Economy

Executive Summary Further GDP Weakness Would Push Brent Lower Markets remain alert for indications of what Russia will do next. Last week, President Vladimir Putin threatened “catastrophic consequences” if G7 states are able to impose a price cap on Russian oil sales. A sharp drop in output – more than 3mm b/d – would send prices sharply higher, and could not be replaced in 2H22. KSA and the UAE are signaling their limited ability to significantly increase oil output ahead of US President Joseph Biden’s visit to the region later this week. Our simulation of demand losses of ~500k b/d in 2H22 and ~1.0mm b/d in 2023 suggests Brent could fall $7/bbl to $108/bb in 2H22 and $8/bbl to $109/bbl in 2023, all else equal. A Russian court decision last week briefly halted flows on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s (CPC) 1.3mm b/d line moving Kazakh oil to the Black Sea through Russia, adding a new variable into supply-side modeling. A trivial fine was levied, but a larger message was delivered. Sporadic force majeure declarations and output losses in Libya, where Russian mercenaries actively support Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA), continue to make supply assessments difficult. Bottom Line: Tight supply fundamentals will keep oil markets volatile and biased to the upside, despite recurrent recession fears overwhelming demand expectations.  While a deep recession cannot be discounted, we remain focused on the objective fact of physically tight markets, and Russia's political-economy considerations affecting the evolution of prices. Feature Anyone who has spent time in trading markets will appreciate the implications of a $65-at-$380/bbl bid-ask spread on Brent. This two-way quote represents worst cases scenarios on the demand and supply sides of the market. And huge uncertainty. The bid comes from Citi’s recession-driven view, while the offer is courtesy of JP Morgan’s worst-case supply-shock assessment – i.e., Russia pulling 5mm b/d off the market if G7 states impose a price cap on its exports.1 Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyCopper Prices Decouple From Fundamentals Of late, demand-side concerns are driving markets, along with other technical factors we discussed in last week’s report on copper: low liquidity in trading markets; elevated global policy uncertainty, as seen by the two-way quote above; worries Fed tightening will overshoot the mark as it attempts to control hotter inflation, and an expansion of Russia’s economic war that now engulfs Ukraine.2 The latter point touches on events that cross commodity markets globally: Russia is threatening “catastrophic consequences” if G7 states impose a price cap on its oil sales. This goes directly to the supply side, as it most likely entails a dramatic gesture to reduce crude oil output sharply – i.e., more than 3mm b/d – which would send prices soaring. Russia’s coffers are in excellent shape at present, given the high prices its oil, gas and coal producers have been able to fetch since it invaded Ukraine.3 In our modeling, if Russia were to cut the 2.3mm b/d of crude and condensate it sent to Europe last year, Brent prices would move above $140/bbl.4 Higher volumes taken off the market would result in higher prices. These factors all interact with each other producing feedback loops – e.g., higher uncertainty causes lower liquidity in hedging markets and wider bid-ask spreads on smaller volumes – affecting decisions on everything from capex levels to headcounts. Demand Concerns Consume Markets Last month, we lowered our Brent forecast for this year and next to $110/bbl and $117/bbl, respectively, on the back of a sharp downgrade in global growth expectations from the World Bank. The Bank’s forecast prompted us to reduce our 2022 oil demand growth forecast to 2.0mm b/d this year vs 4.8mm b/d in our January forecast, and, for next year, to 1.8mm b/d. Given the obvious concern in markets, we simulated another hit to demand of 500k b/d in 2H22 and 1.0mm b/d next year, due to a further markdown in real GDP growth. This scenario brings our demand growth expectation down to 1.5mm b/d this year and 800k b/d next year. In this simulation, the lower GDP growth takes our average price expectation for 2H22 to $108/bbl and $109/bbl next year, or $7/bbl and $8/bbl lower, respectively (Chart 1). The lower demand we model here is offset to some degree by our maintained hypothesis that OPEC 2.0 – particularly its core producers Saudi Arabia and the UAE – will temper production somewhat (Chart 2), so as not to produce very large unintended inventory accumulations (Chart 3). Chart 1Further GDP Weakness Would Push Brent Lower This concern is particularly acute if these producers receive new information that demand is slowing more than they expected. We are certain this will come up when US President Biden is in Riyadh later this week to meet Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (MBS), to again discuss, among other things, the Kingdom’s ability and willingness to increase supply. Chart 2Core OPEC 2.0 Will Temper Production Increases... Chart 3...To Avoid Unintended Inventory Accumulations Russia Exerts Supply-Side Influence Russia is at war with Ukraine and the West – i.e., the G7 and NATO states arming and actively seeking to limit its access to revenues from the sale of hydrocarbons. Russia is treating this as a war, and it is operating on multiple fronts, in addition to its kinetic engagement with Ukrainian forces. In a market as finely balanced and uncertain as the current one, small, unexpected shifts in supply or demand can have outsized effects. Last week, for example, a decision by a Russian court briefly halted flows on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium’s (CPC) 1.3mm b/d line moving Kazakh oil to the Black Sea. This boosted prices more than 5% over the ensuing couple of days. Flows were allowed to resume after trivial fine was paid and prices fell. But a larger message was delivered. This remains a powerful lever Moscow can use at a moment’s notice to tighten supplies. Opportunities elsewhere in oil-producing provinces also are continuously cultivated by Russian operatives to influence supplies. Sporadic public demonstrations and force majeure declarations have led to output losses in Libya, where Russian mercenaries actively support Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA). This continues to make supply assessments difficult. Libya currently produces ~ 650k b/d, according to the US EIA, down from ~ 1.12mm b/d in 4Q21. As in many things, Russia’s playing a game of chess with its opponents and forcing them to react to its threats and decisions. And this strategy is not limited to Ukraine, the EU or oil. For example, the seizure of Shell’s ownership in the Sakhalin-2 LNG facilities by Russia’s state-owned Gazprom was described by The Journal of Petroleum Technology (JPT) as a “backdoor” nationalization of Shell’s interest. This will have long-term consequences far removed from the Ukraine War, and could affect LNG deliveries to Japan and South Korea, which will become critical in a super-tight LNG market going into winter. This couldn’t be more timely, as Japan and South Korean – in a first-ever event – attended the end-June NATO meeting.5 Investment Implications Russia’s war against Ukraine has multiple dimensions, all of which can impact oil and gas prices going forward. Despite the obvious concerns over a deep recession reducing global oil demand – and commodity demand generally – we continue to focus on the objective fact of physically tight markets, and Russia's political-economy considerations affecting the evolution of prices. This informs our view that prices will remain volatile with a significant bias to the upside. Small, unexpected shocks in a fundamentally tight market on the supply side support our view prices will move higher.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Whether the EU can avoid rationing – and fill its natural-gas storage – ahead of winter will depend on what Russia does with its exports of the gas exported on Nord Stream 1 (NS1) and other pipes (Chart 4). We believe Russia will cut off most of its exports to the EU before winter sets in. It likely will use use the current 10-day maintenance on NS1, which began Monday, as a pretext to cut supplies, in retaliation for the EU cutting off crude oil and refined products imports. President Putin of Russia most likely will offer to keep the gas flowing so inventories can be refilled, in return for the EU lifting sanctions it imposed following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Precious Metals: Bullish June headline US CPI was reported at 9.1% yoy, continuing the streak of rising prices. The Fed will need to aggressively hike rates to bring price levels lower, raising the risk of plunging the US into a recession. Recession fears will reduce long-term bond yields and should support gold prices. While high inflation is good for gold, the yellow metal saw investment outflows during May and June, as investors opt for the USD as a safe-haven asset. Ags/Softs: Neutral Food prices fell for the third straight month in June, but still are near historic highs following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.6 Wheat prices fell by 5.7% in June but was still higher by 48.5% compared to 2021 (Chart 5).7 This might be down to recession fears, or, more likely, due to better crop conditions, seasonal availability from new harvests in the northern hemisphere, and more exports from Russia. The UN’s FAO warned factors that drove global prices higher still persist. Russia is expected to harvest one of its largest wheat crops since the fall of the Soviet Union.8 According to the 2022/23 USDA outlook, there will be less supplies and consumption, higher exports and stocks.9 Chart 4 Chart 5   Footnotes 1     Please see Citigroup says oil prices could tumble to $65 by the end of the year if a recession whacks demand, published by businessinsider.com on July 5, 2022, and Oil could hit $380 if Russia slashes output over price cap, J.P.Morgan says, published by reuters.com on July 4, 2022. 2     Please see Copper Prices Decouple From Fundamentals published on July 7, 2022. 3    Please see Russia sees extra $4.5 billion in July budget revenue on higher oil prices published by reuters.com on July 5, 2022. 4    Please see Oil, Natgas Prices Set To Surge, which we published on May 19, 2022.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Please see Japan and South Korea's Attendance at the Upcoming NATO Summit Could Worsen Global Tensions, published by time.com on June 16, 2022. 6    Please see Global food prices may be falling, but economist warns Asia’s food costs could still soar published by CNBC on July 11, 2022. 7     Please see Wheat, Corn Prices Tempered- Easing Global Food Cost Concerns published by University of Illinois on July 1, 2022 . 8    Please see Dollar rises to 20-year highs, sends grains lower published by FarmProgress on July 12, 2022. 9    Please see Grain: World Market and Trade published by USDA on July 12, 2022.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trades Closed in 2022

