q: There is no indication that the Federal Reserve will turn hawkish. This will be especially true if global growth slows - as you argue it will because of China. Why do you expect the EM currency rally to peter out amid a dovish Fed? Historical empirical evidence suggests that EM currencies are often driven by commodities prices, not the interest rate differential over U.S. rates. Let's take the BRL and the ZAR as examples. Charts I-11A and Chart I-11B illustrate that the BRL and ZAR exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar have historically been closely correlated with commodities prices, not the level of or change in their interest rate differential over the U.S. Chart I-11ABrazil: What Drives The Currency? Chart I-11BSouth Africa: What Drives The Currency? This has also been true over the past 18 months. The rally in EM currencies since early 2016 can be largely attributed to the rise in commodities prices. As and when commodities prices roll over - as we expect to occur - the trade balances of commodities-producing nations will deteriorate, as will their currencies. Remarkably, there are tentative signs that the drop in U.S. bond yields and the greenback's depreciation are late and overdone. Two-year U.S. bond yields have bounced from their 200-day moving average (please refer to the middle panel of Chart II-1 in the Mexican section). Typically, such a technical profile leads to new highs. Our sense is that U.S. bond yields will rebound in the coming months, which will also weigh on EM currencies. Importantly, one of the drivers behind the U.S. dollar selloff since early this year has been the rise in banks' excess reserves at the Fed (Chart I-12). The latter was due to the debt ceiling, as the U.S. Treasury was running down its account at the Fed by issuing less paper. In short, since the beginning of this year the U.S. Treasury did not issue bonds/bills and deposit them at its Treasury General Account (TGA) at the Fed - meaning it was not destroying banking system reserves as it typically does. This boosted the supply of U.S. dollars - banks' excess reserves at the Fed rose by US$ 300 billion. More dollar supply depressed both the exchange rate and U.S. interest rates. Chart I-12 demonstrates that in the post-QE era, banks' excess reserves at the Fed have correlated with the U.S. dollar's exchange rate. The debt ceiling has been resolved for now, and the Treasury will now begin accumulating dollars in its TGA account again. It has already announced that its TGA will rise from $73 billion now to $400 billion at the end of this year. The Treasury will issue more paper, and deposit U.S. dollars in the TGA. This will shrink banks' excesses reserves. This, in tandem with the reduction in the Fed's balance sheet, will diminish banks' excess reserves. The latter will reduce U.S. dollar supply in off-shore markets and will likely trigger a U.S. dollar rebound. On the whole, the two pillars of the EM currency rally - strong growth in China that manifests in higher commodities prices and lower U.S. bond yields - are set to reverse. In turn, a potential EM currency selloff along with deteriorating EM corporate profits will likely weigh on EM equities and EM sovereign and corporate debt. Q: Does this mean EM stocks will relapse in absolute terms, or simply underperform the DM equity markets? Our strongest conviction at the moment is on EM relative equity performance versus DM equity markets. Odds are that a relapse in relative performance is imminent as and if U.S. bond yields rise (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. Banks' Excess Reserves ##br##And The U.S. Dollar Chart I-13U.S. Stocks Outperform EM Ones When ##br##U.S. Bond Yields Are Rising In addition, U.S. stocks' underperformance versus the global equity index in common currency terms is at a technical support (Chart I-14, top panel), and will likely reverse as the dollar firms up. Historically, when U.S. stocks outperform the global benchmark in common currency terms - denoted by shaded periods in Chart I-14, EM stocks typically underperform the global equity index. The dynamics of EM equity absolute performance depends on investor's risk appetite. It will be hard for EM share prices to drop meaningfully as the DM rally persists. Global stocks are still trading well, and it is very difficult to pinpoint any trigger that will lead to a reversal. As our readers well know, we do not forecast triggers for the simple reason that the chances of getting it right are much lower than a coin toss. That said, in the medium term, the reason for a correction in DM stocks could well be EM/China growth, as it was in 2015. In such a scenario, EM risk assets will sell off first. As to timing, it is hard to find indicators that lead share prices, but aggregate EM narrow (M1) money growth has historically been coincident or leading with EM share prices - and it presently points to a considerable drop in EM equity prices (Chart I-15). This EM M1 aggregate is equity market-cap weighted making it relevant to investors. Chart I-14EM And U.S. Equites Typically Do Not Outperform Global Stocks Simultaneously Chart I-15EM M1 Growth And EM Share Prices Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com A New Trade: Receive Mexican / Pay U.S. 2-Year Swap Rates Mexico's 2-year bond yield has recently fallen through a technical support line while the U.S. 2-year bond yield has recently bounced off a major support level (Chart II-1). Our bias is that the 2-year yield in Mexico will fall relative to 2-year U.S. yield (Chart II-1, bottom panel). We recommend a new trade: receive 2-year swap rates in Mexico and pay U.S. 2-year swap rates. Historically, the domestic demand cycle in Mexico was synchronized with the business cycle in the U.S., mainly due to the fact these two economies are heavily integrated. However, the two economies have recently become desynchronized. This is evident by the fact that the Mexican export sector - which is leveraged to U.S. - is booming while the domestic demand in Mexico is slowing down (Chart II-2). Chart II-12-Year Bond Yields: Mexico And U.S. Chart II-2Divergence Within Mexican Economy The culprit behind this desynchronization is the previous collapse in the peso. Falling oil prices and excessive money/credit expansion in Mexico led to a major peso depreciation in 2014 and 2015. The election of Trump pushed it off the cliff in 2016. Inflation in Mexico spiked due to the massive currency depreciation. Consequently, the Mexican central bank has hiked interest rates by 400 basis points since the end of 2015. This, along with fiscal tightening, has choked domestic demand growth in Mexico. At this point, our bias is that the short-term interest rate differential between Mexico and the U.S. is unjustifiably wide and is about to narrow. Going forward, we expect inflation to fall in Mexico and interest rate expectations will at minimum not rise. Inflation in Mexico will roll over soon and moderate because of the following: A large part of the rise in inflation was caused by the depreciation in the peso. The peso's material appreciation this year will reduce the inflation rate (Chart II-3). Consumer spending and capital expenditure are set to continue slumping as the impact of higher interest rates continues filtering through the economy (Chart II-4, top and bottom panel). Chart II-3Mexico: Exchange Rate And Core Inflation Chart II-4Mexico: Domestic Demand To Disappoint Further Domestic vehicle sales are shrinking signifying no revival in interest rate-dependent sectors. Fiscal policy has been tightening and this will continue to be a headwind on economic growth (Chart II-5). Hence, despite flourishing exports to the U.S., very weak domestic demand will dampen inflation in Mexico. Finally, there were several one-off effects to inflation such as the gasoline subsidy removal that took place at the end of last year, and the minimum wage hike that was implemented at the beginning of the year. As the base effect of these fade, the inflation rate will moderate. In the U.S., our bias is that interest rate expectations are too low given the tight labor market, reasonably strong growth, and the U.S. dollar depreciation this year. Odds are that the U.S. interest rate expectations will rise as core inflation moves up (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Mexico: A Major Improvement In Fiscal Position Chart II-6U.S. Core Inflation To Rise Investment Recommendations We recommend fixed-income traders to receive Mexican / pay U.S. 2-year swap rates. The main risk to this trade lies in the event of an abrupt sell-off in the peso against the U.S dollar that could push up the 2-year swap rate differential. While we expect EM currencies, including the peso, to depreciate, this trade is still favorable in terms of risk-reward because of the starting point in interest rate differential and peso valuations: Despite the rally this year, the peso is still cheap (Chart II-7). Furthermore, its current account and fiscal balances have improved dramatically. So, the peso should depreciate less than many other EM currencies. Chart II-7The MXN Is Still Cheap In fact, the interest rate spread between Mexico and the U.S. is already historically high, and the peso depreciation might not push it much higher. We would not be recommending this trade if the peso was fairly or overvalued, or if interest rates in Mexico were not this high. Entering this position under these current circumstances reduces the downside risk and, therefore, makes the risk-reward attractive. As to Mexican financial markets in general, we remain constructive on the peso versus other EM currencies. More specifically, we continue to recommend long positions in MXN versus ZAR and BRL. Mexican local currency bonds and sovereign credit offer good value relative to their EM counterparts. Fixed income investors should continue to overweight Mexican local currency and sovereign credit within their respective EM benchmarks. Finally, the outlook for Mexican stocks in absolute terms is poor as domestic demand will slump, further hampering corporate profits. Within an EM equity portfolio we recommend neutral allocation to this bourse mainly due to our expectations of the peso outperforming other EM currencies. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Industrial metals prices are signaling that China's business conditions are presently robust, but they lag the credit and money measures. The most reliable leading (forward looking) indicators of Chinese business cycle have been money and credit. Presently, all money and credit indicators forecast an imminent slowdown in the industrial sectors and a relapse in base metals prices. A new trade: short copper / long Chilean peso. Inflation in Hungary will surge. Continue betting on yield curve steepening in Hungary and stay short HUF versus PLN. Feature Copper and industrial metals prices continue to signal strong growth in China, while the majority of the country's money and credit measures forecast an imminent growth slump. Which one is correct, and which one should investors heed to when formulating their investment strategy? Chart I-1 demonstrates that our broad money measure (M3) and private and public credit impulses for China both lead copper and industrial metals prices by about nine months. Based on the historical track record, odds are that investors will be better off following these money and credit indicators rather than heeding the bullish message from copper and other industrial commodities. While copper prices are coincident with the business cycle, money and credit impulses lead not only the real economy but also industrial metals prices. Copper Copper prices have surged of late (Chart I-2), seriously challenging our negative view on Chinese capital spending, commodities and EM. In fact, the rally in industrial metals has not been confined to copper but has been broad-based, and is, at first blush, suggestive of continued strength in global and Chinese industrial cycle. Chart I-1China's Money/Credit Leads Industrial Metals Prices Chart I-2Traders Are Very Bullish On Copper: A Contrarian Signal? Consistently, China's manufacturing PMI has picked up over the past three months, as has the overall EM PMI ex-China (Chart I-3). China's aggregate imports of copper products, unwrought copper, copper ore and concentrate as well as copper scrap have been contracting since May, and interestingly, they have historically often been negatively correlated with copper prices (Chart I-4). Hence, little insight can be drawn from Chinese imports of copper, as these purchases do not correlate with the mainland's business cycle. Chart I-3China/EM PMIs Have Risen Chart I-4Chinese Copper Imports And ##br##Copper Prices: Negative Correlation? On the contrary, Chinese imports of copper typically rise when copper prices fall and its industrial sector is decelerating. The reason: Chinese importers time their commodities purchases when prices slump, and do not chase prices higher. In short, when attempting to predict the sustainability of Chinese economic activity, there is little to be gained in examining Chinese copper imports. Bottom Line: Industrial metals prices are signaling that China's business conditions are presently robust, but they lag the credit and money measures discussed below. Leading Indicators: Money And Credit In our experience, the best leading indicators of the Chinese business cycle have been money and credit growth, more specifically, their impulses. The latter is the change in money/credit growth, or the second derivative of outstanding money/credit. In fact, money/credit impulses lead both the leading economic indicator and the well-known Li Keqiang index (Chart I-5). The latter two are often used by analysts and investors to gauge the direction of the Chinese economy. In recent months, we have done extensive work to properly measure money and credit. This has led us to the realization that China's official M2 and total social financing have not reflected the true dynamics in money creation and leverage formation over the past two years. In particular, M2 has over the years become a less all-encompassing money measure, as the size of commercial banks' liabilities that are not counted as part of M2 has exploded in recent years. So, the gap between M2 and other measures of money and credit has in the recent years widened as depicted on the top panel of Chart I-6. Chart I-5China: Money/Credit Leads ##br##Leading Economic Indicators Chart I-6China: Money/Credit Growth Have Fallen To New Lows The bottom panel of Chart I-6 demonstrates official M2, our version of broad money M3 (calculated using commercial banks' liabilities), credit-money (computed based on banks' balance sheet assets) and aggregate of private and public credit. All these measures have slowed to new lows. The most reasonable and all-inclusive measures from the four, in our view, is our measure of broad money M3 and private and public credit. As such, this is what we use to gauge the Chinese business cycle outlook. Chart I-7A and Chart I-7B demonstrate that the impulses of both M3 and private and public credit lead various business cycle and financial variables such as nominal GDP, manufacturing PMI, total imports, imports of capital goods, the freight index and producer prices as well as industrial profits. Chart I-7AChina: Money And Credit Impulses ##br##Entail Business Cycle Slowdown (II) Chart I-7BChina: Money And Credit Impulses ##br##Entail Business Cycle Slowdown (I) Regardless of which money and credit measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them currently suggest that China's business cycle is about to experience a considerable slump. Besides, money and credit impulses typically lead copper and industrial metals prices by about nine months, as shown in Chart I-1. These are the primary fundamental reasons why we are reluctant to alter our negative view on China's industrial cycle. Bottom Line: The most reliable leading indicators of the mainland business cycle have been money and credit. All money and credit indicators presently forecast an imminent slowdown in the industrial sectors. Financial markets are typically forward looking, and they change their direction before business cycles actually turn. Hence, from an investment strategy perspective, it makes sense to heed messages from leading indicators. Other Big Picture Considerations We have for several years argued that the rampant build-up in China's debt and credit excesses is unsustainable, and when credit growth normalizes/slows the economy will undergo a marked deceleration. Chart I-8Rising Interest Rates Herald A Further ##br##Slowdown In Money/Credit Growth Have these excesses been partially unwound, and has credit growth normalized? Not at all - the credit excesses have gotten larger. In fact, corporate and household debt and shadow banking credit have expanded enormously in the past two years. Even after the recent deceleration, broad money and credit continue growing at around 10% from a year ago (Chart I-6, bottom panel on page 5). Importantly, borrowing costs in China have recently resumed their upward move (Chart I-8, top panel) and rising interest rates will further dampen already slowed money and credit growth (Chart I-8, bottom panel) and thereby economic activity. In brief, from a big-picture standpoint, China's leverage situation has worsened, and interest rates are rising. While growth momentum is currently strong, financial markets leveraged to China's growth have already rallied a lot, and investor sentiment is quite bullish, as illustrated in Chart I-2 on page 2 in the case of copper. This makes the investment risk-reward profile of EM risk assets and commodities poor. Finally, some readers might wonder why we have been spending so much time focusing on China versus other developing economies. The basis is that China is now a major pillar of the global economy, and its cyclical economic trend materially influences those of many EM and DM countries. In short, every other developing country is too small to affect EM financial markets. But China does affect financial market dynamics in many other parts of the EM world. So, to gauge overall trends in EM financial markets, China and other global variables matter, yet individual developing countries do not. For the majority of emerging economies in Asia, Latin America and Africa, China is the dominant external force, similar to how the U.S. is for many of its trading partners. Similarly, Chinese interest rates are as important as borrowing costs in the U.S. Therefore, developments in Chinese interest rates, money/credit and economic activity are of paramount significance to many emerging markets. In particular, China's money as well as private and public credit impulses lead both EM and DM export shipments to China by about nine months (Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B). These developing nations' exports to China make up a meaningful part of their respective economies. In addition, industrial metals prices are by and large driven by China's capital spending, and hence affect commodities-producing countries. Chart I-9AExports To China Correlate ##br##With China's Money/Credit Chart I-9BExports To China Correlate ##br##With China's Money/Credit Bottom Line: In 2015 and 2016, China resorted to its standard playbook: money and credit origination, boosting capital spending and overall growth. In particular, China's broad money M3 and private and public credit both have surged by RMB 46 trillion in the past two years alone. Consequently, the excesses have become larger. That said, President Xi Jinping's ongoing campaign to control financial risks - and consequential tightening of monetary/liquidity conditions - entails considerable growth deceleration ahead. Risks Of Relying On Money And Credit There are a number of risks involved in relying on measures of money and credit. We discussed the velocity of money, the money multiplier and productivity in our last report1, and will only touch on these briefly this week: An economy can accelerate with sluggish or slowing money growth if the velocity of money rises materially. However, there is no basis to expect the velocity of money to rise in China now, given it has been declining for the past 10 years. Money and credit growth can recover quickly, despite rising interest rates, if the money multiplier spikes. However, the money multiplier is already extremely elevated in China, and the odds are low that it will surge further. This is especially true amid rising interest rates and the ongoing regulatory crackdown on off-balance sheet assets of banks and shadow banking. Real economic output can improve if productivity growth notably accelerates. Money growth and velocity of money will define nominal output, yet productivity will boost real output. However, it is unrealistic to expect productivity to improve meaningfully in China when structural reforms have not been widely implemented. Chart I-10China's Exports To The U.S. And EU Are ##br##Small Compared With Credit Origination Finally, some argue that robust exports to the U.S. and Europe can boost mainland growth, even if domestic demand slips. We disagree. China's combined annual exports to the U.S. and EU currently make up only US$ 0.77 trillion (6.6% of GDP). On the other hand, the amount of new private and public debt origination has amounted to US$ 3 trillion (25% of GDP) in the past 12 months (Chart I-10). Bottom Line: Given money and credit growth have already slumped, our negative outlook for China's capital spending and imports will be wrong if the 1) velocity of money rises considerably, 2) the money multiplier shoots up, or 3) productivity growth accelerates materially. If any one of these were to occur, relying on money growth to forecast economic growth will prove futile. That said, assumptions about a substantial increase in either the velocity of money, the money multiplier or productivity from current levels would be highly conjectural, speculative and unreasonable. Some Market Observations: The U.S. Dollar And Oil The Greenback Chart 11 demonstrates that the U.S. dollar sits on its three-year moving average. A three-year moving average sometimes marks the borderline between structural bull and bear markets, as demonstrated in the case of the S&P 500 in the bottom panel of Chart I-11. Hence, the U.S. dollar is flirting with a structural bear market. Indeed, if the greenback slides further, it would signify a breakdown into a structural bear market. That said, if the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar finds a bottom here, a meaningful rebound will ensue. Interestingly, the U.S. dollar has plunged even though U.S. real rates have not declined much (Chart I-12). The overwhelming portion of the drop in U.S. bond yields since early this year has been due to inflation expectations. Chart I-11Will The Greenback Find ##br##Support At Current Levels? Chart I-12U.S. TIPS Yields Have Not Dropped A Lot Typically, stable real rates amid falling inflation expectations are neutral-to-positive for an exchange rate. This has not been the case with the dollar this year. Pessimism within the fixed income and currency markets on U.S. growth is overdone. U.S. domestic demand is strong, the labor market is tight and global disinflationary forces that have suppressed U.S. inflation are alive and rampant in other parts of the world as well. Hence, there is no basis why the U.S. dollar should be punished more than other currencies because of secular global disinflation. Odds are that the euro has seen its lows in this cycle, and any selloff will not take it anywhere close its 2015-16 lows. Nevertheless, the outlook for EM currencies is meaningfully negative. The basis is that we believe EM business cycle amelioration is not sustainable - a growth slump in China, as discussed above, lower commodities prices and the hangover from the preceding credit booms in a number of countries will cap EM growth and weigh on their currency values. Bottom Line: Our take is that the dollar has been hammered too fast too far. Unless the U.S. dollar is in a structural bear market, odds are it will likely find floor here. Oil The current bear market in oil prices is tracking the 1980s bear market in crude reasonably well (Chart I-13). Based on this profile, oil prices will relapse further. We are reiterating our trade recommendation from March 8, 2017: short the spot oil price / long the Russian ruble. While both are correlated, the ruble offers 7.8% carry and will have less downside than crude. Hence, by being long the ruble, traders are being paid to short oil (Chart I-14). Stay with this position. Chart I-13Oil Is Tracking Its 1980s Bear Market Chart I-14Maintain Short Oil / Long Ruble Position A New Trade: Short Copper / Long CLP This week we recommend replicating the above oil trading strategy in the copper market. We believe shorting copper and going long a copper-related currency such as the Chilean peso offers an attractive risk-reward profile. The rationale to short copper is the potential relapse in China's growth (Chart I-1 on page 1) and elevated bullish sentiment on copper as shown in Chart I-2 on page 2. To hedge the timing risk and earn some carry, it makes sense to complement the short copper position with a long leg in a currency exposed to industrial metals/copper prices that is not vulnerable due to domestic reasons, i.e., beside copper price effect. Such a currency is the Chilean peso, in our view. The country's macro fundamentals are fine: domestic demand seems to be bottoming out and inflation is under control (Chart I-15). The primary risk to this exchange rate is copper prices. Chart I-16 depicts the total return of the combined return of a short copper and long CLP position accounting for the carry. The CLP has lagged the recent surge in copper prices and this trade offers a good entry point. Chart I-15Signs Of Bottom In The Chilean Economy Chart I-16A New Trade: Long Chilean Peso / Short Copper Bottom Line: Short copper and go long the Chilean peso. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Hungary: Inflation Is Set To Surge The dovish tone following the National Bank of Hungary's (NBH) most recent monetary policy meeting has reinforced the notion that more unconventional policy tools are likely to be forthcoming. In our view, the NBH is displeased about the recent currency strength and is presently laying the groundwork for pegging/depreciating the currency. This reinforces our view that inflation is set to surge. We have been recommending a short HUF / long PLN trade since September 28, 2016 on the basis that the NBH will remain dovish far longer than the National Bank of Poland (NBP) in the face of rising genuine inflationary pressures in both economies2 (Chart II-1). Also, the NBH has much less appetite for tolerating currency appreciation than the NBP. In turn, the NBP will hike interest rates and allow the zloty to appreciate. The latest rhetoric from the NBH reinforces our conviction, and today we are reiterating our short HUF / long PLN trade. Furthermore, relative to the forint, the zloty is still cheap based on relative real effective exchange rates, calculated using unit labor costs (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Relative Swap Rates Justify Higher PLN/HUF Chart II-2Zloty Is Cheap Versus Forint When a central bank favors extremely low interest rates and a cheap currency amid an economy that is operating above full employment and a labor market that is extremely tight, inflation is set to surge. This is exactly what is happening in Hungary. The NBH has been downplaying the tight labor market, noting that so far there has been little impact on inflation. We see a major problem with this argument. Inflation is a lagging indicator; to gauge where inflation will be headed in the coming six to 12 months, one has to monitor forward-looking indicators such as labor market dynamics and money/credit conditions. Presently, the majority of these indicators point toward much higher inflation in the coming months: The labor market is definitely tight - labor shortages are widespread, the unemployment rate is making historical lows and the participation rate is high (Chart II-3). Both wages and unit labor cost growth are surging (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Labor Market Is Super Tight In Hungary Chart II-4Hungary: Labor Costs Are Surging While private credit growth is meager, money supply is booming at a double-digit rate (Chart II-5). Such a gap between money and credit is probably due to loan write-offs. In brief, new loan origination is much stronger than implied by private credit growth, which is being affected by loan write-offs. Besides, government spending growth is currently above 20%, and banks have been funding the government by increasing their holdings of government bonds. This has also boosted money supply and is ultimately inflationary. All in all, odds are that the NBH will allow inflation to run away. As a result, long-dated local bond yields will spike, while short-term yields will be anchored by the NBH's dovish policy. We have been recommending betting on the yield curve steepening in Hungary: receive 1-year / pay 10-year swap rates. This trade remains intact (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Money Growth Is Booming Chart II-6The Yield Curve Will Steepen Further Bottom Line: Stay short the HUF versus the PLN. Maintain a bet on yield curve steepening in Hungary: receive 1-year / pay 10-year swap rates. For other fixed-income and currency as well as equity positions in central Europe and elsewhere in the EM universe, please refer to pages 19-20. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Making Sense Of The EM Business Cycle", dated August 30, 2017, link available on page 21. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Central European Strategy: Two Currency Trades," dated September 28, 2016 and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Central Europe: Beware Of An Inflation Outbreak," dated June 21, 2017, links available on page 21. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The global economic recovery has been driven by demand in China, the U.S. and Europe, while domestic demand in EM ex-China has not recovered much. Going forward, the key to EM financial markets performance will be Chinese imports and commodities prices. Our negative outlook for China's capital spending and imports will be wrong if the money velocity or the money multiplier or productivity growth rise materially. If any one of these were to occur, relying on money growth to forecast economic growth will prove futile. That said, assumptions about a substantial rise in either money velocity, the money multiplier or productivity would be highly speculative and unreasonable. With respect to capital flows, EM currencies have been supported by portfolio flows, not FDI inflows. Hence, any reduction or reversal in these portfolio flows is a major risk to EM exchange rates. Feature Chart I-1EM Share Prices Are ##br##Facing A Technical Hurdle In this week's report we elaborate on the following interrelated questions: Where do EM economies stand in terms of their respective business cycles? What are the key drivers and risks to our view? EM share prices in U.S. dollar terms are facing another technical hurdle (Chart I-1). Even though EM risk assets have been trading well, we still find their risk-reward profile unattractive, and below we elaborate why. The EM Business Cycle EM economic data have differed greatly over the course of the current rally, and various economic parameters presently exhibit very different phases of the business cycle in developing economies. For example, Asian export growth has rolled over having expanded at a double-digit pace early this year (Chart I-2). In general, EM exports have posted a broad-based recovery: the recovery in Chinese, U.S. and European imports has helped Asian exports, while higher commodities prices have boosted export revenues of commodities producers. On the flip side, domestic demand in EM ex-China has been rather mediocre. In fact, there has been very little domestic demand recovery, as evidenced by retail sales and auto sales (Chart I-3). Importantly, bank loan growth has not recovered at all (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Based on the above, we can summarize the above divergences as follows: the global economic recovery has been driven by demand in China, the U.S. and Europe, while domestic demand in EM ex-China has not recovered much. Chart I-2Asian Export Growth ##br##Has Rolled Over Chart I-3EM ex-China: Domestic ##br##Demand Has Not Yet Recovered In turn, China's imports surge has been due to the revival in new money/credit origination that has been in play since the middle of 2015. China's commercial banks have originated about RMB 43 trillion of new money/credit in the past two years. This has greatly helped many developing countries selling to China, boosted commodities prices, creating fertile ground for capital flows to EM financial markets. Going forward, the pertinent question for the EM business cycle is which of the following two scenarios will likely play out: (1) China's imports relapse materially soon, weighing on commodities and other EMs and capping the recovery in their domestic demand; or (2) Chinese import growth holds and the recovery in EM ex-China domestic demand gains momentum. The first scenario entails a bearish outcome for EM share prices, while the second would imply a continuation of the EM rally. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team envisages the first scenario. The basis of our argument is that the deceleration that has already occurred in Chinese money growth combined with ongoing monetary tightening are about to cause a considerable slowdown in China's real economy and imports (Chart I-4). What about the other two pillars of global imports - the U.S. and Europe? U.S. imports have in the past year outpaced final sales to domestic purchasers (Chart I-5). As can be seen in this chart, imports are more volatile than domestic demand and this discrepancy is reflective of inventory cycles. After outpacing final domestic demand for the past seven months, odds are U.S. imports growth will moderate in the next 12 months. That said, we do not expect a contraction in U.S. imports. Even if European imports remain robust, a material slowdown in China and some moderation in U.S. imports will be sufficient to produce a slump in EM aggregate exports. The rationale is twofold: First, for many developing countries, China as a destination for shipments is larger than or as large as the U.S. and Europe combined. Chart I-4China: Money Growth And Business Cycle Chart I-5U.S. Import Growth to Moderate Second, mainland demand for raw materials is critical for their prices. In turn, the trend in commodities prices often defines EM financial markets dynamics. This is why we focus so much on China's credit/money cycle, which in turn drives China's capital spending and an overwhelming majority of its imports. Notably, the reason why Chinese imports are much more sensitive to credit compared to other EM and DM economies is because the mainland's imports consist of 42% of commodities and raw materials and 55% of capital goods. Hence, 97% of imports is for investment spending, with the latter financed and driven by money/credit. Bottom Line: The global economic recovery has been driven by demand in China, the U.S. and Europe, while domestic demand in EM ex-China has not recovered much. Going forward, the key to EM financial markets performance will be Chinese imports and commodities prices. The Key Pillar Of Our View The key area where we differ from the bullish consensus on EM/China is our expectation that Chinese growth will slow before year-end due to a combination of ongoing policy tightening and lingering credit excesses. Regardless of which broad money measure we use - official M2, money calculated using commercial banks' liabilities (we refer to it as deposit-money or M3 hereafter) or banks' assets (we refer to this as credit-money) - the current message is the same: broad money growth has fallen to historic lows (Chart I-6). An imperative question is: what does the recent gap between broad money (our calculation of M3) and private (corporate and household) credit growth, as evidenced by the top panel of Chart I-7A, mean for investors? Chart I-6China: Various Versions Of Broad Money Chart I-7Comparing Broad Money And Credit Growth From the perspective of the outlook for growth, it is the aggregate of private and public credit that matters. When we substitute private credit with the aggregate of private and public credit, there does not appear to be much decoupling (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Readers should note that the historical time series for aggregate private and public credit is from BIS and the data for 2017 are our estimates based on general government fiscal deficit and total social financing. If past correlations between money, credit and economic growth and their respective time lags hold, the cyclical parts of the Chinese economy should slow down before year-end (Chart I-8). This differs from the consensus view on the street that a slowdown is not in the cards until well into next year (or later). China's currently flat yield curve also supports our view on imminent growth deceleration (Chart I-9). In fact, Chinese money market rates and onshore corporate bond yields have begun drifting higher following two to three months of consolidation. Chart I-8China: A Slowdown Before Year-End? Chart I-9China: Yield Curve And PMI Finally, we believe the depth of the impending slowdown will be material because ongoing liquidity tightening is occurring amid lingering credit excesses/credit bubble. While policymakers do not plan to push the economy into a vicious downturn, they may be open to the idea of attempting mild short-term deleveraging to contain risks in the long run. Furthermore, the Chinese authorities - like in any other country - may not have perfect foresight about the magnitude of a potential slowdown. Hence, their reversal of tightening policies is likely to be late, resulting in a rough spot in growth. Bottom Line: The key difference between our stance and the bullish view on EM is on China's growth trajectory and commodities prices. Risks To Our View Given that the main pillar of our view is that China's credit and money growth is driving mainland capital spending and imports, our recommended investment strategy will be wrong if the already transpiring slowdown in money growth does not translate into investment spending deceleration. This could happen because of the following: Strong nominal growth can coincide with slower money growth only if the velocity of money accelerates. In short, our view will be wrong if China's nominal output growth holds up or quickens, despite the slowdown in broad money growth that has already occurred. This could happen if the velocity of money suddenly shoots up - i.e., the same amount of money simply turns faster facilitating faster expansion of nominal output. There is no way to forecast changes in money velocity in any country in any period with any precision. As a rule, we (and the vast majority of other market participants) simply assume money velocity will be constant over our forecast horizons. Money velocity is calculated as nominal GDP divided by broad money supply. From a historical perspective, Chart I-10 demonstrates that China's money velocity has actually drifted lower in the past 10 years or so. Therefore, a material rise in China's money velocity would be an exception from the trend of past decade. Consequently, before assuming a rising money velocity, one needs to prove why it will escalate going forward. This does not mean it is impossible or could not happen, but it is reasonable to challenge the nature and timing of it. Our view will be wrong if money growth accelerates sharply from current levels without more liquidity (banks' excess reserves) provisioning by the People's Bank of China (PBoC). In such a scenario, broad money growth acceleration amid low levels of banks' excess reserves would signify a spike in the money multiplier. However, the money multiplier for China - measured as broad money divided by commercial banks' excess reserves at the central bank - is already at the second highest of the past ten years (Chart I-11, top panel). In level terms, there is currently about RMB 212 trillion of broad money - measured by commercial banks' liabilities/deposits (our measure of M3) versus RMB 2 trillion of commercial banks' excess reserves at the end of June. Chart I-10China: Velocity Of Money ##br##Has Been Drifting Lower Chart I-11China: Money Multiplier ##br##Is Already Elevated We assume the money multiplier will be flat to down in China over the next 12-18 months. Banks have already become overextended with respect to the money multiplier, and are operating on thin liquidity/excess reserves (Chart I-11, bottom panel). With interest rates rising and regulatory tightening forcing banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets onto their balance sheets, it is reasonable to assume a flat-to-down money multiplier. Finally, another risk to our view stems from productivity. If productivity growth is set to accelerate considerably in China, it will boost real output growth despite the slump in money/credit. Chart I-12China: Structural Slowdown ##br##In Productivity Growth It is hard to measure productivity ex-post, let alone to forecast it. This is especially true for developing economies. This is why we assume that productivity growth in China will be stable in the medium term but will decelerate in the long run if structural reforms are not implemented and the economy's reliance on abundant money/credit is not reduced. Simply put, when money/credit are plentiful, people and companies make a lot of money without working hard and innovating. This is why money/credit deluges and asset bubbles often lead to a considerable productivity slowdown in any country. Provided that China's economy has been primarily fueled by copious amounts of money and credit since early 2009, it is reasonable to assume that productivity growth has slowed (Chart I-12). Without structural reforms, the quality of capital allocation will not improve. Therefore, productivity growth is bound to slow rather than accelerate. We will discuss the structural outlook for China including productivity and economic rebalancing toward the service sector in a special report to be published in the coming weeks. Bottom Line: Our negative outlook for China's capital spending and imports will be wrong if the money velocity rises considerably or the money multiplier shoots up or productivity growth accelerates materially. If any one of these were to occur, relying on money growth to forecast economic growth will prove futile. That said, assumptions about a substantial rise in either money velocity, the money multiplier or productivity from current levels would be highly speculative and unreasonable. Risk Off And Fund Flows Into EM Last week we downgraded Korean stocks due to expectations that geopolitical tensions are set to rise in the near term. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service does not expect war on the Korean peninsula as long-standing constraints to conflict are still in place, starting with Pyongyang's ability to cause massive civilian casualties north of Seoul via an artillery barrage. As such, the ultimate resolution to the conflict will be a peaceful one. However, getting from here (volatility) to there (negotiated resolution) requires more tensions. The U.S. has to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move China and North Korea towards a negotiated resolution.1 And that process could take more time, which means more volatility in the markets.2 The risk-off dynamics in EM due to tensions in the Korean Peninsula is a near-term risk and might become a trigger for a rollover in EM risk assets via reversal of portfolio flows. One of the narratives supporting the EM rally has been the changing composition of foreign capital flows into EM. This narrative argues3 that international flows to EM have been dominated by foreign direct investment (FDI) rather than portfolio inflows. This presages that EM risk assets are much less exposed to portfolio outflows than before. However, this is factually wrong. The composition of international capital flows into EM has been dominated by portfolio flows rather than FDI. In fact, FDI inflows have not yet recovered (Chart I-13). For the calculation of this aggregate we exclude not only China, Korea and Taiwan - which have large current account surpluses and do not require FDI inflows - but also Brazil. We exclude Brazil because its FDI and portfolio flows data have been distorted due to disadvantageous tax treatment of portfolio flows relative to FDIs. Chart I-14 illustrates that FDIs inflows have been robust and net portfolio inflows have been negative in the past 18 months. The latter does not pass our smell test because Brazil's financial markets have rallied tremendously since early 2016. This appears simply non-credible and confirms lingering speculation that a lot of foreign capital inflows have been registered in Brazil as FDI inflows to get preferential tax treatment - and were subsequently invested in financial markets, specifically in domestic bonds, not the real economy. Chart I-13EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan And Brazil: ##br##FDI Inflows Have Not Recovered Chart I-14Brazil: The Puzzle of FDI ##br##Inflows And Portfolio Flows Chart I-15Brazil: Strong FDI Inflows ##br##And Collapsing Capital Spending Consistently, capital spending has not recovered at all, despite the preceding collapse (Chart I-15). All in all, excluding Brazilian data, there has been little recovery in EM FDI inflows (Chart 16A and Chart I-16B). Chart I-16AFDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries Chart I-16BFDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries Bottom Line: With respect to capital flows, EM currencies have been supported by portfolio flows, not FDI inflows. Hence, any reduction or reversal in these portfolio flows is a major risk to EM exchange rates. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?," August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see, "Globalisation in retreat: capital flows decline since crisis", August 21, 2017, available at https://www.ft.com/content/ade8ada8-83f6-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Despite a tightening in Chinese monetary conditions, dollar bloc currencies have continued to rally. Rising global reserves and strong carry inflows into EM prompted by low global financial volatility have created plentiful liquidity conditions in EM, supporting dollar-bloc currencies. The beginning of the Fed's balance-sheet runoff could reverse these dynamics, hurting the AUD, CAD and NZD in the process. Monitor U.S. inflation, cross-currency basis swap spreads, gold, EM currencies and Chinese monetary conditions to judge when a break in dollar-bloc currencies will materialize. Feature The rally in the dollar-bloc currencies since July 2016 has been nothing short of stunning. We did highlight in April last year that commodity currencies had room to appreciate, but we did not anticipate such a prolonged move.1 In fact, the up leg that began in April 2017 caught us by surprise. At this juncture, it is essential to analyze whether or not the bull move in commodity currencies has further to run, or whether it is in its final innings. A principal component analysis of the returns of the AUD, the CAD, and the NZD shows that despite differing central bank postures in the three countries, a simple common factor explains 86% of their variability against the USD since 2010 (Chart I-1). Because of this result, our focus in this week's report are the global forces that may be driving this factor. Today, the key risk to the dollar-bloc currencies is global liquidity tightening. Behind this danger lies the removal of policy accommodation in the U.S., and the risks to carry trades created by the already-very-low volatility of risk assets. A China-Fueled Rebound, But Something Is Amiss... The key reason behind the rally in commodity currencies has been improvement in EM growth relative to DM economies since 2016 (Chart I-2). This growth outperformance has been underpinned by a few factors. Chart I-1One Factor To Drive Them All Chart I-2Commodity Currencies And EM Growth China has played an essential role. As the Chinese economy decelerated in 2015, Beijing implemented a large amount of fiscal stimulus, which saw government spending grow at a 25% annual rate in November 2015. Due to the lags of stimulus on the economy, the full force of that stimulus was felt in 2016. Direct fiscal goosing was not the only road taken by Beijing. The Chinese authorities also applied a considerable amount of monetary pressure on China. After tightening massively through 2015, Chinese monetary conditions eased greatly in 2016 as real borrowing costs collapsed from a peak of 10.5% in the fall of 2015 to a trough of -3.5% earlier this year (Chart I-3). Directed expansion of credit through banking channels was also used to support the economy, resulting in a surge in the Chinese credit impulse. However, in recent months these positives have dissipated. Chinese money growth has slowed, and the combined credit and fiscal impulse has been lessened. Yet EM equity prices, copper prices and commodity currencies are all continuing their rally, and are now re-testing their May 2015 levels - levels last experienced right before EM assets and related plays entered a vicious tailspin that lasted all the way until January 2016 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China: From Tailwind ##br##To Headwind Chart I-4EM, Copper, Dollar Bloc: ##br##Back To May 2015 Levels Bottom Line: The rally in dollar-bloc currencies that begun in January 2016 was powered by improving growth performance within EM economies. The original driver behind this move was Chinese monetary and fiscal stimulus. However, even once the easing faded, EM plays, including the AUD, the CAD and the NZD continued to appreciate. Another factor is currently at play. ...And This Something Is Global Liquidity Our view is that global liquidity is now the key factor supporting EM plays in general and dollar-bloc currencies in particular. Since the end of 2016, we have seen a rebound in the Federal Reserve's custody holdings - one that has happened as foreign central banks resumed their purchases of Treasury securities (Chart I-5). Fed custodial holdings for other monetary authorities are a key component of our dollar-based liquidity indicator. A rebound in this indicator tends to be associated with a surge in high-powered money globally. The capital outflows from China have dissipated, helping high-powered money find its way into EM plays and the commodity-currency complex. Private FX settlements - a proxy for the Chinese private sector's selling of yuan - was CNY -43 billion in July, a massive improvement compared to the CNY 800 billion in outflows experienced in August 2015 (Chart I-6). Through stringent administrative controls and a lessening of deflation, China gained the upper hand over its capital account. This development has two implications: it means that China does not need to sell reserves anymore, and in fact has been accumulating Treasurys since February 2017. It also means that investors are now less afraid of a sudden devaluation in the CNY, which has heartened risk-taking globally - especially in assets most exposed to China, which includes EM, commodities and dollar-bloc currencies. Chart I-5Easing Global Liquidty In 2017 Chart I-6Chinese Capital Account Under Control The collapse in the volatility of risk assets has been an additional element helping global liquidity make its way into EM plays and commodity currencies. As Chart I-7 illustrates, there is a relationship between the realized volatility of the U.S. stock market and the performance of dollar-bloc currencies. The first hunch is to dismiss the relationship as an artifact of the fact that both stock prices and commodity currencies are "risk-on" instruments. But there is an economic underpinning behind this relationship. As we argued in a Special Report on carry trades last year, the main reason carry trades have been able generate high Sharpe ratios since the 1980s is because they offer investors a risk premium for taking on exposure to unforeseen spikes in volatility.2 As a result, when the volatility of risk assets collapses, as has been the case recently, carry currencies outperform. The opposite holds true when volatility spikes back up. Chart I-7Dollar Bloc Currencies Like Low Vol When carry trades do well, investors end up aggressively buying EM currencies. As a result of these purchases, they inject funds - i.e. liquidity - into these economies. These injections of liquidity end up boosting money growth and supporting their economic activity, which stimulates global trade, commodity prices, and thus commodity currencies - even if these are not currently "high-yielders." Bottom Line: Chinese monetary conditions have deteriorated, creating a handicap for EM assets and the dollar-bloc currencies. Nonetheless, an increase in high-powered money growth, a decline in the risk premium to compensate investors for the risk of sudden new Chinese devaluation, and a collapse in global financial volatility have reinforced each other to create the ideal breeding ground for a rally in the AUD, the CAD and the NZD. The Sweet Spot Is Passing At the current juncture, the sweet spot for the dollar-bloc currencies may be passing. To begin with, commodity currencies are trading at a significant premium to underlying commodity prices, suggesting they are expensive and vulnerable to a decrease in global liquidity (Chart I-8). The AUD and the NZD stand out as especially expensive, while the CAD is only trading at a small premium to its long-term fair value (Chart I-9). This suggests that the Canadian dollar is likely to continue to outperform the Australian and New Zealand currencies, as it has been doing in choppy fashion since November 2016. Chart I-8Dollar Bloc Currencies Are Expensive Chart I-9AUD And NZD Are Expensive Another problem for dollar-bloc currencies is that they have greatly overshot global liquidity metrics. Historically, the commodity currencies have moved in lockstep with the evolution of global central bank reserves - a key measure of global liquidity (Chart I-10). While global reserves have improved, the average of the AUD, the CAD and the NZD has over-discounted this positive, pointing to potential vulnerability once liquidity ebbs. The problem with this overshoot is that liquidity is likely to decline with the imminent reduction in the Fed's balance sheet size. As Chart I-11 shows, the USD has been closely linked to changes in the reserves of commercial banks held at the Fed. As commercial banks accumulate excess reserves, this provides fuel for the repo market and the Eurodollar market, creating a supply of globally available USD for offshore markets. However, mechanically, once the Fed lets the assets on its balance sheet run off (its holdings of Treasurys), a liability will also have to decrease. This liability is most likely to be excess reserves as banks buy the Treasurys sold by the Fed. A fall in the accumulation of reserves of commercial banks in the U.S. is also directly linked with weaker dollar-bloc currencies (Chart I-12). This is because falling reserves push up the dollar and hurt commodity prices - a negative terms-of-trade shock for the AUD, the CAD and the NZD. Moreover, less reserves point to less liquidity making its way into EM economies. This also hurts the expected returns of holding assets in dollar-bloc economies. This therefore means that not only is there less liquidity available to move into these markets, the rationale to do so also dissipates. Without this dollar-based liquidity support, the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions could finally show its true impact on commodity currencies. Chart I-10Commodity Currencies Have##br## Overshot Global Liquidity Chart I-11Falling Excess Bank Reserves##br## Equals Strong Greenback Chart I-12Falling Excess Reserves Equals##br## Falling Commodity Currencies The last worrisome development for the dollar-bloc currencies is the volatility of financial assets. When volatility falls, it creates a wonderful environment for these currencies. But today, historical volatility is near the bottom of its distribution of the past 28 years. Being a highly mean-reverting series, it is thus more likely to rise than fall further going forward. There are three fundamental factors pointing to a potential reversal. First, share buyback activity has been declining, which historically points to rising volatility. Second, the U.S. yield curve slope also points toward a higher level of volatility. Volatility tends to bottom before the stock market peaks, and the stock market tends to peak before the economy enters recession. The yield curve itself tends to invert a year or so before a recession emerges. As a result, the yield curve begins to flatten around two years before volatility picks up (Chart I-13). Third, the anticipated decline in bank reserves - an important factor that has supported risk-taking around the globe - is likely to be the key catalyst supporting the relationship between the yield curve and volatility. If volatility increases, carry trades are likely to perform poorly, which will hurt EM currencies and result in outflows from these markets. This will cause liquidity conditions in EM economies to dry out, hurting their growth outlook. EM M1 growth has already weakened considerably, and is currently pointing to problems for commodity currencies (Chart I-14). The dry out in liquidity resulting from a reversal in carry trades will only amplify this phenomenon. Chart I-13Listen To The Yield Curve: ##br##Volatility Will Pick Up Chart I-14EM M1 Growth Is Becoming ##br##A Headwind For The Dollar Bloc Bottom Line: Global liquidity conditions are set to begin to tighten. While it is probably not enough to cause the bull market in stock prices to end now, it could be enough to affect the area of the global economy most exposed to this risk factor: carry trades and the dollar-bloc currencies. Specifically, commodity currencies are likely to be negatively affected by their elevated valuations, their strong sensitivity to excess bank reserves, and their high responsiveness to changes in financial market volatility. Key Indicators To Monitor After the surge that the dollar-bloc currencies have experienced since the spring and the large increase in the long exposure of speculators to these currencies, they are naturally at risk of experiencing a period of weakness. However, what worries us is not a retracement of 3-4%, but rather a 10-15% move. We suggest monitoring the following: First, watch U.S. inflation closely. The U.S. dollar is only likely to genuinely rally once the market believes the Fed can actually increase rates. So long as inflation remains tepid, investors will continue to second-guess the Fed. The market's response to this week's release of the most recent Federal Open Market Committee minutes only confirmed this. Mentions of debate on inflation within the FOMC was enough to send bond yields and the dollar reeling. However, based on the dynamics in the U.S. velocity of money, we continue to expect inflation to pick up in the second half of 2017 (Chart I-15).3 Second, follow cross-currency basis swap spreads. The cost of hedging U.S. assets back into euro or yen has normalized somewhat after hitting record levels in early 2016 (Chart I-16). If the removal of excess bank reserves in the U.S. system does affect global liquidity conditions, this market will be one of the first to be affected. Third, scrutinize the price of gold. The yellow metal remains a key gauge of global liquidity. Moreover, it is extremely sensitive to real rates and the dollar - two major determinants of the cost of global liquidity. In the summer of 2015, EM and dollar-bloc currencies severely suffered once gold broke below 1150. Today, a break below 1200 would be a sign of danger ahead. Fourth, watch EM currencies. A breakdown in EM currencies would be a key indication that carry trades are being reversed, and that global liquidity is no longer making its way into EM and EM-related plays. Commodity currencies are currently trading at a premium to their historical relationship with EM currencies, suggesting they would be highly vulnerable to such an event (Chart I-17). Chart I-15Watch U.S. Inflation Chart I-16Monitor Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads Chart I-17Dollar-Bloc Currencies At The Mercy Of EM FX Finally, keep an eye on Chinese monetary conditions. If Chinese monetary conditions improve from here, it would alleviate some of the negative pressure exercised on dollar-bloc currencies by the upcoming deterioration in global liquidity. However, if Chinese monetary conditions deteriorate further, this would negatively affect commodity prices, EM returns and the commodity currency complex. It would also hurt expected returns on Chinese assets, re-kindling outflows out of China and thus raising the risk premium associated with what would become a growing risk of CNY depreciation. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Pyrrhic Victories", dated April 29, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled, "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen", dated August 11, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data has been mixed this week: The Empire State Manufacturing Index increased to 25.2, a significant jump and beat Retail Sales increased at a 0.5% monthly pace, with the ex. Autos measure increasing at 0.5%, both beating expectations; The Import Price Index increased by 1.5% since last year; Initial jobless claims dropped to 232,000, beating expectations significantly; However, housing starts and building permits both underperformed expectations. While the DXY has rebounded, the FOMC's July minutes discussed the recent shortfall of inflation, which was interpreted bearishly by markets. The Fed is likely to begin normalizing its balance sheet very soon, as well as raising rates again by the end of this year. The greenback will likely continue its ascent when firmer inflation data emerges. Report Links: Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen - August 11, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Improving euro area growth prospects have propelled the euro 12% higher since the beginning of the year. However, the market seems to begin questioning the ECB's hawkishness. In its minutes, the ECB expressed worries about a potential euro overshoot. Additionally, rumors emerged that Mario Draghi will not give much guidance in Jackson Hole. Together, these stories have reversed some of the euphoria that had engulfed the euro. The tightening in euro area financial conditions relative to the U.S. has prompted a roll over in relative economic and inflation surprises, justifying these budding doubts. Furthermore, U.S. inflation should begin to meaningfully accelerate in the fall. This is likely to add to the euro's weakness, as the greenback will resume its upward trend. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Data in Japan was mixed this week: Annualized gross domestic product growth grew by 4% on an annualized basis, crushing expectations. Additionally the month-to-month growth of industrial production came in at 2.2%, also beating expectations. However both export and import growth underperformed, coming in at 13.4% and 16.3% respectively. On cue, after we placed a long USD/JPY trade last week, USD/JPY rallied half percentage point, even if it gave up some of the gain now. We continue to be bearish on the yen as we expect U.S. yields to start picking up, in an environment where market expectations are very depressed. But could a correction in EM caused by the rise in the dollar help the yen? Not in the short term, given that historically the yen only gains in very sharp EM selloffs that themselves weigh on bond yields. Report Links: Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen - August 11, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Data in the U.K. was mixed this week: Retail sales prices increased by 3.6% year-on-year, outperforming expectations. However, The trade balance not only worsened since last month but also came in below expectations, at -4.564 Billion pounds Crucially, most inflation metrics came in below expectations, with headline inflation coming in at 2.6% while PPI core output inflation came in at 2.4%. Overall, we continue to believe that the market's rate expectations for the BoE remain too hawkish. As the pass through from the currency dissipates, inflation should also start to come down. Furthermore, one has to remember that the BoE has a higher hurdle for raising rates than other central banks due to the unique situation in which the U.K. is currently in. Lowered rate expectations will be negative for cable in the short term. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Despite initially weak data, a risk-on environment and increasing copper prices have fueled a rally in the AUD. Data from China has been soft, and Australian data has been neutral: Chinese retail sales increased annually by 10.4%, less than expected; Chinese industrial production also underperformed at 6.4%; Australian wages increased at a 1.9% annual pace, in line with expectations; Australian unemployment dropped to 5.6%; participation rate increased to 65.1%; and a net of 27,900 jobs were filled. However, full-time employment went down by 20,300 while part-time employment increased by 48,200, so hours worked contracted. This development is likely to comfort the RBA in its dovish stance. In its minutes, the RBA discussed its worries concerning the housing market, and that "borrowers investing in residential property had been facing higher interest rates". This further worries the RBA regarding the impact of higher interest rates, limiting the room for more hawkish speeches. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been positive: Retail sales and retail sales ex-autos Quarter-on-quarter growth strengthened relatively to the previous quarter, coming in at 2% and 2.1% respectively. Moreover quarter-on-quarter inflation both for producer prices in outputs and inputs outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.3% and 1.4%. Currently, differences in perception adjustment between the dovishness of the RBNZ and the RBA have pushed Australian rate expectations to the point that the market is now pricing a hike in Australia before New Zealand. Overall, this seems like a mispricing, as the kiwi economy is on a stronger footing than the aussie one. Moreover, a slowdown in China would be more harmful for Australia as iron ore is more sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle than dairy products. Thus we remain bearish on AUD/NZD. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The CAD has regained some composure despite weak oil prices. Even with the U.S. dollar weakening and inventories drawing massively, oil dropped. This dynamic is particularly worrying for oil, as the markets are doubting the durability of the curtailment in global oil production. While this could be worrying for the CAD, we still believe the USD 40-60/bbl equilibrium price level, as postulated by the BoC, will have a limiting effect on the oil-based currency, which has been driven by interest rate differentials. Both central banks are now hiking, but we believe that markets are underpricing Fed hikes. Thus, the CAD should weaken against USD. However, it will outperform other G10 currencies. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data has continued to show a mixed picture for the Swiss economy: Consumer prices inflation, increased slightly from the previous month, coming in at 0.3%, in line with expectations. The unemployment rate also came in in line of expectations at 3.2%, unchanged from the previous month. However, producer prices contracted by 0.1%, underperforming expectations. EUR/CHF has been weakening since its August second overbought extreme. For the moment, we expect the SNB to stand pat in its ultra-dovish monetary policy, at least until inflation and other economic indicators start to strengthen considerably. USD/CHF however might appreciate, given that the euro might fall the ECB minutes this week showed that the ECB is concerned by a potential euro overshoot. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Data in Norway this week was mixed: Headline inflation came in at 1.5% in July, outperforming expectations. However, it softened from June's 1.9% reading. Core inflation came at 1.2% in July, in line with expectations, decreasing from 1.6% in June. Moreover, manufacturing output contracted by 0.6% year-on-year. We continue to be bullish on USD/NOK, as the increasing gap in real rate differentials between the United States and Norway should outweigh any oil rally. Indeed, the recent numbers in Norway illustrate the lack of inflationary pressures in this Scandinavian country. This should keep a lid on rates, and thus help USD/NOK. On the other hand EUR/NOK should follow the path of oil. Thus, the OPEC supply cuts will ultimately support oil prices and thus, weigh on this cross. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK has had a particularly strong week, as inflation surprised to the upside on both a monthly and a yearly basis, coming in at 0.5% and 2.2% respectively. While it initially appreciated against all currencies, the uptick in commodity currencies on Wednesday made it lose its gains against AUD, CAD, NZD and NOK. As inflationary pressures grow, the SEK is likely to appreciate further, especially against the EUR and GBP. Additionally, with current Riskbank governor Stefan Ingves' term coming to an end by the end of this year, the hawkish rhetoric is likely to only increase. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades

Highlights A number forward-looking indicators for EM corporate profits point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth and they herald a bearish outlook for EM EPS. We continue deciphering the differences between China's various money and credit aggregates. Irrespective of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently extremely weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. We recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position versus U.S. high-yield to underweight versus U.S. investment-grade corporate credit. Feature Chart I-1Asian Exports And EM EPS The recovery in EM earnings per share (EPS) has been instrumental to the EM stock rally this year. As such, the equity strategy at the moment hinges on the outlook for corporate profits. In this report, we revisit coincident and leading indicators for EM profits. At the moment, EM corporate profit growth still appears robust, though several forward-looking indicators point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. Korean and Taiwanese exports can be used as proxy for global trade. The latest data for July reveal that the sum of Taiwanese exports and Korean total exports excluding vessels has rolled over (Chart I-1). Historically, the U.S. dollar values of both economies' exports have correlated with EM EPS, and Chart I-1 entails that EM EPS growth will roll over very soon. The reason why we exclude vessel exports in the case of Korea is because vessel shipments are one-off occurrences and when they take place, they distort export growth. This was the case in the last several months - vessel (shipbuilding) exports surged by 75% from a year ago, distorting the annual growth rate of total exports. Overall, Korea's and Taiwan's overseas shipments in the past three months have averaged about 10%, which is lower than the mid-teen growth rates recorded earlier this year. In China, export growth is close to 9% in the past three months, and it is also rolling over. On a similar note, Korea's and Taiwanese shipments-to-inventory ratios lead EM EPS cycles, and they are presently sending a downbeat message (Chart I-2). China's import growth has relapsed, as suggested by both Chinese trade data and their counterparties export data to China (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Asia's Shipment-To-Inventory Ratios And EM EPS Chart I-3Exports To China And Chinese Imports The recovery in Chinese imports has been responsible for a considerable part of the recovery in global trade. Importantly, Chinese import cycles correlate very well with EM EPS growth (Chart I-4). The key pillar of our view remains that Chinese imports will contract going forward, which will depress both advanced and developing countries' shipments to China. Exports to China are much more important for EM than DM economies, and deteriorating sales to China will weigh considerably on EM profits and currencies. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth. Chart I-5A and Chart I-5B demonstrate that both EM narrow (M1) growth and China's broad money impulse (the second derivative) - herald a major slump in EM EPS. This is the main reason behind our negative stance on EM share prices and other risk assets. Chart I-4Chinese Imports And EM EPS Chart I-5AChina Broad Money Impulse And EM EPS Chart I-5BEM Narrow Money And EM EPS Both narrow and broad money growth in China have already relapsed, and it is a matter of time until economic growth and imports downshift enough to produce a major selloff in EM risk assets. We discuss China's monetary aggregates in the section below. Finally, if Chinese imports and commodities prices relapse, any reasonable strength in DM domestic demand will not be sufficient to preclude a meaningful EM slowdown. The basis is that exports to the U.S. and EU only make up 7% of GDP for China, 8% for Korea and 11% for Taiwan. While exports to China account for 10% of Korean GDP and 15% of Taiwanese GDP. The same holds true for most East Asian countries. With the exceptions of India and Turkey, non-Asian EM countries are primarily commodities producers. These two have their own idiosyncratic problems. Most of our analysis is not applicable to smaller central European economies that are leveraged to the EU business cycle. That said, neither Turkey, India, nor central European markets have large enough financial markets to make a difference in the EM benchmarks. The above is the primary reason behind our bearish view on EM growth and profits. That said, there are a few other interesting considerations regarding EM corporate profits dynamics. First, EM share prices lead EM EPS by six to nine months. Therefore, to be bullish on EM stocks, it is not sufficient to expect EM EPS growth to be robust over the next three months. Rather, to be bullish on EM stocks at the current juncture, one should have a bullish view on EM EPS by the end of this year and into the early part of 2018. Consistently, we believe that EM EPS growth will decelerate materially by the end of this year and shrink in the early part of 2018. Second, the top-line shrinkage in 2015 and the consequent recovery for EM exporters has been mostly driven by prices rather than volumes. Chart I-6A illustrate that Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturing production growth is rather muted. Chart I-6ACorporate Pricing Power Chart I-6BAsian Manufacturing Production Price fluctuations affect profits much more than output volume changes. Therefore, if global tradable goods prices deflate - at the moment they have rolled over (Chart I-6B) - EM EPS will contract materially. Third, in EM excluding China, Korea and Taiwan, there has been little economic recovery, as evidenced by Chart I-7. Along the same lines, the latest (July) manufacturing PMI for EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has dropped below the crucial 50 line (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This and the majority of other economic aggregates we use are equity market-cap weighted averages, so they are relevant to investors. This corroborates the fact that outside China, Korea and Taiwan there has been little genuine growth improvement in EM domestic demand - despite the decent recovery in global trade. This challenges the prevailing widespread consensus of a synchronized global economic recovery/expansion. This is also consistent with the fact that the overwhelming EM profit recovery has occurred in technology and resource sectors while domestic sectors have not seen much of corporate earnings recovery (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##No Strong Recovery Chart I-8EM Sectors' EPS: Exporters ##br##Have Outperformed Domestic Finally, bottom-up equity analysts have recently downgraded their EPS estimates for listed EM companies (Chart I-9). Typically, analysts alter their forecasts simultaneously with swings in share prices. Hence, the latest decoupling is puzzling. Chart I-9EM EPS And Analysts' Net Revisions Notably, EM net EPS revisions have failed to move into positive territory in the past 7 years. This entails that analysts' expectations have been chronically high in recent years, and/or that companies have failed to deliver profits that match these projections. Bottom Line: The EM EPS outlook is downbeat, and listed companies profits will likely contract early next year. Deciphering China's Money Puzzle Based on our assessment of multiple measures, our conclusion with respect to Chinese broad money growth is as follows: Irrespective of which measure we use, and regardless of their individual past track records, all Chinese monetary growth aggregates are currently weak (Chart 10), and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. In recent weeks, we have been working to understand differences among various measures of money growth in China. Our motivation is because neither M2 nor total social financing and fiscal spending - variables that we relied on last year - did a good job of forecasting the duration and magnitude of China's economic and profit revival in the past 12 months. In our July 26 report,1 we introduced the concept of broad money calculated using commercial banks' assets. We called it credit-money. This week, we discuss a different broad money calculation based on commercial banks' liabilities, and refer to it as deposit-money. Deposit-money is an aggregate of non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits, transferable and other deposits, other liabilities, bonds issued and liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. This measure is broader than official broad money (M2) because the latter includes only non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits and some of liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. In brief, our deposit-money calculation is more comprehensive than the official broad money figures (M2). In turn, banks' credit-money is the sum of commercial banks' claims on companies, households, non-bank financial institutions and all levels of government, as well as banks' foreign assets. Also, we deduct government deposits at the central bank (see July 26 Emerging Markets Strategy report1 for more details). Chart I-10 illustrates the differences between credit-money, deposit-money, total social financing and M2. Based on our calculations, deposit-money grew faster in 2015-'16 than both M2 and total social financing. Yet its current and ongoing slowdown is as bad as that of credit-money or M2. Chart I-10Dichotomy Among Various Money And Credit Aggregates In China The reason why M2 growth has lagged behind deposit-money growth since the middle of 2015 until now is the fact that the latter's components that are not included in the official M2 measure have outpaced M2 growth by a wide margin since late 2015. The main components of deposit-money are shown in Chart I-11. This is one of the main reasons why we missed the latest China-play rally - we relied on the official measure of money and credit published by the PBoC that has been much tamer than the broader money and credit, as banks have originated credit and hence money in a way that official monetary aggregates have not captured. In addition, banks' credit-money and deposit-money measures should theoretically be identical, but this has not been the case in China in recent years. Deposit-money is larger and it may well be more comprehensive than credit-money (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China: Components Of Deposit-Money Aggregate Chart I-12The Outstanding Stock And Flow Of Money Understanding these discrepancies is an ongoing work-in-progress for us, and we will be refining these measures going forward. For now, we would say that these differences are probably due to banks' efforts to misrepresent/hide their assets and liabilities to meet the regulatory ratios and avoid penalties, as well as maximize short-term profits. All that said, the gaps between M2 and deposit-money has recently narrowed: both deposit-money and M2 growth and their impulses are at all-time lows (Chart I-13). Furthermore, we expect deposit-money to slow further because of the lagged impact of higher interest rates and regulatory tightening that is intended to curb commercial banks' ability to originate more money via shadow banking activities. Finally, as can be seen from Chart I-14A, Chart I-14B and Chart I-15, deposit-money's impulse - its second derivative - leads many cyclical economic variables such as nominal GDP, producer prices, freight index, and imports. Chart I-13China: Two Measures Of Broad Money Chart I-14ADeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle Chart I-14BDeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle There are several other data points from China's real economy that portend developing weakness. Specifically, car sales growth has almost ground to a halt, real estate floor space sold and started are decelerating (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Deposit-Money Leads Metals Prices And Construction Chart I-16China: More Signs Of Slowdown Bottom Line: Regardless of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. This gives us confidence in reiterating our negative view on China plays (including commodities) and EM. Credit Markets Strategy We have been recommending a strategy of shorting/underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. high-yield (HY) credit and this strategy has shown strong performance, producing 15% gains with low volatility since August 2011 (Chart I-17). However, today we recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position from U.S. HY to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate credit. The primary reason is that credit spreads are extremely tight and odds favor credit spreads widening in both U.S. and EM. Chart I-18 shows that when U.S. TIPS yields rise U.S. IG usually outperforms U.S. HY on an excess return basis. We expect U.S. Treasurys and TIPS yields to grind higher in the near term because U.S. growth and inflation are much stronger than the bond market is currently pricing in. Chart I-17Book Gains On This Strategy Chart I-18Higher U.S. Bond (TIPS) Yields Warrant Rotation Rising U.S. bond yields also warrants EM credit underperformance versus U.S. IG because the EM credit benchmark is riskier than U.S. IG. While the two segments have similar durations, the duration times spread measure of risk is greater for EM credit. Furthermore, U.S. HY spreads have narrowed versus both EM sovereign and corporate spreads since early 2016 (Chart I-19, top panel). Hence, there is little value favoring the former versus EM credit. In contrast, U.S. IG spreads versus both EM sovereign and corporate credit are appealing historically (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Therefore, there is a valuation aspect to this strategy change. Relative spread differences have historically correlated quite well with the subsequent 12-month return. Given where relative spreads are, the subsequent 12-month return for investing in U.S. IG relative EM credit is positive (Chart I-20, top panel) but it is negative for investing in U.S. HY versus EM credit (Chart I-20, bottom panel). Chart I-19EM Credit Offers Value Relative ##br##To U.S. HY But Not Versus U.S. IG Chart I-20Projected Returns Of EM Credit ##br##To Both U.S. IG And HY As to the rationale of favoring U.S. credit to EM credit, this is consistent with our theme that the growth outlook, corporate leverage, and health of the banking system are in much better shape in the U.S. than in EM. Bottom Line: Book profits on the short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. HY credit position. Institute a new position: short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. IG corporate credit. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd", dated July 26, 2017, link available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Feature Turkey's banking system has in recent years relied on enormous liquidity provisions by the central bank (Chart I-1) to sustain its ongoing credit boom, and hence economic growth. Since early this year, the authorities have doubled down: they have also begun using fiscal policy to prop up growth. Chart I-1Turkey: Central Bank Large Liquidity Injections On the whole, this combination of colossal credit and fiscal stimulus is indisputably bearish for the currency. Despite strong performance by Turkish stocks this year, we are maintaining our bearish call on the lira. The lira is set to depreciate by 20-25% in the next 12 months or so versus both an equally-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the euro. Bringing Fiscal Stimulus Into Play The Turkish authorities have recently begun using fiscal means to stimulate growth: Last summer, a sovereign wealth fund was set up by presidential decree to pool shares in companies owned by the government and use them as collateral to raise debt and initiate spending on various infrastructure projects. The target size of the fund is US$ 200 billion, compared with the government non-interest expenditure of US$ 165 billion in the last 12 months. This would effectively allow the government to issue debt and increase expenditures off-balance sheet. In addition, this past March, the government decided to recapitalize the Credit Guarantee Fund. This initiative allowed it to underwrite US$ 50 billion, or 7% of GDP, worth of credit to Turkish companies. This is considerable as it compares with US$ 93 billion worth of loan origination by commercial banks last year. By assuming credit risk on these loans, the government is effectively encouraging banks to lend, in turn boosting economic growth. In effect, this has lowered lending standards and given a green light to banks to flood the economy with credit. Even though interest rates have risen since last November, credit growth has accelerated as banks have provided loans covered by government guarantees (Chart I-2). On top of this quasi-fiscal stimulus, government expenditures excluding interest payments have accelerated (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Bank Loan Growth Has Accelerated ##br##Despite Higher Interest Rates Chart I-3Turkey: Fiscal Spending Has Surged Such a rise in government spending has been financed by commercial banks whose holdings of government bonds have risen sharply. Essentially, government spending has also been funded by commercial banks' money creation. In short, fiscal and credit stimulus have boosted domestic demand, thereby widening the country's current account deficit once again (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B). Chart I-4AWidening Twin Deficit Chart I-4BWidening Twin Deficit Given that the starting point of the government's fiscal position is good - public debt stands at only 28% of GDP - the authorities have ample room to rely on fiscal levers to promote growth. However, a widening fiscal deficit will be bearish for the currency. Bottom Line: Widening twin (current account and fiscal) deficits (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B) are a bad omen for the lira. Monetary Tightening? What Monetary Tightening? Chart I-5Turkey: Money/Credit Growth Is Too Strong Although interbank and lending rates have risen in recent months, money and credit growth have been booming (Chart I-5). This does not support the idea that monetary policy is tight. On the contrary, thriving money and credit growth suggest that the policy stance is very easy. The Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) raised various policy rates and capped the overnight liquidity facility at the beginning of this year. However, commercial banks' usage of the late liquidity window facility - the one facility that has been left uncapped - has literally gone exponential - it has risen from zero to TRY 70 billion in the past 8 months. On the whole, the central bank’s net liquidity injections into the banking system continue to make new highs, even though the price of liquidity has been rising. Adding all the liquidity facilities – the intraday, overnight and late window facilities – the CBT's outstanding funding to banks is 90 billion TRY, or 3% of GDP, more than ever recorded (Chart 1, bottom panel). This entails that monetary policy is loose rather than tight. On the whole, commercial banks are requiring more and more liquidity, and the CBT is continuously supplying it. These injections maintain liquidity in the banking system to a sufficiently high level to allow aggressive money/credit creation among commercial banks. Bottom Line: The CBT is facilitating/accommodating an economy-wide credit binge by providing copious amounts of liquidity to commercial banks. The Victim Is The Lira The lira will inevitably depreciate in the months ahead: Chart I-6Turkey: Central Bank's Foreign ##br##Reserves Have Been Depleted The lira's exchange rate versus an equally-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the euro has been mostly flat year-to-date, despite the CBT intervening in the market to support the lira by selling U.S. dollars. Aggressive selling of CBT foreign exchange reserves has so far prevented much steeper lira depreciation in Turkey. However at this stage, the central bank is literally running out of reserves and will soon lose its ability to support the currency (Chart I-6). A developing country with foreign exchange reserves worth less than three months' imports is considered vulnerable. Therefore, at 0.5 months of imports coverage, or US$ 9.7 billion, the CBT has little capacity to continue supporting the currency via interventions. Economic growth has recovered: export volumes are very strong, driven by shipments to Europe, while loan growth is supporting private domestic demand and government expenditures have mushroomed. The ongoing economic recovery will boost inflation, and strong domestic demand will assure the current account deficit widens. This will weigh on the exchange rate. Core inflation measures have subsided from 10% to 7%, but remain well above the central bank's target of 5%. Provided inflation is a lagging variable, the acceleration in money growth and domestic demand this year will lead to higher inflation in the months ahead. Wage growth remains high and our profit margin proxy for both manufacturing and service industries - calculated as core CPI divided by unit labor costs - has relapsed signifying deteriorating corporate profitability (Chart I-7). This in turn will force businesses to raise prices. Provided demand is strong, companies will likely succeed in passing through higher prices to customers. In brief, odds are that inflation will rise significantly soon. Escalating unit labor costs also offsets the benefit of nominal currency depreciation. Chart I-8 illustrates that the real effective exchange rate is not cheap based on consumer prices, or unit labor costs. Chart I-7Companies Profit Margins Are Shrinking Chart I-8The Lira Is Not Cheap At All As inflation rises, residents' desire to convert their deposits from local to foreign currency will increase. In fact, this is already happening - households' foreign currency deposit growth is accelerating. In short, lingering high inflation will continue to weigh on the currency's value. Bottom Line: The authorities have doubled down on fiscal and credit stimulus, warranting a doubling down on bearish bets on the lira. Investment Implications On the whole, the authorities will continue resorting to fiscal and monetary stimulus to sustain economic growth. According to the Impossible Trinity theory, in countries with an open capital account structure, the authorities can control either interest rates or the exchange rate, but not both simultaneously. Chart I-9Bank Stocks Have Rallied Despite ##br##Shrinking Net Interest Margins In Turkey, policymakers will eventually opt to control interest rates, meaning they will not have much control over the exchange rate. We suggest currency traders who are not shorting the lira do so at this time. We remain short the lira versus the U.S. dollar. A weaker lira will undermine U.S. dollar returns on Turkish stocks and domestic bonds. Dedicated EM equity investors as well as those overseeing EM fixed income and credit portfolios should continue to underweight Turkish assets within their respective EM universes. Bank stocks have rallied strongly, and have decoupled from interest rates (Chart I-9). This reflects the recent credit binge, where banks are making profits on loan originations while the government is holding responsibility for bad loans. These dynamics could persist for a while. However, both loan growth and banks' profitability will be hurt if the credit guarantee scheme is not renewed. So far, it is estimated that TRY 200 billion of an announced TRY 250 billion of this credit guarantee scheme has been utilized. Continuous credit guarantee schemes and accumulation of off-balance-sheet liabilities by the government will widen sovereign credit spreads. In many EM countries, including Turkey, bank share prices have historically correlated with sovereign spreads. Hence, rising sovereign risk will weigh on banks stocks too. Finally, as the lira begins to depreciate and inflation rises, local interest rates will have to climb. This will also weigh on bank share prices. In brief, we are reiterating our negative/underweight stance on Turkish banks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Chart I-1The Economy Has Stabilized##br## But Has Not Recovered Brazil desperately needs to boost nominal growth to avoid public debt spiraling out of control1. We do not think it is possible without resorting to meaningful currency depreciation and much lower interest rates. The Brazilian economy has stabilized, but it has not yet recovered (Chart I-1). To stage a sustainable recovery, much easier monetary conditions and fiscal stance are required. However, monetary conditions remain tight and fiscal policy is tightening: Feature Real interest rates are about 5.5-6% - as high as they were before the current rate-cut cycle commenced (Chart I-2). The Brazilian central bank's aggressive rate cuts have largely matched the drop in the inflation rate, keeping real borrowing costs elevated. Besides, household debt servicing costs (interest payments and principal) are high, above 20% of disposable income (Chart I-3) and employment conditions remain extremely poor. In this environment, households will not be inclined to expand leverage considerably. The Brazilian real is not cheap. In fact, the real effective exchange rate is slightly above its fair value (Chart I-4). Nominal GDP growth is currently running close to 4%, while the government's budget assumption for nominal GDP growth in 2017 is 5-5.5%. Not surprisingly, government revenues are disappointing and the budget deficit is above its target (Chart I-5). Furthermore, the improvement in government revenues in the past 12 months has been due to one-off measures such as non-recurring privatization revenue, repayment by the national development bank (BNDES) of 100 billion BRL and tax amnesty/capital repatriation programs that will not be repeated. In brief, more tax hikes are needed to achieve revenue targets but higher taxes will in turn jeopardize the economic revival. Taxes on fuel have been raised in recent weeks. Chart I-2Interest Rates Are##br## Still Very High Chart I-3Household Debt Servicing##br## Ratio Has Not Yet Declined Chart I-4The Real Is Not Cheap Chart I-5Brazil: No Improvement In Fiscal Accounts Given that fiscal policy is straightjacketed by high and rapidly rising public debt levels, the onus of boosting nominal growth is squarely on the central bank. Not only have the monetary authorities cut interest rates, they have also been monetizing government debt. Chart I-6 shows that the central bank's holdings of government securities have skyrocketed, i.e., the central bank has bought BRL531 billion of government paper since January 2015. While it has partially sterilized its debt monetization by using these securities as reverse repos with banks, the amount of high-powered money/liquidity withdrawal via repos has been much smaller than the central bank's liquidity injections. Chart I-6aBrazil: Central Bank Has##br## Been Monetizing Public Debt... Chart I-6b...And Sterilizing It ##br##Only Partially This has helped liquidity in the banking system considerably, and smoothed the banking system adjustment at a time of surging non-performing loans. However, it has not generated enough purchasing power in the economy to boost nominal growth. Notably, broad money growth is slowing (Chart I-7). Even though bank loan growth may have troughed (Chart I-7, bottom panel), it is unlikely to recover strongly due to high real rates. Broad money captures the stance of credit and fiscal policies because broad money reflects purchasing power created by commercial banks and central bank when lending to and buying government bonds from non-banks. Remarkably, the broad money impulse - which is the second derivative of outstanding broad money - points to weakness in nominal GDP growth (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Brazil: Broad Money##br## And Bank Loans Chart I-8Broad Money And Terms Of Trade Point ##br## To Weaker Nominal Growth In addition, nominal GDP growth correlates with terms of trade, and the latter has also relapsed (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Furthermore, high-frequency data reveal that manufacturing PMI and consumer confidence have also rolled over lately, pointing to stalling improvement in both the manufacturing sector and consumer spending (Chart I-9). All in all, policymakers are behind the curve. The central bank could continue cutting interest rates, increase its purchases of government bonds, and also use other measures to inject more money – both high-powered money and broad money – into circulation. If they do so, it will eventually help the economy recover and boost inflation, yet it is bearish for the exchange rate. However, if the exchange rate relapses on its own (due to other factors), that will limit the authorities' ability to reduce interest rates further. This is on top of heightened political uncertainty that does not bode well for Brazilian financial markets. In a nutshell, Brazil needs to engineer currency depreciation to boost nominal growth and make public debt sustainable. This is true especially as Argentina is opting to keep its currency competitive, and it will be even more critical if commodities prices relapse, as we expect (Chart I-10). Provided the share of foreign currency public debt is low, reflating via currency depreciation is the least painful way out for Brazil. Bottom Line: Policymakers are desperate to boost nominal growth to stabilize public debt. Yet, in our opinion, nominal growth will not improve without further sizable rate cuts and meaningful currency depreciation. Eventually, policymakers will allow the BRL to depreciate 20%-plus, which will hurt foreign investments in local asset markets. We remain negative on/underweight Brazil equities, currency and sovereign debt. That said, we recommend fixed-income investors to bet on the 3/1-year yield curve flattening: receive 3-year / pay 1-year swap rate (Chart I-11). Chart I-9High-Frequency Indicators:##br## Improvement Has Stalled Chart I-10Other Headwinds##br## For BRL Chart I-11A New Trade: ##br## Bet On 3/1-Year Yield Curve Flattening Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Has Brazil Achieved Escape Velocity?", dated February 8, 2017, link available on page 11 - we argued that Brazil's public debt dynamics is unsustainable without strong nominal growth and/or social security reforms. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights The recent "abnormal" weakness in both M1 and M2 is due to various one-off factors. Removing these factors, Chinese money supply growth rates have been largely stable. Money and credit growth is currently slower than historical norms, but is far from alarming. The one-off factors have created enormous noise in Chinese money and credit numbers in recent years, rendering the effectiveness of various money "impulse" indicators. As the Chinese financial sector becomes more diversified and financial intermediation less bank-centric, the significance of money supply will diminish over time. It is increasingly important to take a broader view on the overall economy than solely relying on money and credit numbers to make a judgment on China's business cycle. Feature China's growth figures have mostly surprised to the upside in recent months, with one disconcerting exception: a deceleration in money supply. M1 money growth, after a sharp spike in 2015-2016, has slowed considerably. Broad M2 appears even more worrisome, decelerating to 9.4% in June, a record low since the data became available in the early 1980s. Historically, growth rates of monetary aggregates have been excellent leading indicators for the Chinese economy. In this vein, the downturn in money supply clearly raises a red flag and deserves closer scrutiny. The Alphabet Soup Of Money Supply Chart 1Three Layers Of Money Supply The People's Bank of China (PBoC) reports three measures of money supply that differ in terms of liquidity, i.e. the ease to make payments (Chart 1). M0, or the most liquid form of money supply, consists of bank notes and coins in circulation. M1 adds demand deposits of enterprises and government entities on top of M0, which is China's narrow money supply that can be readily used to make payments. The broader M2, besides M1, also includes deposits from households, savings deposits from enterprises, government entities and non-bank financial institutions. As China's funding channels have become increasingly diversified in recent years, the PBoC has been considering even broader aggregates, dubbed "M2 plus" or M3, to incorporate new financial instruments, though no such measures have been published yet. Chinese M0 has historically demonstrated strong seasonal patterns associated with the Chinese Spring Festival (Chart 2). Typically demand for cash increases sharply during the holiday season for shopping and gifting, and the PBoC injects fresh cash into circulation ahead of the festival, and withdraws it afterwards. Chinese M0 growth has been downshifting in recent years, and the trend is set to continue going forward, especially as Chinese consumers increasingly adopt mobile-payment tools. Empirically, there has been little correlation between M0 and economic variables. Conventional monetary economics suggests that the growth of broader money supply is an important variable in predicting the outlook for the business cycle and inflation. The reasons behind the predictive power of money supply, however, have not been entirely clear. Some have attributed it to the "transaction motive" - if the corporate sector anticipates improvement in the business cycle, it increases holdings of liquid assets so that it can take quicker action to expand. Others, however, suggest that companies may also increase holdings of liquid assets as "precautionary move" - when businesses and households feel insecure about the growth outlook, they will hold on to more liquid assets as a safeguard against unexpected setbacks, and postpone investments and expenditures. Regardless, empirically Chinese M1 has been tightly linked with numerous economic and financial variables over the past two decades (Chart 3). We suspect the linkage is likely driven by bank loans, which in turn are driven by the authorities' monetary and credit policies. Easing monetary and credit policies encourage bank lending, which replenishes the corporate coffers to expand, and vice versa. Chart 2Not Much Economic Information In M0 Chart 3M1 As A Leading Indicator Therefore, M1 and bank lending have historically largely been in sync (Chart 4). In this vein, the recent divergence is a glaring exception: M1 accelerated sharply since early 2015 and has decelerated notably since mid-last year, while credit growth has been largely stable. The divergence, in our view, is likely due to the local government "debt swap" program that debuted in early 2015, when local governments were allowed to issue municipal bonds to pay back the liabilities borrowed by "local government financing vehicles (LGFVs)."1 Chart 5 shows a dramatic increase in outstanding "muni bonds" in early 2015, coinciding with a sharp increase in M1. We suspect the proceeds of muni-bond issuance were temporarily parked on LGFVs' balance sheets, boosting M1. Subsequently, the cash hoard has been gradually withdrawn to retire maturing loans, while muni bond issuances have moderated, leading to a slowdown in M1 growth. Chart 4M1 And Bank Credit Chart 5M1 Was Boosted By Muni-Bond Issuance The important point here is that the sharp swings in M1 growth since early 2015 likely reflect exogenous one-off factors rather than real changes in credit flows and business activity. Therefore, the latest slowdown in M1 is likely noise rather than a signal for impending growth deceleration. A Closer Look At M2 Chinese M2 is the broadest measure of Chinese money supply that includes cash in circulation and various forms of deposits in commercial banks. The scope of M2 has been gradually evolving over time. In 2001, investors' deposits in brokerage accounts were included in M2, and in October 2011 it was further expanded to cover non-bank financial institutions' (NBFI) deposits in commercial banks as well as households' deposits in their "housing provident fund" accounts. Both moves led to abrupt changes in the M2 growth rate. Chart 6M2 And Bank Credit As deposits and loans are by far the largest items on each side of commercial banks' balance sheets, historically China's M2 growth rate has tracked bank loans closely, as they both reflect changes in commercial banks' balance sheets. However, there are two episodes of notable divergences between these two variables (Chart 6). In the late 1990s, in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis, Chinese commercial banks were reluctant to lend amid a deflationary shock, and the government opened the fiscal tap on infrastructure investments through bond issuances, which kept money supply largely stable. More recently, Chinese M2 has decelerated sharply since early 2016 to a new record low. Credit growth, on the other hand, has also drifted lower but has remained considerably more buoyant. A closer look at the component of M2 sheds lights on the recent divergence between money and credit. In its current form, M2 includes cash in circulation, deposits from non-financial sectors (households, enterprises and government agencies) and NBFIs (Chart 7), accounting for 4%, 80% and 10% of M2, respectively. Importantly, even though NBFI deposits with commercial banks only account for 10% of total M2, they have been much more volatile, creating greater swings in the overall monetary aggregates. NBFI deposits increased dramatically between 2014 and 2015, have slowed sharply since early 2016 and have actually been contracting in recent months. Indeed, the contraction in NBFI deposits has contributed to the lion's share of the recent M2 slowdown. Excluding NBFI deposits, the other two components of M2 have also moderated in recent months, but are not nearly as alarming (Chart 8). Chart 7Closer Look At M2 Chart 8Boom-Bust In NFIB Deposits Distorted M2 Growth In other words, the dramatic swings in NBFI deposits have distorted the M2 statistics in recent years. The massive increase in NBFI deposits in previous years stoked up concerns among the Chinese authorities about financial excesses that triggered the regulatory and liquidity crackdown - and their recent contraction is the intended consequence of the government's policy tightening efforts. This, in fact, is one of the key reasons that the PBoC's liquidity tightening appears to have de-escalated of late.2 What Does It All Mean? We are usually unwilling to bore clients with the technical details of economic data, preferring instead to focus on the big picture. However, understanding the intricacies is of critical importance in understanding the recent "abnormal" developments in China's money supply. Still, several big-picture observations can be made. First, the recent "abnormal" weakness in both M1 and M2 is due to various one-off factors. Removing these factors, Chinese money supply growth rates have been largely stable, albeit slower than historical norms, as overall economic growth has downshifted. Meanwhile, various credit measures - both bank lending and "total social financing" - have also been steady (Chart 9). More importantly, longer-term loans to households and businesses have accelerated notably since early this year, which likely underscores improvement in capital spending. In short, there are no signs that the economy is facing an immediate material downturn. Second, the one-off factors in Chinese money and credit data in recent years have had a particularly large impact on various money "impulse" indicators, which attempt to measure changes in money and credit flows, simply because even if these one-off factors are marginal to the total outstanding amount of money stock, they could easily overwhelm the "flows" in any given timeframe. In recent years Chinese money and credit numbers have been frequently distorted by these factors, such as the muni bond-debt swap program, market-intervention by the Chinese government to rescue the stock market collapse in 2015, and the boom-bust in financial excesses in the interbank market. All of these factors have created enormous noise in money and credit numbers, but the impact on the real economy should be much less dramatic. Chart 9Credit Growth Has Been Largely Stable Chart 10M1 Is No Longer An Important##br## Leading Indicator For The US Third, a closer look at China's monetary statistics suggests that money and credit growth has been in a gradual downtrend in recent years. This confirms our view that China's growth recovery since early 2016 was to a greater extent due to significant improvement in monetary conditions rather than a massive increase in money and credit stimuli.3 On this front, growth improvement will likely push the authorities to tighten, creating economic headwinds going forward.4 We maintain our positive assessment on China's cyclical outlook, but the PBoC policy and the country's overall monetary conditions need to be closely monitored. Finally, the predictive power of money and credit for business cycles is contingent on the role a country's banking system plays in the economy. For example, money supply was a reliable leading indicator for the U.S. economy before the 1980s, but its correlation to the business cycle has become increasingly weaker in the past several decades, as capital markets have become more developed and the dominance of banks has been reduced (Chart 10). Currently, Chinese banks still plays a far more important role in the economy than their American counterparts, and therefore, "counting the money" remains critical. However, as the Chinese financial sector becomes more diversified and financial intermediation less bank-centric, the significance of money supply will diminish over time. In fact, bank lending currently accounts for about 70% of "total social financing," down from about 90% a decade ago. For investors, it is increasingly important to take a broader view on the overall economy than solely relying on money and credit numbers to make a judgment on China's business cycle. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Game Changer?" dated March 31, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Financial Tightening: Passing The Phase Of Maximum Strength", dated June 22, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Chinese Slowdown: How Much Downside?" dated June 8, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes", dated July 20, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations