China

Highlights The Federal Reserve’s 25-basis-point interest rate cut might have disappointed market participants, but Trump’s additional tariffs is a far bigger slap. Our bias is that this is not an escalation in trade tensions. To gauge the dollar’s future path, investors should focus less on what central banks are going to do and more on what will happen to the global manufacturing cycle. The pro-Brexit rhetoric by U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is knocking the pound towards a very compelling buy zone. Sell EUR/GBP at 0.94. Stale longs are currently being flushed out of the gold rally. Trump’s weaponization of the dollar allows investors who missed the first up-leg to accumulate bullion on weakness. Remain short USD/JPY. In the central bank battle towards lower rates, short USD/JPY positions are in an enviable “heads I win, tails I do not lose too much” position. Market volatility is triggering a few stop losses. Stand aside on short CAD/NOK and long AUD/USD. Feature We had the privilege of meeting a few sophisticated investors in South America last week. The general sentiment was cautious in light of the fact that a few end-of-cycle indicators were beginning to flash green. Discussions circled around growth developments in the U.S., the eurozone and China. Even those who have been cautiously optimistic on global growth for some time now are beginning to feel they are waiting for Godot, given the duration of the manufacturing slowdown. South American economies are closely knitted to the Chinese industrial cycle, and so the rising trepidation given credit injections in China should have turned things around by now was both rational and justified. The latest tweets by Trump have done little to alleviate this fear. Our general thesis that a pro-cyclical stance for developed market currencies made sense over the next few months was received with skepticism. The overarching consensus was that the U.S. (and the rest of the world, for that matter) will not go into a recession over the next six-to-12 months, but the dollar will remain in a bull market regardless. We were in agreement that some emerging markets warranted lower currencies versus the dollar, but spent most of our time making the case for a trend reversal in the dollar versus its G10 counterparts. Below is a synopsis of some of our dialogue. Global Growth Remains Weak, But… It is quite remarkable that most investors do not expect a recession in the next six-to-12 months, but expect manufacturing data to keep weakening. If the German manufacturing PMI falls much lower from current levels, Germany will be in deep recession (Chart I-1). What is clear is that this cognitive dissonance is squarely rooted in the recent history of data disappointments, including an escalating trade war. Manufacturing slowdowns have tended to last 18 months peak-to-trough, the final months of which are characterized by fatigue and capitulation. However, unless major imbalances exist (our contention is that so far they do not), mid cycle slowdowns sow the seeds of their own recovery via accumulated savings and pent-up demand. Chart I-1A German Recession? Chart I-2Some Yield Curves Are Steepening The U.S. 10-year versus 3-month curve inverted in March, which has typically heralded a recession over the coming six-to-18 months. The key difference today is that the term premium (compensation that investors receive for holding a long-duration asset) is severely depressed in 10-year notes, making an apples-to-apples comparison with the past more difficult. The two- or five-year Treasury notes, which have both seen similar compression in term premiums, offer more insight, and those curves have not yet inverted (Chart I-2). The recovery could be more L-shaped than V-shaped because of knock-on effects from the trade war and a falling marginal propensity to consume in China.  A pick up in Chinese demand will be critical for a recovery in the global manufacturing cycle. China embarked on massive credit stimulus in March of this year, a development that has been clearly reflected in official loan numbers. If past is prologue, about now is the time that the credit injection should begin to impact underlying data, as the lag is typically six to nine months (Chart I-3). Moreover, the fact that the July manufacturing data were so weak almost guarantees that the next few months will see more aggressive stimulus by the Chinese authorities, and might also explain why China appears so nonchalant to the latest tariffs from the U.S. Chart I-3Chinese Stimulus Works With A Lag A constant pushback we received was that credit stimulus will be much less than in the past, because of structural reform concerns. Also, the recovery could be more L-shaped than V-shaped because of knock-on effects from the trade war and a falling marginal propensity to consume in China. These are obviously very valid concerns. Standard economic theory tells us that unless the trade war degenerates from current levels, the exchange rate should have already adjusted for impending price differentials. Ever since the U.S. began to threaten to impose tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods, the USD/CNY has risen by around 10%. This more than accounts for the notional amount of Chinese exports affected, and is now in the rear-view mirror. The marginal propensity question for China is more difficult to answer because it is only observable ex-post. Think about an economy in recession. The central bank has no idea what proportion of companies are in a liquidity versus a solvency crisis. This is why it keeps injecting stimulus until a few rational players stop deleveraging and start borrowing to invest. Until the cost of capital is lowered to the point where it makes sense for these rational players to invest, the marginal propensity to consume (or invest) will fall. Chart I-4The Euro Zone Manufacturing Recession##br## Is Over We all know that the euro area exports a lot to China. So at times, it is instructive to focus less on what’s happening in China and more on what’s happening to economies highly sensitive to the Chinese pulse. Sweden’s manufacturing new orders-to-inventories ratio is a neat series to track for two reasons. First, Sweden is one of the most export-oriented economies in Europe, selling both to the euro area and outside it. This makes it highly sensitive to the global manufacturing pulse. Second, there are no Chinese credit variables in Sweden’s data, and so it falls outside the judgement call of Chinese reflationary efforts. More importantly, it leads the European PMI tick-for-tick by five months, and so we would be surprised if the eurozone manufacturing recession did not end by the fourth quarter this year (Chart I-4). With new tariffs underway, it will be interesting to see how the balance of forces play out. Bottom Line: In the press conference after the Fed’s rate cut announcement, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s delivery was underwhelming, but manufacturing is a small portion of the U.S. economy, suggesting a rate cut was not entirely justified. Going forward, if the Fed delivers less interest rate cuts than is priced in by the market, it is because manufacturing has picked up, which will favor non-U.S. interest rates either way. We are fading the current strength in the dollar as the last hurrah before the ultimate drop. …A Few Tectonic Shifts Are Underway Interest rate differentials have been dictating currency market trends of late, but a few underlying forces that are critical for exchange rates are sending a warning signal for the dollar. Investors are constantly evaluating how to allocate funds, and will rationally deploy capital towards projects that have the highest returns. We know from both the wealth of seminal work that has been done on value investing and from the simple premise that the entry point in any trade could be as important as your entire thesis for that investment, that starting points matter. The starting point for the U.S. is an equity market that is one of the most overvalued, dictating that subsequent returns will pale by historical comparison. The 2017 Trump tax cuts allowed a huge repatriation of capital back to the U.S., to the tune of $400 billion, but that cash is beginning to slowly seep out as high-return projects become more and more difficult to come by (Chart I-5). This may explain why foreigners are stampeding out of U.S. equities, to the tune of about $200 billion a year, not exactly an environment that is conducive for U.S. dollar strength. The reality is that the ebb and flow of U.S. repatriation/outflows have generally captured all the major turning points in the dollar, and there is no reason to believe this time will be different. The ebb and flow of U.S. repatriation/outflows have generally captured all the major turning points in the dollar, and there is no reason to believe this time will be different. The Fed may have delivered a hawkish surprise, and Trump may appear victorious, but confidence in the dollar is fraying at the edges. This can be observed in a falling bond-to-gold ratio. Ever since the end of the Bretton Woods agreement broke the gold/dollar link in the early 1970s, bullion has stood as a viable threat to dollar liabilities, capturing the ebbs and flows of investor confidence in the greenback tick-for-tick. U.S. yields might be the only game in town today, but portfolio outflows and a deteriorating balance of payments backdrop will keep longer-term investors on the sidelines (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Investors Are Stampeding Out Of U.S. Assets Chart I-6Confidence In The Dollar##br## Is Falling Data from the World Gold Council this week showed that central banks continued to load up on gold through the first six months of this year. In fact, both China and Russia have been indiscriminate buyers of bullion, irrespective of price, over the past decade. As the amount of negative-yielding debt keeps rising and confidence in the dollar keeps falling, the conditions for a gold bull market become ever-fervent (Chart I-7). Not to mention that many gold buyers have geopolitical concerns against holding dollar liabilities. Finally, long-dollar bets are a much-crowded trade (Chart I-8). In cyclical markets, you are either a contrarian or a victim. One often-asked question on our trip was: For how long have you had a contrarian view on the dollar? The answer is quite simple: As soon as Charts I-1 to I-8 began showing signs of a reversal, which was around a few months ago. Chart I-7Bullion Tailwinds Chart I-8A Crowded Trade Bottom Line: The dollar bull market is late. Watch the AUD/JPY cross, specifically the 72-74 cent zone, for signs of a reversal. A break below will signal we are entering a deflationary bust, while a bounce could be a prelude to a reflationary rally. Housekeeping The stop-loss on our short CAD/NOK position was triggered at 6.65. Two fundamental reasons triggered the stop. First, the U.S. economy has been surprising to the upside relative to that of the euro area. This favors the CAD over the NOK, and the U.S. dollar in general (Chart I-9). Second, oil price differentials have favored the CAD over the NOK, with the WCS-Brent differential narrowing from -$30/Bbl to -$20/Bbl. We are standing aside for now, but will look to put this trade back on in the future. The pro-Brexit rhetoric by U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is knocking the pound towards a very compelling buy zone. Sell EUR/GBP at 0.94. The EUR/GBP is approaching a sell zone (Chart I-10). We will be discussing the pound in an upcoming report, but in the interim please refer to our July 5th bulletin1 for an analysis on cable. Chart I-9Stand Aside On CAD/NOK Chart I-10Sell EUR/GBP At 0.94   Finally, Trump’s rhetoric to step up the trade war in a very nonchalant fashion has nudged us out of our long AUD/USD position. The loss is meaningful, but manageable given the tight stop loss. Stay long AUD/NZD. We will be looking to put back on outright AUD longs soon.   Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading,” dated July 5, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. have been mixed:  GDP growth fell to 2.1% quarter-on-quarter in Q2, but was stronger than expected. Both headline and core PCE both increased to 2.3% and 1.8% quarter-on-quarter in Q2. Dallas Fed manufacturing business index improved from -12.1 in June to -6.3 in July; Chicago Fed purchasing managers’ index fell to 44.4 in July.  Pending home sales increased by 1.6% year-on-year in June. 156 thousand jobs were created in July according to the ADP report. However, initial jobless claims rose to 215 thousand. Markit manufacturing PMI increased to 50.4 in July, while ISM manufacturing PMI fell to 51.2. It was worrisome that the prices paid index fell from 49.6 to 45.1. DXY index surged by 0.5% this week, the highest since the beginning of the year. The Fed cut interest rates by 25 bps this Wednesday, mainly due to the global downside risks and below-trend inflation. However, his delivery towards further interest rate cuts, should the economy warrant it, was underwhelming. As long as the slowdown in manufacturing does not infect services, this might be a one and done but the insurance guarantee the markets needed from the Fed was poorly telegraphed. Report Links: Global Growth And The Dollar - July 19, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been negative: Confidence remains low in July. Consumer confidence came in at -6.6; Services sentiment fell to 10.6; Industrial confidence decreased to -7.4; Business climate fell to -0.12. Q2 GDP growth fell to 1.1% year-on-year. On a quarter-on-quarter basis, it fell from 0.4% to 0.2%. Unemployment rate was steady at 7.5% in June. Headline and core CPI both decreased to 1.1% and 0.9% year-on-year respectively. Markit manufacturing PMI increased slightly to 46.5 in July. EUR/USD plunged by 0.6% this week. The euro area economy expanded by only 0.2% quarter-on-quarter in Q2. Among the European nations, Spain had the highest quarterly GDP growth rate in Q2 at 0.5%, while Italian economy stagnated in Q2. In its meeting last week, the ECB suggested that it stands ready to cut interest rates further and restart its asset purchase program, should the economy warrant it. This is hugely reflationary. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been negative: Retail trade yearly growth fell from 1.3% in May to 0.5% in June. The jobs-to-applicants ratio fell slightly to 1.61 in June, while the unemployment rate nudged lower to 2.3% in June. Industrial production contracted by 4.1% year-on-year in June. Housing starts grew by 0.3% year-on-year in June. Consumer confidence fell to 37.8 in July. Nikkei manufacturing PMI fell to 49.4 in July. USD/JPY fell by 1.3% this week. On Tuesday, the Bank of Japan kept interest rates unchanged at -0.1%. In its quarterly outlook, the BoJ cut its inflation forecasts and warned against downside risks to the economy. Kuroda highlighted that additional easing might be required due to increasing exogenous risks: “If Fed moves trigger yen rises, the BOJ could either strengthen forward guidance, allow 10-year bond yields to move in a wider band, or do both.” Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 Short USD/JPY: Heads I Win, Tails I Don’t Lose Too Much - May 31, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been positive: Mortgage approvals increased to 66.4 thousand in June. Consumer confidence increased from -13 to -11 in July. Nationwide housing prices grew by 0.3% year-on-year in July. Markit manufacturing PMI was unchanged at 48 in July. GBP/USD plunged by 2.6% this week.  On Thursday, the BoE’s Monetary Policy Committee voted unanimously to keep rates unchanged at the current level of 0.75%. Growth forecasts were also cut due to Brexit and global trade blues. With Prime Minister Boris Johnson now in power and his commitment to take Britain out of the European Union, markets are seeing increasing risks of a no-deal Brexit in October. Fortunately, this is knocking cable to compelling buy levels. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been positive: Building permits contracted by 25.6% year-on-year in June, but on a chart looks like a lengthy bottoming process. Headline inflation increased to 1.6% year-on-year in Q2. Australian Industry Group (AiG) manufacturing index increased to 51.3 in July. Terms of trade remain a tailwind for the AUD. Export prices rose by 3.8% in Q2 versus expectations for a 2.8% increase. AUD/USD fell by 1.9% this week. This stands in stark contrast to the Australian equity ASX 200 index that reached a new high this week. An accommodative central bank, skyrocketing iron ore prices and a subtle shift in external demand conditions are fuel for the Australian economy, thus the Aussie dollar. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of New Zealand this week: Building permits contracted by 3.9% month-on-month in June. The RBNZ activity outlook fell to 5 in July. Business confidence fell to -44.3 in July from -38.1 in June. NZD/USD fell by 1.4% this week. New Zealand remains vulnerable to exogenous downside risks. The RBNZ is lagging the RBA, in a domestic situation that will eventually culminate into the downturn we have witnessed in Australia. Stay long AUD/NZD. . Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been negative: Bloomberg Nanos weekly confidence index fell slightly to 58.2 for the week ending July 26. Industrial product price contracted by 1.4% month-on-month in June. Raw material prices decreased by 5.9% month-on-month in June. GDP growth fell from 1.5% year-on-year in April to 1.4% year-on-year in May. Markit manufacturing PMI increased to 50.2 in July. USD/CAD increased by 0.1% this week. Canadian data was disappointing, but not as much as elsewhere. The First-Time Home Buyers Incentive, scheduled to be launched this September, will allow the government to own 10% equity of the purchased homes in a range of qualified buyers. In the near term, this will cement the floor under CAD. We were stopped out of our short CAD/NOK position this week and are standing aside for now.  Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Switzerland this week: KOF leading indicator increased to 97.1 in July. USD/CHF fell by 0.4% this week. We remain positive on the Swiss franc due to the rising market volatility. EUR/CHF has been weakening of late, a trend that might finally catalyze the SNB towards more unconventional policies. In the past, Swiss central bankers have made sizeable gains by de-swaying market participants. With the large euro short positions currently at stake, we will err on the side of caution. Report Links: What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was little data out of Norway this week:  Retail sales contracted by 0.4% in June. USD/NOK rose by 1.8% this week. Oil prices remain volatile as markets await a demand revival. On the supply side, U.S. has posted the seventh consecutive drawdown in inventory. The combination of supply hurdles (Iran and Venezuela production) and rising demand (a pickup in global growth) should underpin the energy market and by extension the Norwegian krone later this year. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mixed: Retail sales increased by 3.8% year-on-year in June. Trade balance narrowed to SEK 2.9 billion in June. Non-manual workers’ wages grew by 2.4% in May. GDP growth fell from 2.1% year-on-year in Q1 to 1.4% year-on-year in Q2. Manufacturing PMI was unchanged at 52 in July. USD/SEK increased by 1.7% this week. In June, the Swedish exports decreased to SEK 123 billion from SEK 137 billion in May. The imports also fell from SEK 129 billion in May to SEK 120 billion in June. This further reflects the slowdown in global trading activities. The good news is that the Swedish manufacturing new orders to inventory ratio ticked up in July. Going forward, we will closely monitor the Chinese stimulus, trade talk progresses, and global trade for the direction of the krona. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights So What? Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s threat to take the U.K. out of the EU without a withdrawal deal in place is a substantial 21% risk. Why? The odds of a no-deal exit could range from today’s 21% to around 30%, depending on whether Johnson manages to obtain some concessions from the EU in forthcoming negotiations. It is far too early to go bottom-feeding for the pound sterling, as Brexit risks are asymmetrical. We maintain our tactically cautious positioning, despite some cyclical improvements, due to elevated geopolitical risks in the United States, East Asia, and the Middle East. Feature Thank you Mr. Speaker, and of course I should welcome the prime minister to his place … the last prime minister of the United Kingdom. – Ian Blackford, head of the Scottish National Party in Westminster, July 25, 2019 Chart 1No-Deal Brexit Would Come At A Very Bad Time The Federal Reserve cut interest rates for the first time since the global financial crisis in 2008 on July 31. The Fed suggested that the door is open for future cuts, though Chairman Jerome Powell signaled that the cut should not be seen as the launch of a “lengthy rate cutting cycle” but rather as a “mid-cycle adjustment” comparable to cuts in 1995 and 1998. President Donald Trump responded by declaring a new 10% tariff on $300 billion worth of imports from China! He resumed criticizing Powell for insufficient dovishness – and Trump could in fact fire Powell, though the decision would be contested at the Supreme Court. The Fed’s move shows that Trump’s direct handle on interest rates comes from his ability to control trade policy and hence affect the “the external sector.” The trade war with China has exacerbated a global manufacturing slowdown that is keeping global growth and U.S. inflation weak enough to justify additional rate cuts with each future deterioration (Chart 1). Improvements in global monetary and fiscal policy suggest that the U.S. and global economic expansion will be extended to 2021 or beyond, which is positive for equities relative to government bonds or cash, but we remain defensively positioned in the near-term due to a range of geopolitical risks, highlighted by the new tariffs. The unconvincing U.S.-China tariff ceasefire agreed at the Osaka G20 has fallen apart as we expected; the period of “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran continues; and the U.S. is entering what we expect to be a period of socio-political instability in the lead up to the momentous 2020 presidential election. Moreover the risk of a “no deal” Brexit, in which the U.K. exits the European Union and reverts to basic World Trade Organization tariff levels, is rising and will create acute uncertainty over the next three months despite the world’s easy monetary policy settings (Charts 2A & 2B). In June we upgraded our odds of a no-deal Brexit to 21%, up from 7% this spring. While not our base case, the probability is too high for comfort and the critical timing for the rest of Europe warns against taking on additional risk. The risk of a “no deal” Brexit ... is rising and will create acute uncertainty. Chart 2AUncertainty And Sentiment Getting Worse ... Chart 2B... Despite Easy Monetary Policy BoJo’s Gambit Boris Johnson – aka “BoJo” – former mayor of London and foreign secretary, cemented his position as the U.K.’s 77th prime minister on July 24. He immediately launched a gambit to renegotiate the U.K.’s withdrawal. He is threatening not to pay the “divorce bill” (the U.K.’s outstanding budget contributions for the 2014-20 budget period and other liabilities in subsequent decades) of 39 billion pounds. He insists that the Irish backstop (which would keep Northern Ireland or the U.K. in the EU customs union to prevent a hard border between the two Irelands) must be abandoned. He has stacked his cabinet with pro-Brexit hardliners who share his “do or die” stance that Brexit must occur on October 31 regardless of whether an agreement for an orderly exit is in place. These developments were anticipated – hence the decline in our GeoRisk indicator – but the pound sterling is falling now that the confrontation is truly getting under way (Chart 3). Parliament is adjourned in August, so Johnson’s hardline negotiating tactics will get full play in the media cycle until early September, when the real showdown begins. Crunch time will likely run up to the eleventh hour, with Halloween marking an ominous deadline. There is plenty of room for the pound to fall further throughout this period, according to our European Investment Strategy’s handy measure (Chart 4), because the success of Boris’s gambit depends entirely upon creating a credible threat of crashing out of the EU in order to wring concessions that could conceivably pass through the British parliament. Chart 3Our Market-Based Indicator Suggests Still Some Complacency On Brexit Risks Chart 4GBP-EUR Still Has Room To Fall Under BoJo's Gambit Geopolitically, the United Kingdom is not prohibited from exiting the EU without a deal. Though the empire is a thing of the past, the U.K. remains a major world power. It has Europe’s second-largest economy, nuclear weapons, a blue-water navy, a leading voice in global political institutions, and is a close ally of the United States. It mints its own coin. It is a sovereign entity that can survive on its own just as Japan can survive on its own. This geopolitical foundation always supported our view that there was a 50% chance of the referendum passing in 2016, and today it supports the view that fears over a no-deal Brexit are not misplaced. Investors should therefore not confuse Johnson’s bluster with that of Alexis Tsipras in 2015. A British government dead-set on delivering this outcome – given the popular mandate from the 2016 referendum and the government’s constitutional handling of foreign affairs as opposed to parliament – can probably achieve it. However, the probability of a no-deal Brexit may become overstated in the next two-to-three months. Economically and politically, a no-deal exit is extremely difficult to follow through on – hence our 21% probability. Estimates of the negative economic impact range from a 2% reduction in GDP growth to an 11% reduction (Table 1). The 8% drop cited by Scottish National Party leader Ian Blackford in his denunciation of Prime Minister Johnson’s strategy is probably exaggerated. The U.K.’s recorded twentieth-century recessions range from 2%-7% (Chart 5). These offer as good of a benchmark as any. While a no-deal exit is probably not going to create a shock the same size as the Great Depression or the Great Recession, the recessions of 1979 and 1990 would be bad enough for any prime minister or ruling party. Table 1Wide Range Of Estimates For Impact Of No-Deal Brexit A small recession could also spiral out of control – it could create a vicious spiral with the European continent, which is already on the verge of recession. And it could damage consumer confidence more than anticipated – as it would be accompanied by immediate social and political unrest due to the half of the population that opposes Brexit in all forms. Politicians have to pay attention to the opinion polls as well as the referendum result, since opinion polls impact the next election. These show a plurality in favor of remaining in the EU and a strong trend against Brexit since 2017 – a factor that the currency markets are ignoring at the moment (Chart 6). While the evidence does not prove that a second referendum would result in Bremain, it is highly likely that a majority opposes a no-deal exit, given that at least a handful of pro-Brexit voters do not want to leave without a deal. The results of the European parliamentary elections in May (Chart 7) and the public’s preferences for different political parties (Chart 8) both support this conclusion. Chart 6Plurality Of Voters Still Favors Bremain Over Brexit Chart 8Voters Favor Bremain-Leaning Political Parties Parliament is also opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Though the Cooper-Letwin bill that forbad a no-deal exit initially passed by one vote in April (Chart 9A), the final amended version passed with a majority of 309 votes. Further, in July, with the rise of Boris Johnson, parliament passed a measure by 41 votes that requires parliament to sit this fall (Chart 9B), thus attempting to prevent Boris from proroguing parliament and forcing a no-deal Brexit that way. Technically Queen Elizabeth II could still prorogue parliament, but we highly doubt she would intervene in a way that would divide the nation. Johnson himself will have to face the reality of parliament and public opinion. Parliament has one crystal clear means of halting a no-deal exit: a vote of no confidence in Johnson’s government.1 Theresa May only survived her vote of no confidence by 19 seats. Yet Johnson is entering 10 Downing Street at a time when parliament is essentially hung. The Conservative Party’s coalition with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Union Party has been reduced to a majority of two, which is likely to fall to a single solitary seat after the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, which is taking place as we go to press. Johnson has purged several Tories from his cabinet, and there are a handful of Conservatives who are firmly opposed to a no-deal Brexit. It would be an extremely tight vote as to whether these Tory rebels would be willing and able to bring down one of their own governments – a careful assessment suggests that there are about half a dozen swing voters on each side of the House of Commons.2 But 47 Conservatives contrived to block prorogation (see Chart 9B). The magnitude of the crisis members of parliament would face – an unpopular, self-inflicted no-deal exit and recession – is essential context that would motivate rebellious voting behavior. Parliament’s actions so far, the reality of the economic impact, and the popular polling suggest that MPs are likely to halt the Johnson government from forcing a no-deal exit if he makes a mad dash for it. More likely is that Johnson himself pushes to hold an election after securing some technical concessions from Brussels. He is galvanizing the Conservative vote and swallowing up the single-issue Brexit vote (UKIP and the Brexit Party), while the opposition remains divided between the Labour Party under the vacillating Jeremy Corbyn and the resurgent Liberal Democrats (Chart 10). In a first-past-the-post electoral system, this provides a window of opportunity for the Conservatives to improve their parliamentary majority – assuming that Johnson has renegotiated a deal with the EU and has something to show for it. Chart 10BoJo Could Call Election With Deal In Hand Chart 11Ireland Can Compromise For Stability's Sake This would require the EU to delay the deadline yet again (September 3 is the last date for a non-confidence vote to force a pre-Brexit October 24 election). The European Union has a self-interest in preventing a no-deal Brexit, as it needs to maintain economic stability. It ultimately would prefer to keep the U.K. in the bloc, which means that delays can ultimately be granted, especially to accommodate a new election. As to what kind of compromises are available, the Irish backstop can suffer technical changes to its provisions, time frames, or application. In the end, the Irish Sea is already a different kind of border than the other borders in the U.K. and therefore it is possible to enact additional checks that nevertheless have a claim to retaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Democratic Unionists could find themselves outnumbered on this issue. Certainly the Republic of Ireland has an interest in preventing a no-deal Brexit as long as a hard border with Northern Ireland is avoided, and Boris Johnson maintains that it will be (Chart 11). The risk of a no-deal Brexit is around 21% Our updated Brexit Decision Tree in Diagram 1 provides the outcomes. Former Prime Minister Theresa May failed three times to pass her Brexit deal. We allot a 30% chance, higher than consensus, that Boris Johnson can do it through galvanizing the Conservative vote – given that he is operating with a hung parliament and is at odds with the median voter on Brexit. We give 21% odds to a no-deal Brexit based on the difficulty of parliament outright halting Johnson if his government is absolutely determined to follow through with it. This is clearly a large risk but not our base case. We would upgrade these odds to around 30% in the event that negotiations with the EU completely fail to produce tangible outcomes. It is far more likely that a delay occurs and leads to new elections (49%) – and these odds rise to 70% if Johnson fails to extract concessions from the EU that enable him to pass a deal through parliament. Diagram 1Brexit Decision Tree (Updated As Of June 21 For Boris Johnson) A final constraint on Johnson comes from Scotland, as highlighted in the epigraph at the top of the report: the demand for a new Scottish independence referendum is reviving as a result of opposition to Brexit in general and specifically to Prime Minister Johnson’s hardline approach (Charts 12A & 12B). The SNP is also improving its favorability among Scottish voters relative to other parties (Chart 13). We have highlighted this risk in the past: support for Scottish independence does not have a clear ceiling amid the antagonism over Brexit, especially if an economic and political shock hits the union as a result of a forced no-deal exit. Chart 13Scottish Nationals Resurgent Bottom Line: The risk of a no-deal Brexit is around 21%, though a complete failure of negotiations with the EU could push it up to 30%. If it occurs it will induce a recession and eventually could result in the breakup of the union with Scotland. China And Investment Recommendations What can investors be certain of regardless of the different Brexit outcomes? The United Kingdom will reverse the fiscal austerity of recent years (Chart 14). Fiscal stimulus will be necessary either to offset the shock of a no-deal exit in the worst-case scenario, or to address the ongoing economic challenges and public grievances in a soft Brexit or no Brexit scenario. These grievances stem from the negative impact on the middle class of globalization, post-financial crisis deleveraging, low real wage growth, and the decline in productivity. Potential GDP growth is set to fall if immigration is curtailed and restrictions on trade with the EU go up. The government will have to offset this trend with spending to boost the social safety net and encourage investment. Chart 14Fiscal Austerity To Go Into Reverse The pound is clearly weak on a long-term and structural basis (Chart 15). Based on our assessment of the British median voter – opposed to a no-deal Brexit – and the fact that parliament is also opposed to a no-deal Brexit Chart 15Deep Value In Sterling and is the supreme lawgiving body in the British constitution, we expect that an enormous buying opportunity will emerge when Prime Minister Johnson’s gambit has reached its apex and he is either forced to accept what concessions the EU will give. But if forced out of office, election uncertainty due to a potential Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn will prolong the pound’s weakness. Brexit is not the only risk affecting Europe this summer – a critical factor is Europe’s own economic status, which in great part hinges on our China view (Chart 16). The Chinese Communist Party’s mid-year Politburo meeting struck a more accommodative tone relative to the April meeting that sounded less dovish in the aftermath of the Q1 credit splurge. The emphasis of the remarks shifted back to the need to take additional measures to stabilize the economy, as in the October 2018 statement. This fits with our view since February that Chinese stimulus will surprise to the upside this year. Chart 16Chinese Reflation Positive For Europe Policymakers’ efforts are working thus far, with signs of stabilization occurring in the all-important labor market (Chart 17). There is some evidence that Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign is moderating, which also supports the view that policy settings in the broadest sense are becoming more supportive of growth (Chart 18). Chart 17China Will Reflate More Chart 18Relaxing Anti-Corruption Campaign Another Form Of Easing Chart 19Hong Kong Equities Have Farther To Fall We still are long European equities versus Chinese equities and are short the CNY-USD. From a geopolitical point of view, the U.S.-China conflict is intensifying with President Trump’s threat to raise an additional 10% tariff on $300 billion of Chinese imports despite the resumption of talks. In addition, the Hong Kong protests are intensifying, with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) warning that it may have to intervene. There is high potential for violence to erupt, leading to a more heavy-handed approach by Hong Kong security forces and even eventual PLA deployment. This suggests there is downside in the Hang Seng index (Chart 19) – and PLA intervention could lead to broader investor concerns about China’s internal stability and another reason for tensions with the United States and its allies. The U.S.-China conflict is intensifying. Our alarmist view on Taiwan in advance of the January 2020 election is finally taking shape. Not only has the Hong Kong unrest prompted a notable uptick in Taiwanese people’s view of themselves as exclusively Taiwanese (Chart 20), but Beijing has also announced additional restrictions on travel and tourism to Taiwan – an economic sanction that will harm the economy (Chart 21). These actions and escalation in Hong Kong raise the odds that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party will remain in power in Taiwan after January and hence that cross-strait relations (and by extension Sino-American relations) will remain strained and will require a higher risk premium to be built in. The latest trade war escalation could easily spill into strategic saber-rattling, as the U.S. blames China for North Korea’s return to bad behavior and China blames the U.S. for dissent in Hong Kong and likely Taiwan. Chart 21Beijing To Sanction Taiwan Tourism Again The U.S.-China trade negotiations are falling apart at the moment. We had argued that China’s stimulus and stabilization would create a negative reaction from President Trump, who would regret the Osaka ceasefire when he saw that China’s bargaining leverage had improved. This has come to pass, vindicating our 60% odds of an escalation post-G20. The U.S. Commerce Department could still conceivably renew the Temporary General License for U.S. companies to deal with Chinese tech firm Huawei on August 19, in order to create an environment conducive to progress for the next round of trade talks in September, but with the latest round of tariffs we think it is more likely that we will get a major escalation of strategic tensions and even saber-rattling. China’s new announcements regarding reforms to make local officials more accountable and to make it easier for companies to go bankrupt, including unprofitable “zombie” state-owned enterprises, could be a thinly veiled structural concession to the United States, but it remains to be seen whether these will be implemented and reinforced. Beijing rebooted structural reforms at the nineteenth national party congress but we expect stimulus to overwhelm reform amid trade war. We are converting our long non-Chinese rare earth producers recommendation to a strategic trade, after it hit our 5% stop-loss, as it is supported by our major theme of Sino-American strategic rivalry. The secular nature of this rivalry has been greatly confirmed by the fact that President Trump is now responding to American election dynamics. The U.S. Democratic Party’s primary debates have revealed that the candidates most likely to take on President Trump (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) are adopting his hawkish foreign policy and trade policy stance toward China. The frontrunner former Vice President Joe Biden is the exception, as he is maintaining President Obama’s more dovish and multilateral approach. Trump’s clear response is to ensure that he still owns the trade and manufacturing narrative, to call Biden weak on trade, and to prevent the left-wing populists from outflanking him. Short the Hang Seng index as a tactical trade and close long Q1 2020 Brent futures versus Q1 2021 at the market bell tonight.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Maddy Thimont Jack, “A New Prime Minister Intent On No Deal Brexit Can’t Be Stopped By MPs,” May 22, 2019, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk. 2 See Dominic Walsh, “Would MPs really back a no confidence motion to stop no-deal?” The New Statesman, July 15, 2019, www.newstatesman.com.

Feature The global manufacturing cycle looks dire at the moment. Around the world, manufacturing PMIs have fallen, profit growth has slowed, and capex has been reined back (Chart 1). This is clearly a risky moment for the economic expansion (and the equity bull market) which began in 2009. We hear that many clients are having vigorous debates on their investment committees about what to do – and indeed, at BCA, the views of our strategists are unusually divided.1 Recommendations Chart 1Heading Downhill Fast       Global Asset Allocation veers towards the optimistic camp. In brief, we expect the services and consumer sectors of major economies to remain robust, and that manufacturing will bottom out in the coming months, partly as a result of easier financial conditions, including the dovish turn by central banks and monetary stimulus in China. But we recognize the risks currently and have constructed our portfolio accordingly. We remain overweight equities versus bonds, but leaven that with an overweight on the most defensive equity market, the U.S. The global economy is a wonderful self-organizing system. The disparity between manufacturing and services is stark everywhere. Both the soft data, such as PMIs (Chart 2), and hard data, such as industrial production and retail sales (Chart 3), show that manufacturing almost everywhere is in recession (the U.S. is not yet, but is perhaps headed that way), but that services growth remains robust. Services have been held up by decent wage growth (even in the manufacturing-heavy eurozone) and generally easier fiscal policy (in the eurozone and China, in particular), which have allowed consumers to continue spending. (In the U.S., the risk of tighter fiscal policy next year has been alleviated by last month’s budget agreement which will produce a small positive fiscal thrust in 2020 – see Chart 4.) Chart 2Service Sector Surveys Look Healthier... Chart 3...Supported By The Hard Data   Chart 5China Is The Root Cause   The manufacturing recession was clearly triggered by China – it is notable, for instance, that large exporting countries have seen no slowdown in sales to the U.S. but a big drop in those to China (Chart 5). In 2017-18, China slowed as a result of its tighter monetary policy and clamp-down on shadow banking. The countries that have been most affected by the slowdown over the past 18 months are, unsurprisingly then, those which have the largest manufacturing sectors, notably Korea, Germany and Japan (Chart 6). But the global economy is a wonderful self-organizing system. Historically, intra-expansion industrial cycles have typically lasted around 18 months from peak to trough, and 18 months from trough to peak (Chart 7). Lower commodity prices, easier financial conditions, and pent-up demand mean that, after a period of slowdown, demand and risk appetite build up. This self-equilibrating cycle breaks only if there is a major structural imbalance, usually excess debt or rising inflation. As we have argued previously, we do not see clear signs currently that either of these usual structural triggers of recession is present (Chart 8). Chart 7Close To The End Of The Down Wave? Chart 8No Structural Triggers For Recession   Chart 9Financial Conditions Have Eased The Fed cut rates on July 31 as a risk management measure, “a mid-cycle adjustment to policy,” as Chair Powell put it in his post-FOMC press conference. With the stock market close to a record high and unemployment at a 50-year low, there is no obvious need for the Fed to implement a full-out easing campaign. But with inflation well below its 2% target, and a risk that the manufacturing slowdown could spill over into consumption (perhaps if companies start to lay off workers – something there is little sign of yet), an “insurance” cut seemed prudent. Financial conditions have eased significantly in the U.S. this year, and somewhat in Europe (Chart 9), and this should soon start to positively affect growth. China’s stimulus remains key. So far it has been half-hearted (Chart 10). This is because Chinese growth has to a degree stabilized, trade negotiations with the U.S. continue, and because the authorities have not abandoned their wish to delever the economy – it is notable that shadow-bank credit creation has not rebounded (Chart 11). Both fiscal and monetary stimulus will need to be ramped up in the second half if we are to see a repeat of 2016’s China-driven risk rally. Investors should see this as a put option – if Chinese growth slows again, and the trade talks break down (both of which are likely), the authorities will roll out a stimulus on the scale of their previous efforts. Chart 10China's Stimulus Is Only Half-Hearted Chart 11Still Clamping Down On Shadow Banks Chart 12Have Stocks Already Discounted A Rebound? What is the biggest risk to our sanguine view? With global stocks up 16% and U.S. stocks 20% year-to-date, the bottoming-out of the manufacturing cycle and greater monetary easing may already be priced in. Chart 12 shows that year-on-year stock market moves typically follow the manufacturing PMIs closely. Even if stock prices remain only at their current level to year-end, they are already discounting a sharp bounce in the PMIs. Fixed Income: If we are right about the macro environment, U.S. Treasury bond yields should rise from their current 2%. Yields usually move in line with consensus GDP forecasts (Chart 13). Economists have cut their 2020 forecast to only 1.8% (from 2.5% for this year). If the 2020 number is revised up, as we expect, Treasury yields have some room to move back up. Moreover, the Fed is unlikely to cut rates twice more by year-end as the futures market implies. Therefore, we stay underweight duration. We have a neutral stance on credit, but this asset class should produce reasonable excess returns over coming quarters given current spreads (Chart 14). U.S. high yield (especially B and below) and eurozone investment grade bonds (which the ECB may start buying again) look attractive. Chart 13Yields Will Rise With GDP Forecasts Chart 14Some Credit Spreads Look Attractive Equities: Given the uncertainties over the timing and strength of Chinese stimulus, we remain cautious on Emerging Markets and euro area stocks, the most obvious beneficiaries of this. Both regions have structural headwinds (excess foreign-currency debt in the case of EM, the fragile banking system and flattening yield curve for Europe) which mean that, even when Chinese stimulus comes, their outperformance may prove short-lived. For now, we prefer U.S. equities, although we recognize that upside for this year is limited. The key will be whether earnings can surprise analysts’ (over cautious) forecast of only 3% EPS growth in 2019. This seems likely since the Q2 earnings season, with almost half of companies having reported, is coming in at close to 80% beats on the bottom line. To hedge against the upside risk of Chinese stimulus, we continue to recommend building a position in Australian equities and in the Industrials sector. China’s stimulus remains key, but so far it has been half-hearted. Currencies: The U.S. dollar is a counter-cyclical currency and should start to depreciate once signs of a manufacturing recovery become apparent. Moreover, the Fed’s dovish move – and the fact that it has significantly more room to ease than other large DM central banks – should also prove to be dollar bearish eventually (Chart 15). One key cross to watch for signs that the global cycle is bottoming is AUD/JPY, since the Australian dollar is a very cyclical, and the Japanese yen a very defensive, currency (Chart 16). Chart 15Dovish Fed Is Dollar Bearish Chart 16Watch AUD/JPY For Signs Of A Bottom   Chart 17Oil Has Further To Rise Commodities: We continue to have a bullish outlook for oil. Although developed-world demand growth has slowed slightly this year, OPEC supply constraints mean that inventories should draw down further (Chart 17). We expect Brent crude to average $74 a barrel in 2H2019 (from $65 today). Gold has performed well this year, up 11%. Our colleagues in BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy services conclude that this has largely been because of monetary and financial factors, mostly lower real rates (Chart 18).2 In the coming months, while rates may rise, gold should be helped by a weaker USD. We are neutral on the metal and see it more as an insurance asset. Our FX and Commodity strategists concur with GAA’s long-standing view that gold is a useful portfolio diversification tool to protect against financial, geopolitical, and inflation risks. Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see BCA’s Special Report, “What Goes On Between Those Walls? BCA’s Diverging Views In The Open,” dated 19 July 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, “All That Glitters…And Then Some,” dated 25 July 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights China’s infrastructure investment growth rate could rebound moderately from its current nominal 3% pace, but will remain well below the double-digit rate it has registered for most of the past decade.  A lack of funding for local governments and their financing vehicles will somewhat cap the upside in infrastructure fixed-asset investment (FAI) in the next six to nine months. Special bond issuance will be insufficient to ensuring a major recovery in infrastructure spending. Investors should tread cautiously on infrastructure plays in financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Nominal infrastructure investment growth in China has slowed from over 15% in 2017 to 3% currently (Chart I-1). This is the weakest growth rate since 2005 excluding the late 2011-early 2012 period. Over the past decade, each time the Chinese economy experienced a considerable slowdown, infrastructure construction was ramped up to revive growth. Infrastructure spending growth skyrocketed in 2009 and was also boosted in 2012. In 2015-2016, it was not allowed to decelerate with the issuance of nearly RMB 2 trillion of special infrastructure bonds. This time the government has also reacted. Since mid-2018, the Chinese authorities have dramatically raised local governments’ special bonds balance limits, prompted local governments to front-load their issuance this year, and also encouraged the private sector to participate in public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects. Will Chinese infrastructure FAI growth accelerate over the next six to nine months from its current nominal 3% pace to double digits? The short answer is no. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. For purposes of this report, the composition of “infrastructure” includes three categories – (1) Transport, Storage and Postal Service, (2) Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management, and (3) Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply. Chart I-2 presents the breakdown of the nominal infrastructure FAI by category. Funding Constraint Preceding both the 2011-2012 and 2018 infrastructure investment slumps, the Chinese central government increased its scrutiny on local government debt and tightened funding conditions for infrastructure projects. As a result, all three categories of infrastructure spending experienced a sharp deceleration (Chart I-3). Overall, financing and qualitative limitations that Beijing imposes on local government infrastructure spending hold the key to the outlook. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. Looking forward, without a considerable recovery in available financing, there will be no meaningful rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment and construction activity. For now, we are not very optimistic on financing. Chart I-4 shows the breakdown of the major funding sources of Chinese infrastructure investment. All of them are likely to face considerable funding constraints over the next six to nine months. Chart I-3Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board   1. Self-Raised Funds Self-raised funds contribute nearly 60% of overall infrastructure funding. They include net local government special bond issuance, PPP financing and government-managed funds’ (GMFs) revenues excluding proceeds from special bond issuance. A. Local government special bond issuance, which is exclusively used to fund infrastructure projects, has been the major source of financing for local governments in the past 12 months. The authorities significantly boosted net local government bond issuance to RMB 1.2 trillion in the first six months of this year from only RMB 361 billion in the same period in 2018. However, the amount of special bond issuance in the second half of this year will unlikely be significant enough to boost infrastructure FAI greatly. First, the central government has not only set a limit on the aggregate local government special bond balance, but it also set limits for each of the 31 provinces/provincial-level cities.1 In the past three years, nearly all provinces did not use up their special bond issuance quotas. This resulted in an outstanding aggregate amount of special bonds of only about 85% of the limit.2 In both 2017 and 2018, local governments were left with RMB 1.1 trillion special bond issuance quota unused for that year. Second, based on the limit on outstanding amount special bonds set by the central government for the end of 2019, local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of this year. In comparison, in 2018, the issuance was heavily concentrated in the second half of the year with RMB 1.6 trillion. Our estimate shows there will be only RMB 400-600 billion increase in net total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018.3 This will translate into a merely 2-3% growth in Chinese infrastructure investment. Third, net local government special bond issuance made up only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Hence, there is still a huge financing gap to be filled (Chart I-5). B. Public-private partnerships (PPP) are unlikely to meet the financing shortage either. PPPs have become an important financing model for Chinese local governments to fund infrastructure investments since 2014. Nevertheless, to control rising local government debt risks, the central government has tightened regulations on PPP projects since early last year. A series of tightened rules have resulted in a sharp deceleration in both PPP investment and overall infrastructure investment growth. Consequently, PPPs contributions to total infrastructure FAI have plunged from over 30% in 2017 to 10% currently (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Chart I-6Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage   So far, the rules on PPP projects on local governments remain tight. In March, the central government tightened its rule on local government participation in PPP projects. The new rule states that, if a local government has already spent more than 5% of its overall general expenditures on PPP projects excluding sewage and waste disposal PPP projects, it will not be allowed to invest in any new PPP projects. Before March, the threshold was over 10%. In early July, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded all PPP projects undertake a thorough feasibility study. The NDRC emphasized that PPP projects that do not follow standard procedures will not be allowed. Chart I-7Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales C. Government-managed funds (GMF) excluding special bond issuance accounts, which contribute about 15% of overall infrastructure financing, are also facing constraints. According to the country’s Budget Law, the GMF budget refers to the budget for revenues and expenditures of the funds raised for specific developmental objectives. In brief, GMFs constitute de-facto off-balance-sheet government revenues and spending. Land sales by local governments are one major revenue source for GMFs. Contracting property floor space sold is likely to depress real estate developers’ land purchases, further reducing local governments’ revenues from selling land (Chart I-7). This will curb local governments’ ability to finance their infrastructure projects through GMFs. 2. Domestic Loans Domestic loans contribute to about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. Infrastructure projects are generally long term in nature. Presently, the impulse of non-household medium- and long-term (MLT) lending has stabilized but has not yet improved (Chart I-8). While not all of MLT loans are used for infrastructure, sluggish MLT lending reflects commercial banks’ reluctance to finance infrastructure projects. We believe a decelerating economy, mounting local government debt, and often-low returns on infrastructure projects will continue to constrain loan funding of infrastructure projects from both banks and the private sector. 3. General Government Budget The general government budget (which includes central and local governments) accounts for about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. The general budget is also facing headwinds from declining revenue due to recent tax cuts and lower corporate profit growth (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Chart I-9Government General Budget: Large Deficit   Bottom Line: Funding constraints will likely linger, making any recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment growth moderate over the next six to nine months. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. While local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of 2019, it would be well below the RMB 1.4 trillion of special bond issuance that was rolled out in the second half of 2018. FAI In Transportation: In Nominal Terms… The transportation sector accounts for about 31% of total Chinese infrastructure investment. It includes railway, highway, urban public transit, air and water transport. Table I-1 shows the 13th five-year (2016-2020) transportation investment plan released by the government in February 2017,4 which excludes urban public transit. The authorities planned to invest RMB 15 trillion in the transportation sector over the five-year period between 2016 and 2020, with highways accounting for over half of the investment, followed by railways (23%), air transportation (4.3%) and water transportation (3.3%). The table also shows our calculation of the realized investment amount in these four sub-sectors for the period of January 2016 to June 2019. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Table I-1 suggests the remaining FAI for the transportation sector for the July 2019 to December 2020 period will be considerably smaller than the FAI amount over the past 18 months. This entails a major drag on infrastructure investment at least over the next 18 months. It is important to emphasize that this is conditional on the central planners in Beijing sticking to their five-year plan for infrastructure FAI. As of now, there has been no announcement of revisions to these five-year FAI targets. Bottom Line: China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. …And Real Terms Table I-2 summarizes the 2020 targets for major Chinese infrastructure development (urban rail transit, railway, highway and airport) in real terms. Chart I-10Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away In real terms, the annual growth of transportation infrastructure will likely be 4.2% in both 2019 and 2020. We illustrated in the previous section that the five-year budget plan had been front-loaded, leaving a very small budget for transportation investment over the next 18 months. This may suggest that without considerably exceeding the budget, transportation infrastructure will fail to achieve the 4.2% annual growth in real terms both this year and next. In brief, more funding should be dispatched/allowed by the central planners in Beijing for infrastructure FAI not to shrink. Second, urban rail transit, high-speed railways, highways and airports will reach their respective 2020 targets, while non-high-speed railway construction will likely be a little bit off its 2020 target. Third, based on the 2020 targets, urban rail transit will enjoy very fast growth over the next one and a half years. Fourth, the growth of high-speed railways and highways will be very low, at around 1-2% in real terms (Chart I-10). Finally, while the number of airports will increase at a faster pace, their contribution to overall infrastructure investment will remain insignificant as they only account for about 1.4% of overall infrastructure investment. Bottom Line: In real terms, transport infrastructure growth will likely be only about 4% over the next six to nine months. Future Infrastructure Investment Focus Urban rail transit, environmental management and public utility management will likely be the major driving forces for Chinese infrastructure investment over the next 18 months. Urban rail transit line length will likely register fast growth of around 10% over the next six to nine months. As the central government enforces increasingly stringent rules on environmental protection, investment in environmental management will likely experience continued growth acceleration (Chart I-11). China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, as the country’s urbanization continues and more townships and city suburbs become urbanized,5 public utility management investment will also grow moderately. Public utility management investment, contributing a massive 45% of overall infrastructure investment, includes sewer systems, sewer treatment facilities, waste treatment and disposal, streetlights, city roads construction, parks, bridges and tunnels in the city. Investment Implications Investors should not hold their breath expecting a major upswing in infrastructure FAI and a major rally in related financial markets. Chinese steel demand is sensitive to construction of railways and urban rail transit lines (Chart I-12, top panel). In turn, mainland cement demand is dependent on highway construction (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Chart I-12Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand...   Chart I-13...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin The infrastructure sector accounts for about 10-15% of total Chinese steel use, and about 30-40% of Chinese cement consumption. Nevertheless, given that we believe Chinese infrastructure spending will only have a moderate recovery, the positive effect on steel and cement prices will be muted as well (Chart I-13). The same holds true for spending on industrial machinery, equipment, chemicals and various materials. Notably, risks to this baseline scenario of a muted recovery are to the downside because of the lack of funding. Barring a substantial increase in the special bond issuance quota this year or a major credit binge, infrastructure FAI growth could in fact stall. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please note that the central government only set the special bond balance limit (not the quota) for local governments. The often-cited “quota” in the news is derived by calculating the difference between the current limit and the previous year’s limit. The “quota” used in this report is the difference between the current special bond balance limit and the actual special bond balance of the previous year end. 2  At the end of 2018, Chinese special bond balance was RMB 7.4 trillion, only 85.8% of the special bond balance limit of RMB 8.6 trillion. This ratio was 84.6% in 2017 and 85.5% in 2016. On average, the ratio was 85.3% in the past three years. 3  Given that the central government is aiming to somewhat stimulate infrastructure spending by increasing special bond issuance, we assume special bond balance at the end of 2019 to reach 88%-90% of the limit (RMB 10.8 trillion) that it has set for 2019. This will be higher than the 85% average of the past three years. In turn, this means that the special bond balance at the end of this year will likely be RMB 9.5-9.7 trillion. Since the balance at the end of last year was RMB 7.4 trillion, this results that net special bond issuance will be around RMB 2.1-2.3 trillion in 2019. Given the net special bond issuance last year was RMB 1.7 trillion, it follows that there will only be a RMB 400-600 billion increase in total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018. 4  Please see www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-02/28/content_5171576.htm, published February 28, 2017, by the Chinese central government website. 5  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report “Industrialization-Driven Urbanization In China Is Losing Steam,” dated January 2, 2019, available on ems.bcaresearch.com

Highlights China’s infrastructure investment growth rate could rebound moderately from its current nominal 3% pace, but will remain well below the double-digit rate it has registered for most of the past decade.  A lack of funding for local governments and their financing vehicles will somewhat cap the upside in infrastructure fixed-asset investment (FAI) in the next six to nine months. Special bond issuance will be insufficient to ensuring a major recovery in infrastructure spending. Investors should tread cautiously on infrastructure plays in financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Nominal infrastructure investment growth in China has slowed from over 15% in 2017 to 3% currently (Chart I-1). This is the weakest growth rate since 2005 excluding the late 2011-early 2012 period. Over the past decade, each time the Chinese economy experienced a considerable slowdown, infrastructure construction was ramped up to revive growth. Infrastructure spending growth skyrocketed in 2009 and was also boosted in 2012. In 2015-2016, it was not allowed to decelerate with the issuance of nearly RMB 2 trillion of special infrastructure bonds. This time the government has also reacted. Since mid-2018, the Chinese authorities have dramatically raised local governments’ special bonds balance limits, prompted local governments to front-load their issuance this year, and also encouraged the private sector to participate in public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects. Will Chinese infrastructure FAI growth accelerate over the next six to nine months from its current nominal 3% pace to double digits? The short answer is no. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. For purposes of this report, the composition of “infrastructure” includes three categories – (1) Transport, Storage and Postal Service, (2) Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management, and (3) Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply. Chart I-2 presents the breakdown of the nominal infrastructure FAI by category. Funding Constraint Preceding both the 2011-2012 and 2018 infrastructure investment slumps, the Chinese central government increased its scrutiny on local government debt and tightened funding conditions for infrastructure projects. As a result, all three categories of infrastructure spending experienced a sharp deceleration (Chart I-3). Overall, financing and qualitative limitations that Beijing imposes on local government infrastructure spending hold the key to the outlook. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. Looking forward, without a considerable recovery in available financing, there will be no meaningful rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment and construction activity. For now, we are not very optimistic on financing. Chart I-4 shows the breakdown of the major funding sources of Chinese infrastructure investment. All of them are likely to face considerable funding constraints over the next six to nine months. Chart I-3Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board   1. Self-Raised Funds Self-raised funds contribute nearly 60% of overall infrastructure funding. They include net local government special bond issuance, PPP financing and government-managed funds’ (GMFs) revenues excluding proceeds from special bond issuance. A. Local government special bond issuance, which is exclusively used to fund infrastructure projects, has been the major source of financing for local governments in the past 12 months. The authorities significantly boosted net local government bond issuance to RMB 1.2 trillion in the first six months of this year from only RMB 361 billion in the same period in 2018. However, the amount of special bond issuance in the second half of this year will unlikely be significant enough to boost infrastructure FAI greatly. First, the central government has not only set a limit on the aggregate local government special bond balance, but it also set limits for each of the 31 provinces/provincial-level cities.1 In the past three years, nearly all provinces did not use up their special bond issuance quotas. This resulted in an outstanding aggregate amount of special bonds of only about 85% of the limit.2 In both 2017 and 2018, local governments were left with RMB 1.1 trillion special bond issuance quota unused for that year. Second, based on the limit on outstanding amount special bonds set by the central government for the end of 2019, local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of this year. In comparison, in 2018, the issuance was heavily concentrated in the second half of the year with RMB 1.6 trillion. Our estimate shows there will be only RMB 400-600 billion increase in net total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018.3 This will translate into a merely 2-3% growth in Chinese infrastructure investment. Third, net local government special bond issuance made up only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Hence, there is still a huge financing gap to be filled (Chart I-5). B. Public-private partnerships (PPP) are unlikely to meet the financing shortage either. PPPs have become an important financing model for Chinese local governments to fund infrastructure investments since 2014. Nevertheless, to control rising local government debt risks, the central government has tightened regulations on PPP projects since early last year. A series of tightened rules have resulted in a sharp deceleration in both PPP investment and overall infrastructure investment growth. Consequently, PPPs contributions to total infrastructure FAI have plunged from over 30% in 2017 to 10% currently (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Chart I-6Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage   So far, the rules on PPP projects on local governments remain tight. In March, the central government tightened its rule on local government participation in PPP projects. The new rule states that, if a local government has already spent more than 5% of its overall general expenditures on PPP projects excluding sewage and waste disposal PPP projects, it will not be allowed to invest in any new PPP projects. Before March, the threshold was over 10%. In early July, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded all PPP projects undertake a thorough feasibility study. The NDRC emphasized that PPP projects that do not follow standard procedures will not be allowed. Chart I-7Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales C. Government-managed funds (GMF) excluding special bond issuance accounts, which contribute about 15% of overall infrastructure financing, are also facing constraints. According to the country’s Budget Law, the GMF budget refers to the budget for revenues and expenditures of the funds raised for specific developmental objectives. In brief, GMFs constitute de-facto off-balance-sheet government revenues and spending. Land sales by local governments are one major revenue source for GMFs. Contracting property floor space sold is likely to depress real estate developers’ land purchases, further reducing local governments’ revenues from selling land (Chart I-7). This will curb local governments’ ability to finance their infrastructure projects through GMFs. 2. Domestic Loans Domestic loans contribute to about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. Infrastructure projects are generally long term in nature. Presently, the impulse of non-household medium- and long-term (MLT) lending has stabilized but has not yet improved (Chart I-8). While not all of MLT loans are used for infrastructure, sluggish MLT lending reflects commercial banks’ reluctance to finance infrastructure projects. We believe a decelerating economy, mounting local government debt, and often-low returns on infrastructure projects will continue to constrain loan funding of infrastructure projects from both banks and the private sector. 3. General Government Budget The general government budget (which includes central and local governments) accounts for about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. The general budget is also facing headwinds from declining revenue due to recent tax cuts and lower corporate profit growth (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Chart I-9Government General Budget: Large Deficit   Bottom Line: Funding constraints will likely linger, making any recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment growth moderate over the next six to nine months. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. While local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of 2019, it would be well below the RMB 1.4 trillion of special bond issuance that was rolled out in the second half of 2018. FAI In Transportation: In Nominal Terms… The transportation sector accounts for about 31% of total Chinese infrastructure investment. It includes railway, highway, urban public transit, air and water transport. Table I-1 shows the 13th five-year (2016-2020) transportation investment plan released by the government in February 2017,4 which excludes urban public transit. The authorities planned to invest RMB 15 trillion in the transportation sector over the five-year period between 2016 and 2020, with highways accounting for over half of the investment, followed by railways (23%), air transportation (4.3%) and water transportation (3.3%). The table also shows our calculation of the realized investment amount in these four sub-sectors for the period of January 2016 to June 2019. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Table I-1 suggests the remaining FAI for the transportation sector for the July 2019 to December 2020 period will be considerably smaller than the FAI amount over the past 18 months. This entails a major drag on infrastructure investment at least over the next 18 months. It is important to emphasize that this is conditional on the central planners in Beijing sticking to their five-year plan for infrastructure FAI. As of now, there has been no announcement of revisions to these five-year FAI targets. Bottom Line: China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. …And Real Terms Table I-2 summarizes the 2020 targets for major Chinese infrastructure development (urban rail transit, railway, highway and airport) in real terms. Chart I-10Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away In real terms, the annual growth of transportation infrastructure will likely be 4.2% in both 2019 and 2020. We illustrated in the previous section that the five-year budget plan had been front-loaded, leaving a very small budget for transportation investment over the next 18 months. This may suggest that without considerably exceeding the budget, transportation infrastructure will fail to achieve the 4.2% annual growth in real terms both this year and next. In brief, more funding should be dispatched/allowed by the central planners in Beijing for infrastructure FAI not to shrink. Second, urban rail transit, high-speed railways, highways and airports will reach their respective 2020 targets, while non-high-speed railway construction will likely be a little bit off its 2020 target. Third, based on the 2020 targets, urban rail transit will enjoy very fast growth over the next one and a half years. Fourth, the growth of high-speed railways and highways will be very low, at around 1-2% in real terms (Chart I-10). Finally, while the number of airports will increase at a faster pace, their contribution to overall infrastructure investment will remain insignificant as they only account for about 1.4% of overall infrastructure investment. Bottom Line: In real terms, transport infrastructure growth will likely be only about 4% over the next six to nine months. Future Infrastructure Investment Focus Urban rail transit, environmental management and public utility management will likely be the major driving forces for Chinese infrastructure investment over the next 18 months. Urban rail transit line length will likely register fast growth of around 10% over the next six to nine months. As the central government enforces increasingly stringent rules on environmental protection, investment in environmental management will likely experience continued growth acceleration (Chart I-11). China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, as the country’s urbanization continues and more townships and city suburbs become urbanized,5 public utility management investment will also grow moderately. Public utility management investment, contributing a massive 45% of overall infrastructure investment, includes sewer systems, sewer treatment facilities, waste treatment and disposal, streetlights, city roads construction, parks, bridges and tunnels in the city. Investment Implications Investors should not hold their breath expecting a major upswing in infrastructure FAI and a major rally in related financial markets. Chinese steel demand is sensitive to construction of railways and urban rail transit lines (Chart I-12, top panel). In turn, mainland cement demand is dependent on highway construction (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Chart I-12Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand...   Chart I-13...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin The infrastructure sector accounts for about 10-15% of total Chinese steel use, and about 30-40% of Chinese cement consumption. Nevertheless, given that we believe Chinese infrastructure spending will only have a moderate recovery, the positive effect on steel and cement prices will be muted as well (Chart I-13). The same holds true for spending on industrial machinery, equipment, chemicals and various materials. Notably, risks to this baseline scenario of a muted recovery are to the downside because of the lack of funding. Barring a substantial increase in the special bond issuance quota this year or a major credit binge, infrastructure FAI growth could in fact stall. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please note that the central government only set the special bond balance limit (not the quota) for local governments. The often-cited “quota” in the news is derived by calculating the difference between the current limit and the previous year’s limit. The “quota” used in this report is the difference between the current special bond balance limit and the actual special bond balance of the previous year end. 2  At the end of 2018, Chinese special bond balance was RMB 7.4 trillion, only 85.8% of the special bond balance limit of RMB 8.6 trillion. This ratio was 84.6% in 2017 and 85.5% in 2016. On average, the ratio was 85.3% in the past three years. 3  Given that the central government is aiming to somewhat stimulate infrastructure spending by increasing special bond issuance, we assume special bond balance at the end of 2019 to reach 88%-90% of the limit (RMB 10.8 trillion) that it has set for 2019. This will be higher than the 85% average of the past three years. In turn, this means that the special bond balance at the end of this year will likely be RMB 9.5-9.7 trillion. Since the balance at the end of last year was RMB 7.4 trillion, this results that net special bond issuance will be around RMB 2.1-2.3 trillion in 2019. Given the net special bond issuance last year was RMB 1.7 trillion, it follows that there will only be a RMB 400-600 billion increase in total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018. 4  Please see www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-02/28/content_5171576.htm, published February 28, 2017, by the Chinese central government website. 5  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report “Industrialization-Driven Urbanization In China Is Losing Steam,” dated January 2, 2019, available on ems.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The global manufacturing cycle has averaged about three years in length (peak-to-peak). We are near the bottom of the current cycle, which should set the stage for a recovery phase lasting around 18 months. The global economy will start to slow in 2021, culminating in a recession in 2022. The long-term global disinflationary cycle is drawing to a close. Investors should remain bullish on risk assets for the next two years, but expect subpar returns over a longer-term horizon.  Feature The Wheels Are Turning BCA Research has a long and proud history of analyzing economic and financial market cycles. Three types of cycles, in particular, have proven to be important to investors: Short-term manufacturing cycles lasting roughly three years. Medium-term business cycles affecting the entire economy. Long-term supercycles that can span decades. These often involve significant economic, social and political changes. What Really Caused The Global Manufacturing Downturn? The latest global manufacturing downturn has been widely attributed to the escalation of the trade war, the Chinese deleveraging campaign, and the end of the “sugar rush” from the Trump tax cuts. We have no doubt that all these factors exacerbated the downturn. However, it is not clear whether they caused it. As Chart 1 illustrates, the Chinese deleveraging campaign began in late 2016, more than a year before the global manufacturing sector peaked. The trade war only heated up in the spring of last year, after manufacturing activity had already begun to roll over. The jury is still out on the extent to which U.S. corporate tax cuts spurred capital spending, as opposed to being funnelled into retained earnings and share buybacks. Regardless, the fact that capex has weakened less in the U.S. than abroad over the past 18 months suggests that the fading impact from U.S. tax cuts was not the main culprit (Chart 2). Chart 1Chinese Credit Growth Deceleration Preceded The Global Manufacturing Slowdown Chart 2The Capex Slowdown Has Been Less Severe In The U.S.   A Predictable Cycle Chart 3The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom Lost in the discussion over the cause of the slowdown is that global manufacturing activity follows a fairly predictable three-year growth cycle: up for the first 18 months, down for the second 18 months (Chart 3). This is not an immutable law of nature, but it is a handy rule of thumb. The last growth cycle began in the late spring of 2016 and reached a crescendo in December 2017 (based on the global manufacturing PMI). For now, the global manufacturing sector remains in the doldrums, with this week’s worse-than-expected Markit PMI readings for both the U.S. and the euro area being prime examples. However, if history is any guide, activity should begin to rebound over the coming months. Global manufacturing activity follows a fairly predictable three-year growth cycle. The large improvement in the Philly Fed manufacturing PMI – arguably the most important of all the regional Fed manufacturing surveys1 – in July, strong U.S. core capital goods orders, as well as the slight uptick in Korean exports on a month-over-month basis, are positive signs in that regard. The same goes for the sales outlook of two manufacturing bellwether companies which reported earnings this week: United Technologies and Texas Instruments. The former manufactures Otis elevators, Carrier air conditioning/HVAC, and Pratt & Whitney jet engines. The latter’s components are widely used throughout the global semiconductor industry. Chart 4 shows that the semiconductor cycle closely tracks the overall manufacturing cycle. Chart 4Semiconductor And Manufacturing Cycles Tend To Overlap Cycles And Feedback Loops What drives the short-term manufacturing cycle? The answer is the same thing that drives all cycles: The existence of self-limiting feedback loops. In the case of the manufacturing cycle, the feedback loop is fairly straightforward to describe. A pickup in manufacturing sales boosts profits and creates new jobs. This causes consumer and business confidence to rise. Improving confidence leads to more sales, which generates even higher confidence. If that were all there was to the story, this virtuous cycle would never end. This is where the “self-limiting” part comes in. Most manufactured goods are durable goods, meaning that they retain value for some time after they are purchased. When spending on, say, automobiles or computers rises to a high level for an extended period of time, a glut will form, requiring a period of lower production. This, in turn, will generate a negative feedback loop where falling sales lead to lower confidence and so forth. The glut will eventually shrink. Once enough pent-up demand has accumulated, a new upcycle will begin.  The Role Of Finance Banks and other financial institutions play a critical role in both perpetuating, and ultimately short-circuiting, the feedback loop described above. Business lending tends to ebb and flow with capital spending (Chart 5). It is not so much that one causes the other. It is better to think of the two as locked in a self-reinforcing tango: Faster output growth leads to more lending, and more lending leads to faster output growth. Chart 5The Ebb And Flow Of Lending And Capex Go Hand In Hand The amount of time it takes for the music to end, and for the dancers to part ways, varies from episode to episode. If both lenders and borrowers are feeling skittish, the party may never reach a fever pitch. While that may sound like a bad thing, it has the redeeming feature that imbalances never get a chance to reach critical levels. This brings us to today: Unlike in the pre-financial crisis period, when banks held Chuck Prince’s view that “as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance,” lenders are more circumspect. This is a critical reason why we think the next U.S. recession is not imminent. Private-Sector Imbalances Remain Low In The United States Despite this being the longest U.S. expansion on record, the ratio of private debt-to-GDP is still well below where it was at the start of the decade (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Private Sector Leverage Remains Below Its Previous Peak Granted, corporate debt levels have scaled new highs. However, thanks to low interest rates, interest coverage ratios remain above their post-1980 average. This is true for the economy as a whole, as well as for the broad equity market (Chart 7). Chart 7AInterest Coverage Ratios Are Not Particularly Stretched In Most Equity Sectors (I) Chart 7BInterest Coverage Ratios Are Not Particularly Stretched In Most Equity Sectors (II) Spending on business equipment, new homes, and consumer durables also remains restrained. This explains why the average age of the U.S. capital stock has increased sharply since the Great Recession (Chart 8). Chart 8The Capital Stock Is Aging Public-Sector Imbalances On The Rise, But Not Yet At Critical Levels Chart 9The Private Sector Is Not Living Beyond Its Means The Way It Was Before The Last Two Recessions The one area where clear imbalances in the U.S. are present is in public finances. The tentative deal between the Trump Administration and Congress to raise spending caps and increase the debt ceiling ensures that fiscal policy will stay accommodative for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the cost of this fiscal largesse is a budget deficit that is set to swell to $1 trillion (4.5% of GDP) in FY2020, up from $586 billion (3.2% of GDP) in FY2016. Financing this deficit over the next few years is unlikely to pose serious challenges because the private sector remains an ample source of savings (Chart 9). However, once this reservoir of savings starts to recede, bond yields could rise sharply.   Chinese Imbalances: How Much Of A Concern? Economic and financial imbalances are more pronounced abroad. In China, fixed investment spending has averaged 44% of GDP over the past decade. Debt levels have soared over this period. That said, much of this debt-financed investment should be regarded as a form of stimulus for an economy that suffers from a chronic shortfall of consumption. So far this year, the decline in Chinese private-sector fixed-asset investment has been counterbalanced by an increase in infrastructure spending (Chart 10). As in the U.S. and many other economies, abundant Chinese savings have allowed interest rates to stay low, thereby ensuring that borrowers are able to tap credit at favorable terms. We expect the Chinese authorities to continue stimulating their economy. Unlike in early 2017, credit growth is only modestly above trend nominal GDP growth (Chart 11). In addition, a stronger economy would give the Chinese government more leverage over trade negotiations. Chart 10China: Declining Private-Sector Investment Counterbalanced By Increasing Infrastructure Spending Chart 11China: The Deleveraging Campaign Has Been Put On The Backburner   A Turn In The Long-Term Inflationary Cycle? While the unemployment rate has returned to pre-recession levels in many economies, the scars from the Great Recession still remain. Nowhere is this more manifest than in the hypersensitivity that central banks have displayed towards bad economic news. Just as central bankers in the 1960s were fixated on avoiding the mass unemployment that accompanied the Great Depression, today’s central bankers are laser-focused on propping up demand at all costs. The new conventional wisdom is that the Phillips curve is dead. Chart 12 casts doubt on this assertion: It shows that the relationship between wage growth and various measures of labor market slack still seems very much alive and well. Chart 12A Tighter U.S. Labor Market Has Been Translating Into Stronger Wage Growth... Chart 13...But No Imminent Threat Of A Wage-Price Inflationary Spiral Admittedly, faster wage growth has failed to push up inflation. However, this may be simply because productivity growth has sped up. In the U.S., unit labor cost inflation has actually decelerated sharply since late 2017 (Chart 13). If wage growth continues to grind higher, firms will have no choice but to start raising prices. This could set the stage for an upleg in the longer-term inflationary cycle.   Structural Forces: Not So Deflationary Anymore Once inflation starts to move higher, a number of structural forces could help it along. The period of hyperglobalization, which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the integration of China into the global economy, is over. The ratio of global trade-to-GDP has been flat for over a decade (Chart 14).  Chart 14Globalization Has Peaked Demographic trends are shifting from deflationary to inflationary. Now that baby boomers are starting to retire, they will begin running down their savings. Chart 15 shows that ratio of workers-to-consumers globally has begun to fall after a four-decade ascent. Chart 15The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Started Shrinking Globally As more people retire, aggregate savings will fall. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate of interest. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in the neutral rate, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up. The political winds are also blowing in the direction of higher inflation. Populism is on the rise. Whether it be right-wing populism or left-wing populism, the result is usually bloated budget deficits, compromised central bank independence, and productivity-reducing policies. Stagflation may once again rear its head. Investment Conclusions The path to higher interest rates is paved with lower rates, meaning that the longer a central bank keeps rates below their neutral level, the more economies will overheat, and the larger the eventual inflation overshoot will be. We expect the Fed to cut rates by 25 basis points next week, with another cut possible in September. The ECB and most other central banks are also in easing mode. The good news is that inflation is a notoriously lagging indicator (Chart 16). It will probably take at least a year for clear evidence of overheating to emerge in the U.S., and even longer abroad. The bad news is that once inflation breaks out, it could do so quite dramatically. The market is not prepared for this (Chart 17).     Investors should maintain a bullish stance towards risk assets for the next 12-to-18 months, before starting to scale back exposure. Not only are central banks becoming more dovish, but the global manufacturing cycle is about to turn up. Stronger global growth will lead to a weaker U.S. dollar (Chart 18). EM and European stocks will start to outperform U.S. stocks (Chart 19). Cyclicals will trump defensives. Chart 18The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 19EM And Euro Area Equities Outperform When Global Growth Improves     As global yield curves steepen anew, bank stocks will power higher. U.S. small caps, with their relatively high weighting in regional banks, will outperform their large cap brethren (Chart 20). Chart 20Big Has Crushed Small   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    The manufacturing segment in the region covered by the Philadelphia Fed is representative of the national manufacturing sector and hence tracks the ISM manufacturing index better than the other regional Fed surveys. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights So What? Key geopolitical risks remain unresolved and most of the improvements are transitory. Maintain a cautious tactical stance toward risk assets. Why? U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors and President Trump remains a wild card on trade. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. USMCA ratification is not a red herring for investors. We expect USMCA will pass by year’s end but our conviction level is low. Trump’s threat to withdraw from NAFTA cannot be entirely ruled out. Remain long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities. Feature Chart 1U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative We maintain our cautious tactical stance toward risk assets despite improvements to the cyclical macro outlook. American and Chinese monetary and fiscal policy are growing more stimulative on the margin – an encouraging sign for the global economy and risk assets. We have frequently predicted this combination as a positive factor for the second half of the year and 2020. With the Federal Reserve likely to deliver a 25 basis point interest rate cut on July 31, the market is pricing in positive policy developments (Chart 1). Yet in the U.S., long-term fiscal and regulatory policies are increasingly uncertain as the Democratic Party primary and 2020 election heat up. And in China, the trade war continues to drag on the effectiveness of the government’s stimulus drive. President Trump remains a wild card on trade: the resumption of U.S.-China talks is precarious and will be accompanied by heightened uncertainty surrounding Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Europe in the near term. Even the USMCA’s ratification is not guaranteed, as we discuss below. Even more pressing are the dramatic events taking place in East Asia: Hong Kong, Japan, the Koreas, Taiwan, and the South and East China Seas. These events each entail near-term uncertainty amid the ongoing slowdown in trade and manufacturing. Our long-running theme of geopolitical risk rotation from the Middle East to East Asia has come to fruition, albeit at the moment geopolitical risk is rising in both regions due to the simultaneous showdown between Iran and the United States and United Kingdom. The market recognizes that geopolitical risks are unresolved, according to this month’s update of our currency- and equity-derived GeoRisk Indicators. This is in keeping with the above points. We regard most of the improvements as transitory – especially the drop in risk in the U.K., where Boris Johnson is now officially prime minister. We are therefore sticking with our cautious trade recommendations despite our agreement with the BCA House View that the cyclical outlook is improving and is positive for global risk assets on a 12-month horizon. What Is Happening To East Asian Stability? A raft of crises has struck East Asia, a region known for political stability and ease of doing business throughout the twenty-first century after its successful recovery from the financial crisis of 1997. The thawing of Asia’s frozen post-WWII conflicts is a paradigm shift with significant long-term consequences for investors. The fundamental drivers are as follows: China’s rise is not peaceful: President Xi Jinping has reasserted Communist Party control while pursuing mercantilist trade policy and aggressive foreign policy. The populations of Hong Kong and Taiwan have reacted negatively to Beijing’s tightening grip, exposing the difficulty of resolving serious political disagreements given unclear constitutional frameworks. Recent protests in Hong Kong are even larger than those in 2014 and 1989 (Table 1). Table 1Hong Kong: Recent Protests The Largest Ever America’s “pivot” is not peaceful: The United States is determined to respond to China’s rise, but political polarization has prevented a coherent strategy. The Democrats took a gradual, multilateral path emphasizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership while the Republicans have taken an abrupt, unilateral path emphasizing sweeping tariffs. Underlying trade policy is the increased use of “hard power” by both parties – freedom of navigation operations, weapons sales, and alliance-maintenance. America is threatening the strategic containment of China, which China will resist through alliances and relations with Russia and others. Japan’s resurgence is not peaceful: Japan’s “lost decades” culminated in the crises and disasters of 2008-11. Since then, Japan’s institutional ruling party – the Liberal Democrats – have embraced a more proactive vision of Japan in which the country casts off the shackles of its WWII settlement. They set about reflating the economy and “normalizing” the country’s strategic and military posture. The result is rising tension with China and the Koreas. Korean “reunion” is not peaceful: North Korea has seen a successful power transition to Kim Jong Un, who is attempting economic reforms to prolong the regime. South Korea has witnessed a collapse among political conservatives and a new push to make peace with the North and improve relations with China. The prospect of peace – or eventual reunification – increases political risk in both Korean regimes and provokes quarrels between erstwhile allies: the North and China, and the South and Japan. Southeast Asia’s rise is not peaceful: Southeast Asia is the prime beneficiary in a world where supply chains move out of China, due to China’s internal development and American trade policy. But it also suffers when China encroaches on its territory or reacts negatively to American overtures. Higher expectations from the U.S. will increase the political risk to Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines. This is the critical context for the mass protests in Hong Kong and the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea, and other regional risks. Which conflicts are market-relevant? How will they play out? The U.S.-China Conflict The most important dynamic is the strategic conflict between the U.S. and China. Its pace and intensity have ramifications for all the other states in the region. Because the Trump administration is seeking a trade agreement with China, it has held off from unduly antagonizing China over Hong Kong and Taiwan. President Trump has not fanned the flames of unrest in Hong Kong and has maintained only a gradual pace of improvements in the Taiwan relationship.1 But if the trade war escalates dramatically, Beijing will face greater economic pressure, growing more sensitive about dissent within Greater China, and Washington may take more provocative actions. Saber-rattling could ensue, as nearly occurred in October 2018. Currently events are moving in a more market-positive direction. Next week, the U.S. and China are expected to resume face-to-face trade negotiations between principal negotiators for the first time since May. China is reportedly preparing to purchase more farm goods – part of the Osaka G20 ceasefire – while the Trump administration has met with U.S. tech companies and is expected to allow Chinese telecoms firm Huawei to continue purchasing American components (at least those not clearly impacting national security). We are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40% from 32% in mid-June. With this resumption of talks, we are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40%, from 32% in mid-June (Diagram 1). Of this 40%, we still give only a 5% chance to a durable, long-term deal that resolves underlying technological and strategic disputes. The remaining 35% goes to a tenuous deal that enables President Trump to declare victory prior to the election and allows President Xi Jinping to staunch the bleeding in the manufacturing sector. Diagram 1U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019) Note that these odds still leave a 60% chance for an escalation of the trade war by November 2020. Our conviction level is low when it comes to the two moderate scenarios. Ultimately, Presidents Trump and Xi can agree to a trade agreement at the drop of a hat – no one can stop Xi from ordering large imports from the U.S. or Trump from rolling back tariffs. Our conviction level is much higher in assigning only a 5% chance of a grand compromise and a 36% chance of a cold war-style escalation of tensions. We doubt that China will offer any structural concessions deeper than what they have already offered (new foreign investment law, financial sector opening) prior to finding out who wins the U.S. election in 2020. Beijing is stabilizing the economy even though tariffs have gone up. As long as this remains the case, why would it implement additional painful reforms? This would set a precedent of caving to tariff coercion – and yet Trump could renege on a deal anytime, and the Democrats might take over in 2020 anyway. The one exception might be North Korea, where China could do more to bring about a diplomatic agreement favorable to President Trump as part of an overall deal before November 2020 – and this could excuse China from structural concessions affecting its internal economy. The takeaway is that U.S.-China trade issues are still far from resolved and have a high probability of failure – and this will be a source of strategic tension within the region over the next 16 months, particularly with regard to Taiwan, the Koreas, and the South China Sea. Hong Kong And Taiwan August can be a crucial time period for policy changes as Chinese leaders often meet at the seaside resort of Beidaihe to strategize. This year they need to focus on handling the unrest in Hong Kong, and the Taiwanese election in January, as well as the trade war with the United States. Protests in Hong Kong have continued, driven by underlying socio-economic factors as well as Beijing’s encroachment on traditional political liberties. Even the groups that are least sympathetic to the protesters – political moderates, the elderly, low-income groups, and the least educated – are more or less divided over the controversial extradition bill that prompted the unrest (Chart 2). This reveals that the political establishment is weak on this issue. Chief Executive Carrie Lam is clinging to power, as Beijing does not want to give the impression that popular dissent is a viable mechanism for removing leaders. But she has become closely associated with the extradition bill and will likely have to go in order to satiate the protesters and begin the process of healing. As long as Beijing refrains from rolling in the military and using outright force to crush the Hong Kong protests, the unrest should gradually die down, as the political establishment will draw support for its concessions while the general public will grow weary of the protests – especially as violence spreads. Hong Kong has no alternative to Beijing’s sovereignty. The scene of action will soon turn to Taiwan, where the January 2020 election has the potential to spark the next flashpoint in Xi Jinping’s struggle to consolidate power in Greater China. A large majority of Taiwanese people supports the Hong Kong protests – even most supporters of the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) (Chart 3). This dynamic is now affecting the Taiwanese election slated for January 2020. The relatively pro-mainland KMT has been polling neck-and-neck with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has struggled to gain traction throughout its term given diplomatic and economic headwinds stemming from the mainland. Similarly, while popular feeling is still largely in favor of eventual independence, pro-unification feeling has regained momentum in an apparent rebuke to the pro-independence ruling party (Chart 4). However, the events in Hong Kong have changed things by energizing the democratic and mainland-skeptic elements in Taiwan. President Tsai Ing-wen is now taking a slight lead in the presidential head-to-head opinion polls despite a long period of lackluster polling (Chart 5). A close election increases the risk that policymakers and activists in Taiwan, mainland China, the United States, and elsewhere will take actions attempting to influence the election outcome. Beijing will presumably heed the lesson of the 1996 election and avoid anything too aggressive so as not to drive voters into the arms of the DPP. However, with Hong Kong boiling, and with Beijing having already conducted intimidating military drills encircling Taiwan in recent years, there is a chance that past lessons will be forgotten. The United States could also play a disruptive role, especially if trade talks deteriorate. If the KMT wins, then anti-Beijing activists will eventually begin gearing up for protests themselves, which in subsequent years could overshadow the Sunflower Movement of 2013. If the DPP prevails, Beijing may resort to tougher tactics in the coming years due to its fear of the province’s political direction and the DPP’s policies. In sum, while the Hong Kong saga is far from over and has negative long-run implications for domestic and foreign investors, Taiwan is the greater risk because it has the potential not only to suffer individually but also to become the epicenter of a larger geopolitical confrontation between China and the U.S. and its allies. This would present a more systemic challenge to global investors. Japan And “Peak Abe” Japan’s House of Councillors election on July 21 confirmed our view that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has reached the peak of his influence. Abe is still popular and is likely to remain so through the Tokyo summer Olympics next year (Chart 6). But make no mistake, the loss of his two-thirds supermajority in the upper house shows that he has moved beyond the high tide of his influence. Having retained a majority in the upper house, and a supermajority in the much more powerful lower house (House of Representatives), Abe’s government still has the ability to pass regular legislation (Chart 7). If he needs to drive through a bill delaying the consumption tax hike on October 1 due to a deterioration in the global economic and political environment, he can still do so with relative ease. While the Hong Kong saga is far from over ... Taiwan is the greater risk. Clearly, the election loss will not impact Abe’s ability to negotiate a trade deal with the United States, which we expect to happen quickly – even before a China deal – albeit with some risk of tariffs on autos in the interim. The problem is that Abe’s final and greatest aim is to revise Japan’s American-written, pacifist constitution for the first time. This requires a two-thirds vote in both houses and a majority vote in a popular referendum. While Abe can still probably cobble together enough votes in the upper house, the election result makes it less certain – and the dent in popular support implies that the national referendum is less likely to pass. Constitutional revision was always going to be a close vote anyway (Chart 8). If Abe falls short of a majority in that referendum, then he will become a lame duck and markets will have to price in greater policy uncertainty. Even if he succeeds – which is still our low-conviction baseline view – then he will have reached the pinnacle of his career and there will be nowhere to go but down. His tenure as party leader expires in September 2021 and the race to succeed him is already under way. Hence, some degree of uncertainty should begin creeping in immediately. Abe’s departure will leave the Liberal Democrats in charge – and hence Japanese policy continuity will be largely preserved. But the entire arc of events, from now through the constitutional revision process to Abe’s succession, will raise fundamental questions about whether Abe’s post-2012 reflation drive can be sustained. We have a high conviction view that it will be, but Japanese assets will challenge that view. What of the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea? On July 4, Japan imposed export restrictions on goods critical to South Korea’s semiconductor industry in retaliation for a South Korean court ruling that would set a precedent requiring Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel to pay reparations for the use of forced Korean labor during Japanese rule from 1910-45. Chart 9Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan has the stronger hand in this dispute from an economic point of view (Chart 9). While the unusually heavy-handed Japanese trade measures partly reveal the influence of President Trump, who has given a license for U.S. allies to weaponize trade, it also reflects Japan’s growing assertiveness. Abe’s government may have believed that a surge of nationalism would help in the upper house election. And the constitutional referendum will be another reason to stir nationalism and a recurring source of tension with both Koreas (as well as with China). Therefore, Japanese-Korean tensions and punitive economic measures could persist well into 2020. Bottom Line: U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors, especially if the Taiwan election becomes a lightning rod. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. We are playing these risks by remaining long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities, as Thailand is more insulated than other East Asian economies to trade and China risks. Keep An Eye On The USMCA Last week we highlighted U.S. budget negotiations and argued that the result would be greater fiscal accommodation. The results of the just-announced budget deal are depicted in Chart 10. One side effect is an increased likelihood of eventual tariffs on Mexico if the latter fails to staunch the influx of immigrants across the U.S. southern border, since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Meanwhile, the administration’s legislative and trade focus will turn toward ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA). There is an increased likelihood of eventual U.S. tariffs on Mexico ... since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall.  Ratification is not a red herring for investors, since Trump could give notice of withdrawal from NAFTA in order to hasten USMCA approval, which would induce volatility. Moreover, successful ratification could embolden him to take a strong hand in his other trade disputes, while failure could urge him to concede to a quick deal with China. Chart 11Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Further, trade policy uncertainty in the Trump era has correlated with a rising trade-weighted dollar (Chart 11), so there is a direct channel for trade tensions (or the lack thereof) to influence the global economy at a time when it badly needs a softer dollar – in addition to the negative effects of trade wars on sentiment. The signing of the USMCA trade agreement by American, Mexican, and Canadian leaders last November effectively shifted negotiations from the international stage to the domestic stage. Last month Mexico became the first to ratify the deal. The delay in the U.S. and Canada reflects their more challenging domestic political environments ahead of elections, especially in the United States. Ratification in the U.S. has been stalled by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is locked in stalemate with the Trump administration. She is holding off on giving the green light to present the agreement to Congress until Democrats’ concerns are addressed (Diagram 2). Trump, meanwhile, is threatening to withdraw from NAFTA – a declaration that cannot be entirely ruled out, even though we highly doubt he would actually withdraw at the end of the six-month waiting period. Diagram 2Pelosi Is Stalling USMCA Ratification Process Republicans are looking to secure the USMCA’s passage before the 2020 campaign goes into full force in order to claim victory on one of Trump’s key 2016 campaign promises. The administration’s May 30 submission of the draft Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to Congress initiated a 30-day waiting period that must pass before the administration can submit the text to Congress. But the administration is unlikely to put the final bill to Congress before ensuring that House Democrats are ready to cooperate.2 House democrats are in a position of maximum leverage and are using the process to their political advantage. House Democrats are in a position of maximum leverage – since they do not need the deal to become law – and are using the process to their political advantage. If the bill is to be ratified through the “fast action” Trade Protection Authority (TPA), which forbids amendments and limits debate in Congress, then now is their only chance to make amendments to the text, which was written without their input. Even in the Democrat-controlled House, there is probably enough support for the USMCA to secure its passage. There are 51 House Democrats who were elected in districts that Trump won or that Republicans held in 2018, and are inclined to pass the deal. Moreover 21 House Democrats have been identified from districts that rely heavily on trade with Canada and Mexico (Chart 12).3 If these Democrats vote along with all 197 Republicans in favor of the bill, it will pass the House. This is a rough calculation, but it shows that passage is achievable. What is more, there is a case to be made for bipartisan support for USMCA. Trump’s trade agenda has some latent sympathy among moderate Democrats, and Democrats within Trump districts, unlike his border wall. Democrats will appear obstructionist if they oppose the bill. Unlike trade with China, American voters are not skeptical of trade with Canada – and the group that thinks Mexico is unfair on trade falls short of a majority (Chart 13). Since enough Democrats have a compelling self-interest in securing the deal, and since Trump and the GOP obviously want it to pass, we expect it to pass eventually. The question is whether it can be done by year’s end. Once the bill is presented to Congress and passes through the TPA process, it will become law within 90 days. Assuming that the bill is presented to the House in early September, when Congress reconvenes after its summer recess, the bill could be ratified before year-end. Otherwise, without the expedited TPA process, the bill will no longer be protected against amendment and filibuster, leaving the timeline of ratification vulnerable to extensive delay. The above timeline may be too late for Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who faces general elections on October 21. The ratification process has already been initiated, as Trudeau would benefit from wrapping up the entire affair prior to the national vote.4 However, the process most recently has been stalled in order to move in tandem with the U.S., so that parliament does not ratify an agreement that the U.S. fails to pass. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has indicated that parliament is not likely to be recalled for a vote unless there is progress down south. This leaves the Canadian ratification process at the mercy of progress in the U.S. – and ultimately Speaker Pelosi’s decision. The current government faces few hurdles in getting the bill passed (Chart 14). The next step is a final reading in the House where the bill will either be adopted or rejected. If it is approved, the bill will then proceed to the Senate where it will undergo a similar process. If the bill is passed in the same form in the House and Senate, it will become law. Chart 15...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk Failure to ratify the deal before the election means it will be set aside and reintroduced in the next parliament. The Liberal Party is by no means guaranteed to win a majority in the election – our base case has Trudeau forming the next government, but the race is close (Chart 15). A Conservative-led parliament would be likely to pass the bill, but it would likely be delayed to 2021 at that point due to American politics. We suspect that Trudeau will eventually stop delaying and push for Canadian ratification. This would pressure Pelosi and the Democrats to go ahead and ratify, when they are otherwise inclined to reopen negotiations or otherwise delay until after November 2020. If this gambit succeeded, Trudeau would have forced total ratification prior to October 21, which would give him a badly needed boost in the election. He can always go through the frustration of re-ratifying the deal in his second term if the Democrats insist on changes, but not if he does not survive for a second term – so it is worth going forward at home and trying to pressure Pelosi into ratification in September or early October. Bottom Line: In light of Canada’s October election and the U.S. 2020 election cycle, USMCA faces a tight schedule. A delay into next year risks undermining the ratification effort, as we enter a period of hyper-partisan politics amid the 2020 presidential campaigns. This makes the third quarter a sweet spot for USMCA ratification. While we ultimately expect that it will make it through, each passing day raises the odds against it. GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 All ten GeoRisk indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. Below are the most noteworthy developments this month. U.K.: As expected, Boris Johnson sealed the Conservative party leadership contest. This was largely priced in by the markets and as such did not result in a big shift in our risk indicator. Johnson has stated that he is willing to exit the EU without a deal and it is undeniable that the odds of a no-deal Brexit have increased. Nevertheless, the odds of an election are also rising as Johnson may galvanize Brexit support under the Conservative Party even as Bremain forces are divided between the rising Liberal Democrats and a Labour Party hobbled by Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The odds that Johnson is willing to risk his newly cemented position on a snap election – having seen what happened in June 2017 – seem overstated to us, but we place the odds at about 21%. As for a no-deal exit, opinion polling still suggests that the median British voter prefers a soft exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on Johnson, as he may ultimately be forced to try to push through a plan similar to Theresa May’s, but rebranded with minimal EU concessions to make it more acceptable – or risk a no-confidence vote and potential loss of control. We maintain that GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. France: Our French indicator points toward a significant increase in political risk over the last month. President Macron’s government has recently unveiled the pension system overhaul that he promised during the 2017 campaign. The reform, which is due to take effect in 2025, encourages citizens to work longer, as their full pension will come at the age of 64 – two years later than under current regulations. French reform efforts have historically prompted significant social unrest. Both the 1995 Juppé Plan and the 2006 labor reforms were scrapped as a result of unrest, and the 2010 pension reform strikes forced the government to cut the most controversial parts of the bill. Labor unions have already called for strikes against the current bill in September. However, no pain, no gain. Unrest is a sign that ambitious reforms are being enacted, and Macron’s showdown with protesters thus far is no more dramatic than the unrest faced by the most significant European reform efforts. The 1984-85 U.K. miners’ strike led to over 10,000 arrested and significant violence, but resulted in the closures of most collieries, weakening of trade union power, and allowed the Thatcher government to consolidate its liberal economic program. German labor reforms in the early 2000s led to strikes, but marked a turning point in unemployment and GDP trends (Chart 16), and succeeded in increasing wages and pushing people back into the labor force (Chart 17). And the 2011 Spanish reforms under PM Rajoy led to the rise of Indignados, student protesters occupying public spaces, but ultimately helped kick-start Spain’s recovery. Investors should therefore not fear unrest, and we expect any related uncertainty to abate in the medium term. Chart 16Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Chart 17...But Were Ultimately Favorable Note that Macron is doubling down on reforms after the experience of the Yellow Vest protests, just as his favorability has rebounded to pre-protest levels. While Macron’s approval is nearly the lowest compared to other French presidents at this point in their terms (Chart 18), he does not face an election until 2022, so he has the ability to trudge on in hopes that his reform efforts will bear fruit by that time. Spain: Our Spanish indicator is showing signs of increasing tensions as Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez attempts to form a government. After ousting Mariano Rajoy in a vote of no confidence in June 2018, Sanchez struggled to govern with an 84-seat minority in Congress. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party’s (PSOE) proposed budget plan was voted down in Congress in February, forcing Sanchez to call a snap election for April 28 in which PSOE secured 123 seats. The PSOE leader failed the first investiture vote on July 23 – and the rerun on July 25 – with less votes in his favor than his predecessor Mariano Rajoy received during the 2015-2016 government formation crisis (Chart 19). In the first investiture vote, Sanchez secured 124 votes out of the 176 he needed to be sworn in as prime minister. This led to a second round of voting in which Sanchez needed a simple majority, which he failed to do with 124 affirmative, 155 opposing votes, and 67 abstentions. Going forward, Sanchez has two months to obtain the confidence of Congress, otherwise the King may dissolve the government, leading to a snap election. The Spanish government is more fragmented today than at any point during the last 30 years (Chart 20). Even if Pedro Sanchez’s PSOE were to successfully negotiate a deal with Podemos and its partner parties, the coalition would still require support from nationalist parties such as Republican Left of Catalonia or Basque Nationalist Party to govern. These will likely require major concessions relating to the handling of Catalonian independence, which, if rejected by PSOE, will result in yet another gridlocked government. The next two months will see a significant increase in political risk, and we assign a non-negligible chance to another election in November, the fourth in four years. Turkey: Investors should avoid becoming complacent on the back of the stream of encouraging news following the Turkey-Russia missile defense system deal. Our indicator is signaling that the market is pricing a decrease in tensions, and President Trump has stated that sanctions will not be immediate. Nevertheless, we would be wary. Congress is taking a much tougher stance on the issue than President Trump: The U.S. administration already excluded Turkey from the F-35 stealth fighter jet program; Senators Scott (R) and Young (R) introduced a resolution calling for sanctions; Senator Menendez (D) stated that merely removing Turkey from the F-35 program would not be enough; The new Defense Secretary nominee Mark Esper said that he was disappointed with Turkey’s “drift from the West”; And U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed confidence that President Trump would impose sanctions. Under CAATSA, a law that targets companies doing business with Russia, the U.S. must impose sanctions on Turkey over the missile deal, but does not have a timeline to do so. The sanctions required are formidable, and the U.S. has already imposed sanctions on China for a similar violation. If President Trump is not going forward with sanctions now, he still could proceed later if Turkey does not improve U.S. relations in some other way. From Turkey’s side, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu threatened retaliation if the U.S. were to impose sanctions. Turkey is also facing increasing tensions domestically. Erdogan suffered a stinging rebuke in the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election. This defeat has left Erdogan even more insecure and unpredictable than before. On July 6, he fired central bank governor Murat Cetinkaya using a presidential decree, which calls the central bank’s independence into question. He may reshuffle his cabinet, which could make matters worse if the appointments are not market-friendly. As domestic tensions continue to escalate, and when the U.S. announces sanctions, we expect the lira to take yet another hit and add to Turkey’s economic woes. Diagram 3Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline Chart 21Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil: Brazilian risks are likely to remain elevated as the country faces crunch-time over the controversial pension reform on which its fiscal sustainability depends. Although the Lower House voted overwhelmingly in support of the reform on July 11, the bill needs to make it through another Lower House vote slated for August 6. The bill will then proceed to at least two more rounds of voting in the Senate (by end-September at the earliest), with a three-fifths majority required in each round before being enshrined in Brazil’s constitution (Diagram 3). The whole process will likely be delayed by amendments and negotiations. The estimated savings of the bill in its current form are about 0.9 trillion reals, down from the 1.236 trillion reals originally targeted, which risks undermining the effort to close the fiscal deficit. Our colleagues at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy still forecast a primary fiscal deficit in four years’ time (Chart 21).5   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For instance, the U.S.’s latest $2.2 billion arms package does not include F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, and F-35s have entirely been ruled out. The Trump administration sent Paul Ryan, rather than a high-level cabinet member, to inaugurate the new office building of the American Institute in Taiwan for the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. At the same time, the Trump administration is threatening a more substantial upgrade of relations through more frequent arms sales, the Taiwan Travel Act (2018), and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (2018). 2 The risk is that history repeats itself. In 2007, then President George W. Bush sent the free-trade agreement with Colombia to Congress prior to securing Pelosi’s approval. She halted the fast-track timeline and the standoff lasted nearly five years. 3 Please see Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “USMCA Needs Democratic Votes: Will They Come Around?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, May 15, 2019, available at piie.com. 4 Bill C-100, as it is known, has already received its second reading in the House of Commons and has been referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Geopolitical Calendar