In lieu of next week’s report, I will host the monthly Counterpoint Webcast on Monday, July 25. Please mark the date in your calendar, and I do hope you can join. Executive Summary Central banks face a ‘Sophie’s choice’. Inflation at 2 percent, or full employment? If they choose inflation at 2 percent, they will have to take the economy into recession. To take the economy into recession, bond yields and energy prices do not need to move any higher. They just need to stay where they are. The stock market has not yet discounted a recession. With stocks and bonds having become equally ‘cheaper’ this year, but stocks now vulnerable to substantial downgrades to their profits, stocks are likely to underperform bonds over the coming 6-12 months. In the event of recession followed by plunging inflation, a valuation uplift for bonds will also underpin stock prices and limit further downside in absolute terms. The biggest loser will be commodities. On a 6-12 month horizon, the optimal asset allocation is: overweight bonds, neutral stocks, underweight commodities. Fractal trading watchlist: Ethereum. The Bear Market Is A Valuation Bear Market. Profits Are Not Discounting A Recession… Yet Bottom Line: On a 6-12 month horizon, overweight bonds, neutral stocks, underweight commodities. Feature The Greek mythological sea monsters, Scylla and Charybdis, sat on opposite sides of the narrow Strait of Messina, with one monster likened to a shoal of rocks, the other to a vortex. Avoiding the rocks meant getting too close to the vortex, and avoiding the vortex meant getting too close to the rocks. In today’s stock market, if Scylla is the monster of high bond yields, then Charybdis is the monster of falling profits. Whether the stock market can safely navigate these twin monsters without further damage depends on a sequence of questions. In today’s stock market, if Scylla is the monster of high bond yields, then Charybdis is the monster of falling profits. If the market can escape high bond yields, can it also escape falling profits? The answer to this depends on a second question. Can central banks guide inflation back to 2 percent without taking the economy into recession? The answer to this depends on a third question. Is 2 percent inflation still consistent with full employment? Central Banks Face A ‘Sophie’s Choice’ – Low Inflation, Or Full Employment? In the US, the main transmission mechanism from employment to inflation is through so-called ‘rent of shelter’. Because, to put it bluntly, you need a steady job to pay the rent. And rent comprises 41 percent of the core inflation basket. For the past couple of decades, the Fed could have its cake and eat it: full employment and inflation running close to 2 percent. This was because full employment was consistent with rent of shelter inflation running at 3.5 percent, which itself was consistent with core inflation running at 2 percent. The Fed faces a ‘Sophie’s choice’. Inflation at 2 percent, or full employment? If it chooses inflation at 2 percent, then the Fed will have to take the economy into recession. But recently, there has been a phase-shift between the employment market and rent of shelter inflation. The current state of full employment equates to rent of shelter inflation running not at 3.5 percent, but at 5.5 percent (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Central Banks Face A 'Sophie's Choice' - Low Inflation, Or Full Employment? Hence, the Fed faces a ‘Sophie’s choice’. Inflation at 2 percent, or full employment? If it chooses inflation at 2 percent, the unemployment rate will have to rise by 2 percent. Meaning, the Fed will have to take the economy into recession. The Economy Tries The ‘Cold Pressor Test’ To take the economy into recession, bond yields and energy prices do not need to move any higher – they just need to stay where they are. This is because the damage from elevated bond yields and energy prices doesn’t come just from their level. It comes from their level multiplied by the length of time that they stay elevated. Try putting your hand in a bucket of ice water. For the first few seconds, or even tens of seconds, you will not feel any discomfort. After a few minutes though, the pain becomes excruciating. This so-called ‘cold pressor test’ tells us that your discomfort results not just from the temperature level of the ice water, but equally from the length of time that you keep your hand in it. Likewise, a short-lived spike in the mortgage rate or in the price of natural gas, or a short-lived collapse in your stock market wealth will not cause any discomfort. But the longer the mortgage rate stays elevated, and more and more people are buying or refinancing a home at a much higher rate, the greater becomes the economic pain. In the same vein, most Europeans will not notice the sky-high prices of natural gas in the summer when the heating is off. But come the cold of October and November, many people will have to choose literally between physical or economic pain. Some commentators counter that the “war chest of savings” accumulated during the pandemic will buffer households against higher mortgage rates and energy prices. We strongly disagree. The savings accumulated during the pandemic just added to, and became indistinguishable from, other wealth. Yet now, in case you hadn’t noticed, wealth has been pummelled. In case you hadn’t noticed, wealth has been pummelled. The impact of wealth on spending is a huge topic which we will expand upon in a future report. In a nutshell, most spending comes from income and income proxies. Wealth generates income, but it also generates an income proxy via capital gain. So, to the extent that wealth can drive spending growth, the biggest contributor comes from the change in capital gain, also known as the ‘wealth impulse’. Unfortunately, the wealth impulse is now in deeply negative territory (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Wealth Impulse Is In Deeply Negative Territory The Stock Market Has Not Yet Discounted A Recession Coming back to the stock market, does the 2022 bear market mean that it has already discounted a recession? No, this year’s bear market is entirely due to a collapse in valuations. Since the start of the year, US profit expectations have held up. If the bear market were front running profit downgrades, then it would be underperforming its valuation component, but it is not. The counterargument is that analysts are notoriously slow to downgrade their profit estimates. Isn’t the bear market the ‘real-time’ stock market ‘front running’ big downgrades to these profit estimates? Again, no. If the market were front running profit downgrades, then it would be underperforming its valuation component, but it is not (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Bear Market Is A Valuation Bear Market. Profits Are Not Discounting A Recession...Yet The bear market in the S&P 500 has near-perfectly tracked the bear market in its valuation component, the 30-year T-bond price. The valuation component of the S&P 500 is the 30-year T-bond price because the duration of the S&P 500 equals the duration of the 30-year T-bond. Several clients have asked how to prove that the duration of the S&P 500 equals that of the 30-year T-bond. We can do it either a difficult theoretical way, or an easy empirical way. The difficult theoretical way is to take the projected cashflows, and calculate the weighted average time to those cashflows, where the weights are the discounted values of those cashflows. The much easier empirical way is to show that the S&P 500 tracks its profits multiplied by the 30-year T-bond price more faithfully than if we use a shorter maturity bond, such as the 10-year T-bond (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5) Chart I-4The S&P 500 Tracks Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year T-Bond Price More Faithfully... Chart I-5...Than Profits Multiplied By The 10-Year T-Bond Price One important upshot is that any valuation comparison of the S&P 500 with a bond other than the 30-year T-bond is a fundamental error of duration mismatch. Most strategists compare the S&P 500 with the 10-year T-bond because it is convenient. But the duration mismatch makes this ‘apples versus oranges’ valuation comparison one of the most common mistakes in finance. Overweight Bonds, Neutral Stocks, Underweight Commodities All of this is important to answer a crucial question about stock market valuations. With the stock market 20 percent down this year when expected profits have held up, it might appear that stocks have become much cheaper. The truth is more nuanced. Relative to expected profits over the next 12 months the US stock market is indeed much cheaper (Chart I-6). The caveat is that these expected profits are vulnerable to substantial downgrades in the event of a recession. Chart I-6The US Stock Market Is Cheaper Versus Expected Profits, But These Profits Are Too Optimistic Chart I-7The US Stock Market Is Not Cheaper Versus The 30-Year T-Bond But relative to the equal duration 30-year T-bond, the US stock market is not cheaper. Since, the start of the year, the uplift in the stock market’s (forward earnings) yield is precisely the same as the that on the 30-year T-bond yield (Chart I-7).  Relative to the equal duration 30-year T-bond, the US stock market has not become cheaper. With stocks and bonds having become equally ‘cheaper’ this year, but stocks now vulnerable to substantial downgrades to their profits, stocks are likely to underperform bonds over the coming 6-12 months. The good news is that a valuation uplift for bonds will also underpin stock prices, and limit further downside in absolute terms. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for commodities, whose real prices are still close to the upper end of their 40-year trading range (Chart I-8) Chart I-8The Real Price Of Metals Is Still At The Upper End Of Its 40-Year Trading Range In the event of recession followed by plunging inflation, the biggest winner will be bonds and the biggest loser will be commodities. Therefore, on a 6-12 horizon, the optimal asset allocation is: Overweight bonds. Neutral stocks. Underweight commodities. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we are adding Ethereum to our watchlist, as its 130-day fractal structure is approaching the capitulation point that signalled previous major trend reversals in 2018 (a bottom) and 2021 (a top). The full watchlist of 27 investments that are approaching, or at, potential trend reversals is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Watchlist: New Additions Chart I-9Fractal Trading Watch List Chart 1CNY/USD At A Potential Turning Point   Chart 2US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 3CAD/SEK Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 4Financials Versus Industrials Has Reversed Chart 5The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Ended Chart 6The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Has Ended Chart 7FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 8Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Is Ending Chart 9The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 10The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 11Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 12German Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 13Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 14ETH Is Approaching A Possible Capitulation Chart 15The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 16The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 17A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 18Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 19Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 20Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 21Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Ended Chart 22USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 23The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 24A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 25GBP/USD At A Potential Turning Point Chart 26US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 27The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-12 Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary No Funding For Property Developers, No Land Sales Beijing’s plan to bring forward RMB 2.6 trillion of financing for infrastructure expenditures in H2 2022 is a considerable stimulus. However, this new funding will not result in new investments. Rather, it will, by and large, offset the drop in local government (LG) revenues from land sales this year. In short, there is little new stimulus for infrastructure beyond what has been approved in the budget plan earlier this year. Not only is the credit and fiscal impulse smaller in this cycle than in the previous ones, but also the multiplier effect will be lower. This will hinder the recovery in domestic demand. After the one-off rebound in economic activity following the lockdowns in April and May of this year, China’s business cycle recovery will be more U shaped rather than V shaped. Bottom Line: For absolute-return investors neither A-shares nor investable stocks offer an attractive risk-reward profile. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue to recommend a neutral allocation to China’s A-shares and an underweight allocation to Chinese investable stocks. Relative to the EM equity benchmark, investors should continue to overweight A-shares and remain neutral on investable stocks. Maintain the long A-shares / short offshore investable Chinese stocks position.   Alleged plans of an additional RMB 1.5 trillion local government (LG) special bond issuance in H2 2022 have prompted investors to speculate about whether this stimulus initiative is sufficient to produce a considerable acceleration in infrastructure investment.  This stimulus would be added to RMB 800 billion and 300 billion of policy bank funding for infrastructure that the government approved earlier in Q2 this year. Hence, the combined new infrastructure financing made available by Beijing is RMB 2.6 trillion. Below, we elaborate on how this RMB 2.6 trillion of additional infrastructure financing will be largely offset by a drop in LG revenues from land sales. In short, the stimulus will preclude downside in infrastructure investment rather than herald a major acceleration.  In addition, the economic recovery still faces substantial headwinds from other segments of the economy. We believe that, approached as a whole, China’s business cycle recovery will be more U shaped than V shaped. Quantifying Infrastructure Stimulus The degree of new financing for infrastructure is considerable. This RMB 2.6 trillion in new financing in H2 2022 is equal to 7% of planned 2022 LG aggregate expenditures, 6% of planned 2022 aggregate total central and local government spending including budgetary and managed funds, 14% of fixed-asset investment (FAI) in traditional infrastructure, and 2% of GDP.  The composition of general government spending is presented in Table 1. Table 1Structure And Composition Of Government Spending In China However, a caveat is in order: this new funding will not result in new investments. Rather, it will, by and large, offset the drop in LG revenues from land sales. The primary source of financing infrastructure investment is LG managed funds. LG managed funds budgets, however, are under severe stress because of the plunge in revenues from land sales. Notably, proceeds from land sales account for 23% of aggregate LG expenditures (Chart 1). Land sales have contracted by about 30% in the January-June period of this year, and there is little hope that they will pick up in H2 2022. The reason is that property developers’ financing is down by 30% and is unlikely to recover soon (Chart 2). Chart 1Land Sales Are Critical For LG Expenditures Chart 2No Funding For Property Developers, No Land Sales Chart 3Property Developers Are Facing Debt Deflation As we have argued in our past reports, property developers carry a substantial inventory of real estate assets funded by a massive debt build-up (Chart 3, top panel). With housing prices beginning to deflate, property developers are about to face debt deflation – falling asset prices and a high debt burden (Chart 3, bottom panel). Thereby, they have little appetite or capacity to expand their assets and leverage. Assuming land sales for the full year will decline by 30%, this drop would lead to an RMB 2.52 trillion reduction in LGs managed fund revenues in 2022 (Table 2). Hence, the new RMB 2.6 trillion infrastructure financing will be used to offset the RMB 2.5 trillion shortfall in LG managed funds budgets because of the plunge in land transfer proceeds. Table 2China: New Stimulus For Infrastructure in H2 2022 On the whole, there will be very little new funding available to boost infrastructure spending beyond what has been approved by the 2022 National People’s Congress (NPC) earlier this year. Chart 4The Credit And Fiscal Impulse Will Be Moderate Hence, for this full year, there is no change to the aggregate fiscal spending impulse that incorporates central and local government budgetary spending as well as managed funds’ expenditures (Chart 4, top panel). The two scenarios for the non-government credit impulse are shown in the middle panel of Chart 4. The optimistic scenario assumes non-government credit will accelerate to 9.5% from 8.7%, and the pessimistic scenario is based on no acceleration in non-government credit growth. Finally, the bottom panel of Chart 4 illustrates the projections for the combined credit and fiscal spending impulse for the remainder of this year. Although the aggregate fiscal and credit impulse is non-trivial, it is smaller than those in 2020, 2016, 2013, and 2009. Bottom Line: The government has announced RMB 1.1 trillion in infrastructure funding and will likely raise the LG special bond quota by RMB 1.5 trillion. Yet, this RMB 2.6 trillion financing will only offset the shortfall in infrastructure financing from plunging land transfer revenue.  In brief, there is little new stimulus for infrastructure beyond what has been approved in the budget plan from early this year.   Economic Headwinds Chart 5China's Reopening Rebound Economic activity in China has rebounded following the reopening of the economy. Chart 5 illustrates that high-frequency data, such as car sales, house sales, commercial truck cargo, and steel production have all recently improved. We expect the one-off renormalization of economic activity following the lockdowns in April and May to give way to more subdued growth. The reason is that the mainland economy is facing several major headwinds: The real estate market is unlikely to recover meaningfully given the “three red lines” policy has not been eased, and many of property market excesses have not been purged. Hence, the question remains whether the Chinese economy can stage a robust recovery without the participation of the property market. We doubt it can because of the vital role that real estate has played in the economy in the past 20 years as the result of its large share in GDP and its impact on consumer and business sentiment. Since 2008, there has been no business cycle recovery in China without the property market firing on all cylinders (Chart 6). Chart 6All Economic Recoveries Were Accompanied By A Revival In The Property Market Chart 7China: The Willingness To Spend And Invest Is Very Low Rolling lockdowns will likely persist. This will weigh on household and private business confidence. Diminishing confidence will undermine the willingness to spend, invest, and hire. Our marginal propensity to spend indicators for households & enterprises remain very depressed (Chart 7). Low propensity to spend entails that the multiplier effect of fiscal and credit stimulus will be lower in this cycle than in the previous ones. Not only is the credit and fiscal impulse smaller than in the previous cycles but also the multiplier will be lower. This will hinder the recovery in domestic demand. Finally, Chinese exports are set to contract in H2 2022 because of shrinking demand for consumer goods (ex-autos) in the US and Europe as well as mainstream EM. Bottom Line: After the one-off rebound in economic activity following the lockdowns in April and May, the business cycle recovery will be more U shaped rather than V shaped. Investment Conclusions For absolute-return investors, neither A-shares nor investable stocks offer an attractive risk-reward profile.   Within the A-share market, our strongest conviction is to overweight interest rate-sensitive sectors like consumer staples, utilities, and healthcare. Consumer discretionary stocks should also be a slight overweight now.   We continue to recommend a neutral allocation to Chinese A-shares and an underweight allocation to investable stocks within a global equity portfolio. Relative to the EM equity benchmark, investors should continue to overweight A-shares and remain neutral on investable Chinese stocks.   Maintain the long A-shares / short offshore investable stocks position.   The yuan, like all other emerging Asian currencies, is still facing near-term downside risk versus the US dollar. Chinese onshore government bond yields will likely drop further.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations