Economic Growth

Highlights Economy – We find the leading arguments for why households’ excess savings won’t be spent to be wanting: US households do not commonly demonstrate the detached foresight that Ricardian equivalence takes as given and the trauma-will-change-behavior thesis fails to account for the absence of widespread financial trauma. Markets – Public equities account for a record portion of household wealth, but their share gains are not a sign of a budding mania: Our analysis of the Fed’s Flow of Funds data argues that much of equities’ relative share gains have been driven by structural rather than cyclical factors. Strategy – It would be premature to shift to defensive asset allocation settings if monetary policy is going to remain accommodative for another three years: The rate hike progression envisioned by FOMC participants’ dot-plot projections suggests policy won’t become tight until late 2024 at the earliest. Feature The US Investment Strategy team has been at the more bullish end of the continuum within BCA, and among the broader strategist community, since the spring of 2020. Our view was premised on the idea that the fiscal and monetary policy responses to the pandemic were (and would continue to be) so large that they would overwhelm its adverse effects on the economy and markets. That view came to pass as Congress augmented the CARES Act’s fiscal largesse with two subsequent rounds of direct payments to households earning up to $100,000 per adult and a renewed federal supplement to unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. With the expiration of the UI benefit program at the beginning of the month and the Fed poised to end asset purchases by the middle of next year, clients have begun to ask if our underlying bullish premise still applies. We believe that it does, on the grounds that policy remains on an emergency footing even though the emergency has passed. The fiscal transfers may have ended, but their full effect has yet to be felt. They will support the economy on an ongoing basis as households direct their excess pandemic savings toward consumption. No one knows for sure how much of the excess savings will be spent or when, but the arguments citing Ricardian equivalence or consumer trauma as impediments to consumption are flawed. What If Today’s Income Is Taxed Tomorrow? British classical economist David Ricardo is best known to introductory economics students for comparative advantage, but he also posited that deficit spending may fail to boost aggregate demand because taxpayers, anticipating that they will be tapped in the future to repay state loans, may increase savings to cover future taxes. Despite its theoretical appeal, empirical data in support of Ricardian equivalence is elusive. Two centuries and an ocean removed from Ricardo’s England, we submit that Americans are not known for parsimony, studied caution or a tendency to see the glass as half-empty. Although American households began to rebuild savings after the global financial crisis, an additional dollar has tended to burn a hole in their pockets ever since the baby boomers began reaching adulthood (Chart 1). Chart 1The Searing Trauma Of The Depression Weighed On Consumption Decisions Even if Americans were wont to consider future tax burdens, it may be rational for the households who received the fiscal transfers to assume they will largely escape them unless their relative income surges. Per the most recent adjusted gross income (AGI) distribution data (for tax year 2018), 70% of taxpayers earn $75,000 or less (Chart 2). Single taxpayers meeting that threshold (and married taxpayers earning $150,000 or less) received the full amount of the economic impact payments authorized by the CARES Act and subsequent legislation. That bottom 70% paid just 5.1% of AGI in federal taxes (Chart 3), and the current political climate points in the direction of an increasingly progressive tax system, so they may not have to worry about being called upon to cover the expanding deficit down the road. Chart 2The Income Distribution Is Top Heavy ... Chart 3…But So Is The Tax Burden The (Not So Traumatic) Economic Trauma Of COVID-19 While we are confident that Ricardian equivalence will not act as an impediment to consumption, the ultimate disposition of households’ excess pandemic savings is unknown. Our working assumption has been that half of the savings will be spent across 2021 and 2022. Though we do not have any close antecedents for what households might do with a savings windfall equivalent to 10% of a year’s GDP amassed over a thirteen-month span, we reject the notion that those who experienced COVID-19 will behave like the many shell-shocked survivors of the Great Depression who became lifelong precautionary savers. However terrible the human cost of COVID, it did not ravage American households’ financial position; as the Fed’s latest Flow of Funds report showed, their balance sheets flourished, allowing the vast majority of them to escape any sense of financial trauma. Per the Flow of Funds, American household wealth grew by nearly $6 trillion in the second quarter, extending the last five quarters’ gains to $31 trillion since financial markets cratered when the pandemic burst forth in the first quarter of 2020. The 22% annualized five-quarter gain is nearly four standard deviations above the mean and blows away 4Q03 through 4Q04’s 14% second-place mark by two full standard deviations (Chart 4, top panel). The current run sets a record even when it’s stretched to six quarters to include 1Q20, the worst quarter in series history, and the five- and six-quarter gains are also pacesetters after adjusting for inflation (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4Recessions Aren't So Bad When Congress And The Fed Throw Everything They Have At Them Changes in household net worth lead consumption growth with a two-quarter lag (Chart 5), though the four quarters before the most recent one (the red dots with negative consumption growth) were notable outliers. 2Q21 consumption was just a little more than a percentage point below the best-fit line, however, so it is closing in on its modeled value and we expect it will overshoot it in coming quarters upon the release of pent-up demand. We do not believe that the pandemic will dampen household spending simply because the broad mass of consumers did not experience financial trauma on a scale that would alter future behavior. As household wealth and income data have shown, this recession has been a boon for most Americans. Chart 5Consumption Overshoots Are On The Way Chart 6Fiscal Shock And Awe We additionally reject the notion that households have learned a lesson that will make them want to hold more savings. The financial lesson of the pandemic seems to be that policymakers will do their utmost to shelter them from calamity. Between the economic impact payments (Chart 6, top panel) and the UI benefit supplement (Chart 6, middle panel), Congress directly sent nearly $1.5 trillion to US households to offset $300 billion of lost wages (Chart 6, bottom panel). COVID-19 inflicted terrible distress on those who lost loved ones and witnessed or experienced near fatal suffering, but it boosted the lower three quartiles of households who received transfers and the top decile of households who reveled in the financial markets’ advance. Those who experienced it will not hoard their pennies and shun debt like many of the Depression’s survivors; they are more likely to have experienced post-traumatic bliss than stress when it comes to their financial outlook. Too Much Of A Good Thing? We periodically check in on the Flow of Funds for insight into the evolution of households’ asset allocations and the share of net worth accounted for by homes. Directly owned equities and mutual funds have taken share from the other major categories throughout the pandemic run (Chart 7) and now account for a record share of household financial assets after having surpassed their 2000 highs (Chart 8, top panel). It is sensible to approach any equity milestone that invokes the dot-com bubble with some trepidation, but structural factors go a long way toward explaining the new allocation peak. The financialization of the economy has steadily advanced since the Flow of Funds data began to be compiled in 1951, promoting public equity ownership, and consolidation has supported the transfer of commercial ownership from mom-and-pop operations to corporate interests, many of which are publicly traded. Overall equity in businesses as a share of household net worth is merely in line with its ‘50s levels (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 7The Running Of The Bulls Chart 8From Mom And Pop To Broad And Wall Home price appreciation has picked up, but it is not out of the ordinary (Chart 9). Home equity gains have outstripped home price gains, relative to each series’ history, testifying to prudent behavior on the part of borrowers and lenders. The low aggregate mortgage loan-to-value ratio (Chart 10) suggests that slowing home price appreciation, or even an outright decline, would not be a source of economic instability. Chart 9Home Price Gains Are Not Out Of The Ordinary ... Chart 10... And Leverage Levels Are Not A Concern The Fed Signals That Tapering Is Near Though the FOMC did not adjust the pace of its asset purchases last week, it indicated that tapering will most likely begin after its November meeting. Chair Powell noted that the economy has made substantial further progress toward reaching the committee’s inflation goal and expressed that “many” members feel that it has made substantial progress toward achieving its full employment objective as well, going so far as to volunteer his personal view that the employment test has been “all but met.” Per the committee’s discussions, the purchases will likely end around the middle of next year if the economy progresses in line with its expectations. The committee would not be talking about reducing the accommodation it’s providing the economy if it weren’t secure in the sense that it is on solid footing. Powell expressed satisfaction with the evolution of inflation expectations (Chart 11) and although the real GDP forecast for this year was lowered in the summary of economic projections (the “dots”), next year’s forecast was raised and slightly higher inflation expectations imply that nominal GDP growth will remain quite robust. A shift in two members’ fed funds rate projections brought the median member’s liftoff date to 2022 from 2023, in line with our view. Chart 11The Fed Has Succeeded In Firming Up Inflation Expectations The chair reiterated that tapering – slowing the pace of accommodation – and hiking the fed funds rate – slowing the economy – are distinct actions subject to separate criteria. We see liftoff as a more significant action than tapering, but much will depend on the pace at which the committee lifts the fed funds rate. It is too soon to speculate on the pace, but we stress that the big move for financial markets will occur once the policy rate exceeds the neutral rate. If the latter is somewhere around 2%, the rate hike pace embedded in the dots suggests that it may take until the end of 2024 or early 2025 before monetary policy becomes restrictive. Investment Implications If monetary policy is not going to become tight for another three years, it is premature to shift a portfolio to more defensive settings, especially for anyone sharing our three-to-twelve-month cyclical timeframe. Growth will be robust in the near term, supported by the income boost that the lower three quartiles of taxpayers received from fiscal transfers and the way wealthier households cleaned up as financial asset prices soared. We expect that a hearty portion of the newly minted wealth will be spent, as Ricardian equivalence requires a longer attention span than Americans typically exhibit, and the pandemic was largely trauma-free for most households from a financial perspective. The clearest policy lesson that a citizen should have taken from COVID is that Congress and the Fed have his/her back in a big way. We are staying the course with our risk-friendly asset allocation recommendations.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com

Highlights We cannot predict how China will manage Evergrande precisely but we have a high conviction that it will do whatever it takes to prevent contagion across the property sector. However, China’s stimulus tools are losing their effectiveness over time. The country is due for a prolonged struggle with financial and economic instability regardless of whether Evergrande defaults. A messy default would obviously exacerbate the problem. China’s regulatory crackdowns target private companies and will continue to weigh on animal spirits in the private sector. The government will be forced to use fiscal policy to compensate. The US’s and China’s switch from engagement to confrontation poses a persistent headwind for investor sentiment toward China. The new consensus that investors should buy into China’s “strategic sectors” to avoid arbitrary regulatory crackdowns is vulnerable to its own logic and to sanctions by the US and its allies. Feature China poses a unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks and global markets are now pricing them. Property giant Evergrande could default on $120 million in onshore and offshore interest payments as early as September 23, or next month, prompting investors to run for cover. Is this crisis fleeting or part of a larger systemic failure? It is a larger systemic failure. We expect a slow-motion, Japanese-style crisis over the coming decade, marked with periodic bailouts and stimulus packages. We recommend investors stay the course: steer clear of China and stay short the renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Tactically, stick with large caps, defensive sectors, and developed markets within the global equity universe. Strategically, prefer emerging markets that benefit from forthcoming Chinese (and American) stimulus. 1. A “Minsky Moment” Cannot Be Ruled Out The chief fear is whether the approaching default of Evergrande marks China’s “Minsky Moment.” Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis held that long periods of stable revenues lead to risky financial deals and large accumulations of systemic risk that are underpriced. When revenues cannot cover interest payments, a crash ensues followed by deleveraging. Minsky’s hypothesis speaks to debt crises in an entire economy, yet nobody knows for sure whether China’s economy has reached such a breaking point. China’s national savings rate stands at 45.7% of GDP and nominal growth exceeds the long-term government bond yield. However, a sharp drop in asset prices, especially in the property sector, could change everything, as it could lead to balance sheet recession among corporates and a fall in national income. Evergrande is supposed to make an $84 million interest payment on offshore debt and a $36 million payment on onshore debt this week, and after 30 days it would default. It owes $37 billion in debt payments over the next 12 months but only has $13 billion cash on hand (as of June 30, 2021). Authorities can opt for a full bailout or a partial bailout, in which the company defaults on offshore bonds but not onshore. They could even let the company fail categorically, though that would produce exactly the kind of precipitous drop in property asset prices that would lead to wider financial contagion. State intervention to smooth the crisis is more likely – and the government can easily pressure other companies into acquiring Evergrande’s assets and business divisions. Chart 1Yes, This Could Be China's Minsky Moment Chart 1 shows that China’s corporate debt-to-GDP ratio stands head and shoulders above other countries that experienced financial crises in recent decades, courtesy of our Emerging Markets Strategy. While China can undoubtedly bear large debts due to its savings, the implication is that China has large enough financial imbalances to suffer a full-fledged financial crisis, even if the timing is hard to predict. Household credit is also elevated at 61.7% of GDP, and the household debt-to-disposable-income ratio is now higher than in the United States. About two-thirds of China’s corporate debt is held by state-owned or state-controlled entities, prompting some investors to dismiss the gravity of the risk. However, financial crises often involve the transfer of debt from the state to private sector or vice versa. 59% of bond defaults in H1 2021 have involved state companies. Total debt is the main concern. Don’t take our word for it: China’s Communist Party has warned for the past decade about the danger of “implicit guarantees” and “moral hazard” that encourage financial excesses in the corporate sector. The Xi Jinping administration has tried to induce a deleveraging process since it came to power in 2012-13. Xi’s “three red lines” for the property sector precipitated the current turmoil. Even if Evergrande’s troubles are managed, China’s systemic risks will continue to boil over as its potential growth rate slows and the government continues trying to wring out financial excesses. Chart 2Policy Uncertainty, Financial Stress Can Rise Higher More broadly China is experiencing an unprecedented overlap of economic and political crises: The population is aging and labor force is shrinking; The economic model since 2009 has been changing from export-manufacturing to domestic-oriented, investment-driven growth; Indebtedness is spreading from corporates to households and ultimately the government; The governance model is shifting from “single-party rule” to “single-person rule” or autocracy; The population is reaching middle class status and demanding better quality of life; The international trade environment is turning from hyper-globalization to hypo-globalization; The geopolitical backdrop is darkening with the US and its allies attempting to contain China’s ambitions of regional supremacy. Almost all of these changes bring more risks than opportunities to China over the long haul. The need for rapid policy shifts provides the ostensible reasoning for President Xi Jinping’s decision not to step down but to remain president for the foreseeable future. He will clinch this position at the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. The implication is that policy uncertainty will continue climbing up to at least 2019 peaks while offshore equity markets will continue to trend lower, as they have done since the onset of the US trade war (Chart 2). Credit default swap rates have so far been subdued but they are showing signs of life. A sharp rise in policy uncertainty and property sector stress would pull them up. Domestic equities (A-shares) have rallied since 2019 but we would expect them to fall back given China’s historic confluence of structural and cyclical challenges, which will create further negative surprises (Chart 2, bottom panel). 2. Beijing Will Provide Bailouts And Stimulus Ad Nauseum Evergrande’s future may be in doubt but Beijing will throw all its power at stopping nationwide financial contagion. True, a policy miscalculation is possible. A tardy or failed intervention cannot be ruled out. However, investors should remember that a clear pattern of bailouts and stimulus has emerged over the course of the Xi Jinping administration whenever a “hard landing” or financial collapse loomed. The government tightens controls on bloated sectors until the financial fallout threatens to undermine general economic and social stability, at which point the government eases policy. It is often forced to stimulate the economy aggressively. Chart 3 shows these cycles in two ways: China’s control of credit through the state-controlled banks, and the frequency of news stories mentioning important terms associated with financial and economic distress: defaults, layoffs, and bankruptcies. These three terms used to be unheard of among China watchers. Under the Xi administration, a higher tolerance of creative destruction has served as the way to push forward reform. The current rise in distress is not extended, suggesting that more bad news is coming, but it also shows that the government has repeatedly been forced to provide stimulus even under the Xi administration. Chart 3Xi Jinping Has Bailed Out System Three Times Already Could this time be different? Not likely. The American experience and the pandemic will also force China’s government to ease policy: China learns from US mistakes. The US lurched from Lehman’s failure into a financial crisis, an impaired credit channel, a sluggish economic recovery, a spike in polarization, policy paralysis, a near-default on the national debt, a surge in right- and left-wing populism, the tumultuous Trump presidency, widespread social unrest, a contested leadership succession, and a mob storming the nation’s capitol (Chart 4). This is obviously the nightmare of any Chinese leader and a trajectory that the Xi administration will avoid at any cost. Chart 4Lehman Brothers A Powerful Disincentive For China To Let Evergrande Fail Chinese households store their wealth in the property sector, so any attempt at policy restraint or austerity faces a massive constraint. Only a few countries are comparable to China with respect to the share of non-financial household wealth (property and land) within total household wealth. All of them are hosts of property sector bubbles, including the bubbles in Spain and Ireland back in 2007 (Chart 5). A property collapse would destroy the savings of the Chinese people over four decades of prosperity. Chart 5Property Is The Bedrock Of Chinese Households Social instability is already flaring up. Almost all China experts agree that “social stability” is the Communist Party’s bottom line. But note that the Evergrande saga has already led to protests, not only at the company’s headquarters in Shenzhen but also in other cities such as Shenyang, Guangzhou, Chongqing. Protests were filmed and shown on social media (posts have been censored). Protesters demanded repayment for wealth management products gone sour and properties they are owed that have not been built. This is only a taste of the cross-regional protests that would emerge if the broader property sector suffered. The lingering COVID-19 pandemic is still relevant. Investors should not underrate the potential threat that the pandemic poses to the regime. Severe epidemics have occurred about 11% of the time over the course of China’s history and they often have major ramifications. Disease has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties – and in four cases it played a major role. It would be suicidal for any regime to add self-inflicted economic collapse to a lingering pandemic (Table 1). Table 1Disease Threatens Chinese Dynasties – Not A Time To Self-Inflict A Recession Easing policy does not necessarily mean bringing out the “bazooka” and splurging on money and credit growth, though that is increasingly likely as the crisis intensifies. Notably the July Politburo statement specifically removed language that said China would “avoid sharp turns in policy.” In other words, sharp turns might be necessary. That can only mean sharp reflationary turns, as there is very little chance of doubling down on policy tightening. A counterargument holds that the Chinese government is now exclusively focused on power consolidation to the neglect of financial and economic stability. Perhaps the leadership is misinformed, overconfident, or thinks a financial collapse will better purge its enemies – along the lines of the various political purges under Chairman Mao Zedong. Wealthy tech magnates and property owners could conceivably challenge the return of autocracy. After all, the US political establishment almost “fell” to a rich property baron – why couldn’t China’s Communist Party? Political purges should certainly be expected ahead of next year’s party congress. But not to the point of killing the economy. The government would not be trying to balance policy tightening and loosening so carefully if it sought to induce chaos. It must be admitted, however, that the change to autocracy means that the odds of irrational or idiosyncratic policy have gone up substantially and permanently. Of course, the high likelihood that Beijing will provide bailouts and stimulus should not be read as a bullish investment thesis, even though it would create a pop in oversold assets. The Chinese system is saturated with money and credit, which have been losing their effectiveness in driving growth. Financial imbalances get worse, not better, with each wave of credit stimulus. Beijing is caught between a rock and a hard place. Hence stimulus comes only reluctantly and reactively. But it does come in the end because a financial crash would threaten the life of the regime and preclude all other policy priorities, domestic and foreign. 3. Yes, China’s Regulatory Crackdown Targets The Private Sector Global growth and other emerging economies will get most of the benefit once China stimulates, since China’s own firms will still face a negative domestic political backdrop. Bullish investors argue that the government’s regulatory tightening is misunderstood and overblown. The claim is that China is not targeting the private sector generally but only isolated sectors causing social problems. Costs need to be reduced in property, education, and health to improve quality of life. China shares the US’s and EU’s desire to rein in tech giants that monopolize their markets, abuse consumer data and privacy, and benefit from distorted tax systems. Most of these arguments are misleading. China does not have a strong record on data privacy, equality, social safety nets, rule of law, or “sustainable” growth (as opposed to “unsustainable,” high-debt, high-polluting growth). China actively encourages state champions that monopolize key sectors. Many developed markets have better records in these areas, notably in Europe, yet China is eschewing these regulatory models in preference for an approach that is arbitrary and absolutist, i.e. negative for governance. As for the private sector, animal spirits have been in a long decline throughout the past decade. This is true whether judging by money velocity – i.e. the pace of economic activity relative to the increase in money supply – or by households’ and businesses’ marginal propensity to save (Chart 6). The 2015-16 period shows that even periodic bouts of government stimulus have not reversed the general trend. Regulatory whack-a-mole and financial turmoil will not improve the situation. Chart 6Private Sector Animal Spirits Depressed Throughout Xi Era Chart 7Even Official Data Shows Consumer Confidence Flagging Surveys of sentiment confirm that the latest developments will have a negative effect (Chart 7). Cumulatively, the changes in China’s domestic and international policy context are being interpreted as negative for business, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom – notwithstanding the government’s claims to expand opportunity in its “common prosperity” plan. 4. The Withdrawal Of US Friendship Is A Headwind For China Chart 8Other Asians Sought US Friendship, Not Conflict, When Export Models Expired All of the successful Asian economies – including China for most of the past forty years of prosperity – have tried to stay on the good side of the United States. By contrast, China and the US today are shifting from engagement to confrontation and breaking up their economic ties (Chart 8). This is a problem for China because the US and to some extent its allies will seek to undermine China’s economy and its autocratic model as part of this great power competition. The rise in geopolitical risk is underscored by the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) agreement, by which the US will provide Australia with nuclear submarines over the next decade. This was a clear demonstration of the US’s “pivot to Asia” and the fact that the US and China are preparing for war – if only to deter it. China’s return to autocracy and clash with the US and Asian neighbors is also leading to a deterioration of its global image, particularly over issues of transparency and information sharing. The dispute over the origins of COVID-19 is a major source of division with the US and other countries. Transparency is important for investors. The World Bank has discontinued its “Ease of Doing Business” rankings after a scandal was revealed in which China’s ranking was artificially bumped up. The last-published trend is still downward (Chart 9). Most recently China has stepped up censorship of its financial news media amid the current market turmoil, which makes it harder for investors to assess the full extent of property and financial risks.1 The US political factions agree on China-bashing if nothing else. The Biden administration has little political impetus to eschew tariffs and export controls. One important penalty will come from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is likely to ban Chinese firms from US stock exchanges unless they conform to common accounting standards. Hence the dramatic fall in the share prices of Chinese companies listed via American Depository Receipts (ADRs), in both absolute and relative terms (Chart 10, top panel). This threat prompted China’s recent crackdown on its own firms that were attempting to hold initial public offerings on US exchanges. Chart 9US Conflict Exposes China’s Global Influence Campaign The Quadrilateral Forum – the US, Japan, Australia, and India – has agreed to link the semiconductor supply chain to human rights standards, foreclosing China’s participation in that supply chain. US semiconductor firms are among the most exposed to China but they have not suffered over the course of the US-China tech war, suggesting that US vulnerabilities are limited (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10US Regulators Will Kick Chinese Firms While They Are Down The point is not to exaggerate the strength of the US and its allies but rather the costs to China of actively opposing them. The US has a difficult enough time cobbling together a coalition of states to impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, not to mention forming any coalition that would totally exclude and isolate China. China is far more important to US allies than Iran – it is irreplaceable in the global economy (Chart 11). The EU and China’s Asian neighbors will typically restrain the US’s more aggressive impulses so as not to upset the global recovery or end up on the front lines of a war.2 Chart 11No Substitute For China In Global Economy This diplomatic constraint on the US is probably positive for global growth but not for China per se. American allies are still able to increase the costs on China for pursuing its own state-backed development path and geopolitical sphere of influence. Japan, Australia, and others are likely to veto China’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), while the UK and eventually the US are likely to join it. Investors should view US-China ties as a headwind at least until the two powers manage to negotiate a diplomatic thaw, i.e. substantial de-escalation of tensions. A thaw is unlikely in the lead-up to Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power and the US midterm elections in fall 2022. Presidents Biden and Xi are still working on a bilateral summit, not to mention a more substantial improvement in ties. We doubt a diplomatic thaw would be durable anyway but the important point is that until it happens China will face periodic bouts of negative sentiment from the emerging cold war. Other Asian economies thrived under US auspices – China is sailing in uncharted waters. 5. Global Investors Cannot Separate Civilian From State And Military Investments The word on Wall Street is that investors should align their strategies with those of China’s leaders so as not to run afoul of arbitrary and draconian regulators. For example, instead of “soft tech” or consumer-oriented companies – like those that give people rides, deliver food, or make creative video games – investors should invest in “hard tech” or strategic companies like those that make computer chips, renewable energy, biotechnologies, pharmaceuticals, and capital equipment. There is no question that the trend in China – and elsewhere – is for governments to become more active in picking winners and losers. Industrial policy is back. Investors have no choice but to include policy analysis in their toolbox. However, for global investors, an investment strategy of buying whatever the government says is far from convincing. The most basic investment strategy in keeping with the Xi administration’s goals would be to invest in state-owned enterprises in domestic equity markets. So SOEs should have outperformed the market, right? Wrong. They were in a downtrend prior to the 2015 bubble, the burst of which caused a further downtrend (Chart 12, top panel). Similarly, the preference for “hard tech” over “soft tech” is promising in theory but complicated in practice: hard tech is flat-to-down over the decade and down since COVID-19 (Chart 12, middle panel). It has underperformed its global peers (Chart 12, bottom panel). China’s policy disposition should be beneficial for industrials, health care, and renewable energy. First, China is doubling down on its manufacturing economy. Second, the population is aging and health care is a critical part of the common prosperity plan. Third, green energy is a way of diversifying from dependency on imported oil and natural gas. However, the profile of these sectors relative to their global counterparts is only unambiguously attractive in the case of industrials, which began to outperform even during the trade war (Chart 13). Chart 12State Approved' Trades Still Bring Risks Chart 13Beware 'State Approved' Trades In Table 2 we outline the valuations and political risks of onshore equity sectors. Valuations are not cheap. Domestic and foreign risks are not fully priced. Table 2China Onshore Equities, Valuations, And (Geo)Political Risks There is a bigger problem for global investors, especially Americans: investing in China’s strategic sectors directly implicates investors in the Communist Party’s domestic human rights practices, state-owned enterprises, and national security goals. “Civil-military fusion” is a well-established doctrine that calls for the People’s Liberation Army to have access to the cutting-edge technology developed by civilians and vice versa. These investments will eventually be subject to punitive measures since the US policy establishment believes it can no longer afford to let US wealth buttress China’s military and technological rise. Investment Takeaways China may or may not work out a partial bailout for Evergrande but it will definitely provide state assistance and fiscal stimulus to try to prevent contagion across the property sector and financial system. Bad news in the coming weeks and months will be replaced by good news in this sense. However, the fact that China will eventually be forced to undertake traditional stimulus yet again will increase its systemic financial risks, in a well-established pattern. The best equity opportunities will lie outside of China, where companies will benefit from global recovery yet avoid suffering from China’s unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks. We prefer developed markets and select emerging markets in Latin America and Asia-ex-China. Chinese households and businesses are downbeat. This behavior cannot be separated from the historic changes in the economy, domestic politics, and foreign policy. It is hard to see an improvement until the government boosts growth and the 2022 political reshuffle is over. American opposition is a bigger problem for China than global investors realize. Not only are the two economies divorcing but other democracies will distance themselves from China as well – not because of US demands but because their own manufacturing, national security, and ideological space is threatened by China’s reversion to autocracy and assertive foreign policy. Investing in China’s “hard tech” and strategic sectors with government approval is not a simple solution. This approach will directly funnel capital into China’s state-owned enterprises, domestic security forces, and military. As such the US and West will eventually impose controls. Investments may not be liquid since China would suffer if capital ever fled these kinds of projects. Both American and Chinese stimulus is looming this winter but the short run will see more volatility. We are closing our long JPY-KRW tactical trade for a gain of 4.4%   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 We have often noted in these pages over the past decade that multilateral organizations overrated improvements in China’s governance based on policy pronouncements rather than structural changes. 2 Still, tensions among the allies should not be overrated since they share a fundamental concern over China’s increasing challenge to the current global order. The EU is pursuing trade talks with Taiwan, and there are ways that the US can compensate France over the nullification of its submarine sales to Australia (most of which are detrimental to China’s security).