Emerging Markets

Executive Summary A Structural Downshift In China’s Real Estate Investment Growth The Politburo has set a date for the much-anticipated 20th Communist Party Congress at which President Xi will most likely secure his third term as general secretary. Although we expect China’s leaders to focus on supporting the economy following the Party Congress, there are high odds that the authorities will underdeliver on policy easing. Beijing may recalibrate its stringent zero-Covid policy next year, but the conditions are presently not yet met for a turnaround in the current strategy. China’s structural issues remain, and policymakers will likely continue to tackle them while downplaying the importance of GDP growth. The housing market remains the epicenter of risk to both China’s financial system and social stability. China’s leaders have incrementally introduced accommodative initiatives, but they still continue to seek reduced leverage among property developers. Investors should be prepared for a scenario that China will avoid “irrigation-type” stimulus in the next six months. Therefore, the economy will continue to expand at below potential growth. Bottom Line: There is a nontrivial risk that China’s stimulus will fall short of market expectations following the upcoming Party Congress. This poses risks to Chinese share prices.   Market participants believe that the 20th Communist Party Congress beginning October 16 will be a jumping off point for Chinese leaders to stimulate the economy more aggressively. This would signal a shift in the leadership’s focus, from securing political stability ahead of the Party Congress to ensuring an economic recovery next year. However, to achieve a meaningful and sustainable rebound in economic activity and equity market performance, policymakers will need to overcome two major hurdles: the zero-Covid policy and the "three red lines" regulation for property developers. At the risk of being wrong, we identify some of the factors that will preclude using irrigation type of stimulus after the conclusion of the Party Congress. Given the prevailing headwinds to China’s economy and the lack of “all-in” type of stimulus, we recommend that global equity portfolios stay neutral for now on Chinese onshore stocks and underweight offshore stocks. The Date Is Set! The Politburo’s announcement that the 20th Party Congress would take place earlier than November, in our view, is a sign of political stability and marginally positive for the economy. On the opening day, President Xi will deliver the Party’s work report, which will chart China’s policy trajectory for the next five years and beyond. It is generally believed that President’s Xi’s vision to turn China into an advanced global power will be endorsed by the Party. The earlier date for the Congress is significant for the following reasons: It shows that preparations for the Party Congress are progressing on schedule. President Xi will most likely cement his third term as general secretary, leaving little room for surprises from a political standpoint. The Party Congress will provide some indication whether the leadership will revise policies, including the zero-Covid strategy and industry regulations. Lower-level officials have been waiting to see which way the political winds are blowing. The Party Congress will clarify the situation and allow officials to focus on their economic work. Bottom Line: The Party Congress, along with the Central Economic Work Conference in December, will set the tone for China’s key economic, social, and industry policies for 2023 and beyond. Endgame To The Zero-Covid Strategy? Chart 1The Primary Risk To China's Economic Recovery Is Its Zero-Covid Policy The primary risk to China’s economic recovery is its stringent zero-Covid policy, which has significantly impacted the service sector, household income and consumption (Chart 1). In recent months policymakers have incrementally adjusted their Covid-containment measures, such as shortening the quarantine period for international travelers and streamlining mass testing procedures. However, the fundamental goal of eradicating domestic Covid cases remains intact. The best scenario in the coming year, in our view, is that China will adopt hybrid measures to combat Covid. Countries like Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia have all adopted a mixed series of Covid-control policies. These include a gradual reduction in testing and quarantine protocols, an increase in targeted vaccination among the elderly, an introduction of antiviral drugs and strengthening the quality of primary care. However, China may not tolerate the level of Covid experienced in these countries, especially since their number of new cases and related deaths have risen of late (Chart 2A and 2B). Chart 2ACovid Case Counts In Other Countries Have Risen Or Remain Elevated... Chart 2B...Along With Number Of Deaths   China sees its extremely low case count as proof that the dynamic zero-Covid policy has succeeded (Chart 3). It argues that if it shifts course and re-opens before proper protective measures have been introduced, then the losses might exceed a million deaths. China’s authorities believe that Hong Kong SAR’s high death rate in the spring is stark proof of that possible scenario (Chart 4). Chart 3China Has Managed To Keep Its Covid Case And Death Counts Extremely Low Chart 4Situation In HK SAR Earlier This Year Has Probably Sent A Warning Sign To The Mainland Thus, a sudden pivot from zero-Covid to living with the virus next year seems farfetched. China’s National Health Commission experts recently stated that victory over the virus would require effective vaccines, treatments and mild variants. We examine these three premises as follows: Covid vaccination rate: China’s overall Covid vaccination rate is high at 90% as of August this year. However, more than 35% of Chinese over age 60 have not received a booster dose and only 61% above age 80 have had a primary vaccination. Given that the majority of China’s population has not been exposed to the virus and is immunologically naïve, unlike their Western counterparts, the population relies completely on immunity acquired through Covid vaccines.  Chart 5China's Vaccination Progress Has Stalled China’s daily vaccination rate has fallen to below 200,000 per day, sharply down from the peak of 3-5 million per day in March and April (Chart 5). Even if we assume that three doses of China’s domestically produced vaccines are as effective as the West’s mRNA vaccines, at the current pace it would take several years to provide three doses of Covid vaccines to China’s 1.4 billion people. Hence, to significantly loosen zero-Covid policy, we would need to see a huge acceleration in the country’s vaccination rate. Treatment drugs: China okayed the imports and use of Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid in February and approved its first homegrown Covid antiviral medication “Azvudine” in July. Azvudine’s efficacy in reducing Covid-related hospitalization and deaths remains to be seen. The manufacturer, Genuine Biotech, says that the facility's annual production capacity is 1 billion tablets (each tablet is 1 mg), but is expected to reach 3 billion tablets in the future. Assuming each patient will need 50 mgs of Azvudine to complete a full course of treatment (as instructed by the drug manufacturer), the company can provide enough tablets for approximately 20 million Chinese within one year. To put the number into respective, China has more than 26 million people over age 80, of which more than 10 million have not had their first Covid vaccine. Chart 6The Level Of Beijing's Covid Policy Stringency Remains Elevated ​​​​​​​ Milder variants: Another possibility is if new mild variants emerge next year and they cause no harm or panic among the population. However, there is no guarantee that Beijing will be willing to relent on its Covid policy based on evidence and statistics from other countries where the populations may have received mRNA vaccines. Even statistics provided within China may not warrant a decisive reopening of the economy. A recent study conducted by leading Chinese public health experts found that only 22 of the nearly 34,000 Covid patients hospitalized in Shanghai from March 22 to May 3 developed severe illness. Nonetheless, the study has not prompted policymakers to step back from the tight Covid control protocols (Chart 6). Bottom Line: The conditions do not seem to be met for a drastic change in Beijing’s dynamic zero-Covid strategy. China’s transition from zero tolerance to an orderly, managed approach to life with an evolving Covid virus will likely be long and difficult. The Housing Market Policy Dilemma The other key to achieving a meaningful recovery in China’s economy is through stimulating the country’s housing market. We expect that more accommodative real estate policy initiatives will be introduced later this year and early next year. However, structural headwinds in the property market will limit the government's willingness to stimulate the sector as aggressively as in previous cycles. China’s shrinking working population since 2015 likely led to a peak in the demand for housing in 2017/18. Moreover, it is estimated that China's total population growth will turn negative this year, further suppressing demand (Chart 7). The combination of demographic headwinds and a slowdown in urbanization, means that if policymakers overstimulate the sector as in the past, then they will have a bigger bubble to pop in the future.  There is no indication that the authorities will stop focusing on deleveraging and reducing financial risks in the real estate sector. The magnitude of mortgage rate cuts so far this year is much smaller than in the 2008/09 and 2015/16 cycles. Moreover, mortgage rates remain higher than growth in household income and home prices (Chart 8). The positive gaps between mortgage rates and both household income growth and house price appreciation discourage house purchases. Chart 7Demand For Housing In China Is On A Structural Downtrend Chart 8Current Rate Cuts Are Not Enough To Meaningfully Spur Demand For Housing Importantly, while policymakers have intervened and provided liquidity to cash-strapped real estate developers, the “three red lines” policies restraining developers’ leverage remain intact. The message is clear: Beijing will use all necessary tools to prevent systemic risks and social unrest by ensuring the completion of existing housing projects. However, the authorities will continue to force developers to structurally shift their business models and reduce their leverage. Chinese authorities would be more incentivized to bail out the sector if there were risks of widespread mortgage loan defaults among households. In our view, this risk remains low in the next 6 to 12 months. The mortgage down payment ratio is relatively high in China and mortgages are full recourse loans as borrowers are personally liable beyond the collateral (i.e., the property asset). This combination reduces the incentive for homebuyers to stop paying mortgages even in a situation of negative equity (i.e., when the value of the property asset falls below the outstanding mortgage). Indeed, ongoing mortgage boycotts have been isolated to unfinished apartments in stalled projects. The boycotts are driven by homebuyers to pressure developers to finish these projects and are not due to household financial difficulties. There will likely be more defaults by overleveraged developers next year. The sector will consolidate further, with opportunistic, well-funded developers taking advantage of the situation to acquire distressed assets at a discount. Many of these may be state-owned or state-backed companies and investment funds. Chart 9Real Estate Investment Growth In China Will Structurally Shift Lower Bottom Line: Policymakers will continue to feed the housing sector with stimulus measures, but the leadership might be reluctant to overstimulate the sector. China’s real estate market dynamics, particularly the completion of existing projects, will likely improve on the margin in the next 6 to 12 months. Structurally, however, China’s home sales and real estate investment growth will continue shifting to a lower gear (Chart 9).    Investment Conclusions At the start of the year, China was expected to aggressively stimulate its economy. This was based on the premise that policymakers would not tolerate slower economic growth ahead of the Party Congress. Nonetheless, Chinese leaders downplayed the annual GDP growth target this year, a major deviation from the past. Post October’s Party Congress, we think that the authorities will continue to roll out measures to support the economy, but we recommend that investors remain realistic about the magnitude of policy easing. There are nontrivial risks that policymakers will continue to tackle structural issues, while allowing the economy to muddle through. With piecemeal stimulus, China may still be able to manage a soft landing in its property market and prevent the risks from spilling over to other sectors of the economy. In this case, we will monitor macro and financial market dynamics and change our stance on Chinese equities if warranted (Chart 10A and 10B). Chart 10AWithout More Aggressive Stimulus, Upsides In Chinese Equity Prices Are Capped Chart 10BWithout More Aggressive Stimulus, Upsides In Chinese Equity Prices Are Capped Lastly, investors should be prepared for greater emphasis of common prosperity policies at the Party Congress. Reducing income inequality and improving social welfare will remain core principles of President Xi’s political agenda. Common property policies mean that there will be a continued shift towards a larger share of labor compensation versus capital in the country’s national income (Chart 11). The pandemic in the past 2.5 years has likely exacerbated the country’s income inequality and discontent among middle-class households. Chart 11Implications Of China’s Common Prosperity Policy Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com ​​​​​​​Jing Sima Consulting China Strategist Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Highlights Chart 1A Hot Labor Market The balance of data that’s come out during the past month points to a labor market that is not cooling very quickly. In fact, it is cooling much more slowly than we anticipated. First, nonfarm payroll growth of +315k in August is well above the +79k that is needed to maintain the unemployment and participation rates at current levels (Chart 1). Second, what had initially looked like a significant drop in job openings was revised away with the July JOLTS report. While the ratio of job openings to unemployed has leveled-off just below 2.0, it is no longer showing any signs of falling (bottom panel). Finally, the employment component of August’s ISM Manufacturing PMI jumped back above 50 and even initial unemployment claims have reversed their nascent uptrend. The conclusion we draw from this spate of strong employment data is that the Fed’s tightening cycle is not close to over. This means that the average fed funds rate that is priced into markets for 2023 is almost certainly too low. Feature Table 1 Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Table 3A Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -267 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month, and it currently sits at 145 bps. Our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread ticked up to its 56th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). A report from a few months ago made the case for why investors should underweight investment grade corporate bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon.1 The main rationale for this recommendation is that the slope of the Treasury curve suggests that the credit cycle is in its late stages. Corporate bond performance tends to be weak during periods when the yield curve is very flat or inverted. Despite our underweight 6-12 month investment stance, we wouldn’t be surprised to see some modest spread narrowing during the next couple of months as inflation heads lower. That said, spread compression will be limited by the inverted yield curve and the persistent removal of monetary accommodation. A recent report dug deeper into the corporate bond space and concluded that investment grade-rated Energy bonds offer exceptional value on a 6-12 month horizon.2 That report also concluded that long maturity investment grade corporates are attractively priced relative to short maturity bonds. High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 28 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -519 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 15 bps on the month and it currently sits at 494 bps, 125 bps above the 2017-19 average and 43 bps below the 2018 peak. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – increased modestly in August. It currently sits at 6.6% (Chart 3). As is the case with investment grade, high-yield spreads could stage a relief rally during the next few months as inflation falls and recession fears abate. However, the inverted yield curve will likely prevent spreads from moving much below the average level seen during the last tightening cycle (2017-19). All that said, even a move back to average 2017-19 levels would equate to a roughly 7% excess return for the junk index if it is realized over a six month period. This return potential is the main reason to prefer high-yield over investment grade in a US bond portfolio. While we maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield for now, we will downgrade the sector if spreads tighten to the 2017-19 average or if core inflation falls back to our 4% estimate of its underlying trend.3 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 100 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -144 bps. We discussed the outlook for Agency MBS in a recent report.4 We noted that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 and early-2022 was driven by duration extension. Fewer homeowners refinanced their loans as mortgage rates rose, and the MBS index’s average duration increased (Chart 4). But now, the index’s duration extension is over. The average convexity of the MBS index is close to zero (panel 3), meaning that duration is now insensitive to changes in rates. This is because hardly any homeowners have an incentive to refinance at current mortgage rates. With the duration extension trade over, the only thing preventing us from increasing exposure to the Agency MBS space is that spreads still aren’t sufficiently attractive. The average index spread versus duration-matched Treasuries is roughly midway between its post-2014 minimum and post-2014 mean (panel 4). Meanwhile, the option-adjusted spread has moved above its post-2014 mean (bottom panel), but at just 42 bps, it still offers less compensation than a Aa-rated corporate bond or a Aaa-rated consumer ABS. At the coupon level, we moved to a neutral allocation across the coupon stack last month, but this month we initiate a recommendation to favor high-coupon (3%-4.5%) securities over low coupon (1.5%-2.5%) ones. Given the lower duration of high coupon MBS, this position will profit from rising bond yields on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 156 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -563 bps. EM Sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 117 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -677 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index outperformed by 180 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -491 bps. The EM Sovereign index outperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 111 bps in August. Meanwhile, the yield differential between EM sovereigns and US corporates moved deeper into negative territory (Chart 5). As such, we continue to recommend a maximum underweight (1 out of 5) allocation to EM sovereigns. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index outperformed duration-matched US corporates by 168 bps in August. The index continues to offer a significant yield advantage versus duration-matched US corporates (panel 4). As such, we continue to recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to the sector. China is the most important trading partner for most EM countries and thus represents a major source of economic growth. Consequently, Chinese import volumes are a useful gauge for the outlook of EM economies. The persistent contraction of Chinese import volumes (bottom panel) therefore sends a negative signal for EM bond performance. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 126 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -44 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We view the municipal bond sector as better placed than most to cope with the recent bout of spread volatility. As we noted in a recent report, state & local government revenue growth has been strong, but governments have been slow to hire (Chart 6).5 The result is that net state & local government savings are incredibly high (bottom panel) and it will take some time to deplete those coffers. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates since last year. The 10-year Aaa Muni / Treasury yield ratio is currently 82%, up from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratio between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds is also up significantly off its lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation municipal bonds and duration-matched US corporates is 80%. The same measure for Revenue bonds is 94%, just below parity even without considering municipal debt’s tax advantage. Treasury Curve: Buy 5/30 Barbell Versus 10-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in August as investors significantly marked up their 12-month rate expectations. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter – the market’s expected 12-month change in the funds rate – rose from 78 bps to 175 bps during the month and this caused the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope to flatten by 8 bps and the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope to flatten by 33 bps (Chart 7). We initiated a position in 5/30 flatteners (short 10-year bullet versus duration-matched 5/30 barbell) in our August 9th report.6 The main reason for this recommendation is our view that the Fed tightening cycle is not close to over. Therefore, it is too soon to position for a steepening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope. An analysis of past Fed tightening cycles shows that the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope tends to trough earlier than other segments of the yield curve. However, that trough has always occurred within a window spanning five months before the last Fed rate hike and three months after.7 On average, the 5-year/30-year slope troughs 1-2 months before the last Fed rate hike. Given our view that the Fed tightening cycle still has a lot of room to run, we think it makes sense to bet on a further flattening of the 5-year/30-year slope. This trade looks particularly attractive when you consider that a position short the 10-year bullet and long a duration-matched 5/30 barbell provides a yield pick-up of 12 bps (bottom panel). TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 8 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +264 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 5 bps on the month, moving back into the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% comfort zone (Chart 8). Meanwhile, our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are close to fairly valued versus nominals. In a recent report we unveiled our Golden Rule of TIPS Investing.8 In that report we showed that TIPS of all maturities tend to outperform equivalent-maturity nominal bonds whenever headline CPI inflation exceeds the 1-year CPI swap rate during a 12-month period. The 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 2.77%, and we think this will turn out to be too low based on our modeling of headline CPI. While we see value in TIPS relative to nominals, especially at the front-end of the curve, we also suspect that more value will be created during the next few months as CPI prints come in soft. Therefore, we are reluctant to immediately upgrade TIPS to overweight. Instead, we recommend that investors initiate a 2-year/10-year TIPS breakeven inflation curve flattener. The 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve has recently jumped into positive territory (bottom panel), but an inverted inflation curve is much more consistent with the current macro environment where the Fed is battling above-target inflation. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 27 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -25 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 19 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -24 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 76 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -28 bps. Substantial federal government support caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings during the past two years. This year, consumers are starting to draw down that savings and are even starting to take on more debt. The amount of outstanding credit card debt is still low relative to household income, but it is rising quickly in absolute terms (Chart 9). Elsewhere, consumers are still paying down their credit card balances at high rates (panel 4), but banks are no longer easing lending standards on auto loans or credit cards (panel 3). To us, the prevailing evidence suggests that it will be a long time before delinquencies are a serious problem for consumer ABS. This justifies our overweight recommendation. That said, given that the trend toward consumer re-leveraging is in full swing, it makes sense to turn more cautious at the margin. We therefore close our prior recommendation to favor non-Aaa over Aaa-rated consumer ABS and move to a neutral allocation across the consumer ABS credit curve. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -150 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 20 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -103 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 41 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -280 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products and are currently close to their historic averages. However, the most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey showed tightening lending standards and weaker demand for commercial real estate (CRE) loans (Chart 10). This suggests a more negative back-drop for CRE prices and CMBS spreads and causes us to reduce our recommended allocation from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread held flat on the month, close to its long-term average (bottom panel). At 55 bps, the average Agency CMBS spread continues to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 175 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of September 1, 2022) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of September 1, 2022) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -7 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 7 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 1, 2022)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Timper Research Analyst robert.timper@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. 2     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 3    For more details on this call please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 4    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 5    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Echoes Of 2018”, dated May 24, 2022. 6    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. 7     In our analysis we examined seven Fed tightening cycles. The five most recent cycles and the two cycles that occurred during the inflation spike of the early 1980s. 8    Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing”, dated August 23, 2022.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary US Military Constraint: Strait Of Hormuz A US-Iran deal would make for a notable improvement in the geopolitical backdrop during an otherwise gloomy year. It would remove the risk of a major new oil shock. We maintain our 40% subjective odds of a deal, which is well below consensus. The risk of failure is underrated. Our conviction level is only moderate because President Biden can make concessions to clinch a deal – and Supreme Leader Khamenei may want to earn some money and time. Yet we have high conviction in our view that the US will ultimately fail to provide Iran with sufficient security guarantees while Iran will pursue a nuclear deterrent. Hence the Middle East will present a long-term energy supply constraint. In the short term, global growth and recession risk will drive oil prices, not any Iran deal. Asset Initiation Date Return LONG GLOBAL AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / BROAD MARKET EQUITIES 2020-11-27 9.3% Bottom Line: Any US-Iran deal will be marginally positive for risky assets. However, the failure of a deal would sharply increase the odds of oil supply disruptions in the short run. Feature Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program remain in a critical phase. Rumors suggest Iran has agreed to rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) with the United States. But these rumors are unconfirmed, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just announced that Iran has started operating more advanced centrifuges at its Natanz nuclear site.1 In this report we provide a tactical update on the topic. A US-Iran nuclear deal is one item on our checklist for global macro and geopolitical stability (Table 1). We are pessimistic about a deal but it would be a positive outcome for markets. Table 1Not A Lot Of Positive Catalysts In H2 2022 A decision could come at any moment so investors should bear in mind our key conclusions about a deal: Chart 1Oil Volatility: The Only Certainty Of Iran Saga 1.  Any deal will be a short-term, stop-gap measure to delay a crisis until 2024 or beyond. This is not a small point because a crisis could lead to a large military conflict. 2.  The short-run implication of any deal is oil volatility, not a drop in oil prices (Chart 1). Global demand is wobbly and OPEC could cut oil production in reaction to a deal. 3.  Over the long run, global supply and demand balances will remain tight even if a deal is agreed. 4.  If there is no deal, then a major new source of global supply constraint will emerge immediately due to a new spiral of conflict in the Middle East. Iran’s nuclear program will continue which will prompt threats from Israel and the Gulf Arab states and Iranian counter-threats. We are sticking with our subjective 40/60 odds that a deal will occur – i.e. our conviction level is medium, not high. The Biden administration wants a deal and has the executive authority to conclude a deal. Iran wants sanctions lifted and can buy time with a short-term deal. Our pessimism stems from the fact that neither side can trust the other, the US can no longer give credible security guarantees, and Iran has a strategic interest in obtaining nuclear weapons. A deal can happen but its durability depends on the 2024 US election. Status Of Negotiations Table 2Iran’s Three Demands Of US For Rejoining 2015 Nuclear Deal Ostensibly there were three outstanding Iranian demands over the month of August that needed to be met to secure a deal (Table 2). Iran reportedly dropped the first demand: that the US remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the US State Department’s list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This concession prompted the news media to become more optimistic about a deal. This leaves two outstanding demands. Iran wants the IAEA conclude a “safeguards” investigation into unexplained uranium traces found at unauthorized sites in Iran, indicating nuclear activity that has not been accounted for. The IAEA will be very reluctant to halt such a probe on a political, not technical, basis. But it could happen under US pressure. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyRoulette With A Five-Shooter Iran also wants the US to provide a “guarantee” that future presidents will not renege on the nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions like President Trump did in 2019. President Biden cannot give any credible guarantee because the JCPA is an executive action, not a formal treaty, so a different president could reverse it. (The deal always lacked sufficient support in the Senate, even from top Democrats.) Iran is demanding certain diplomatic concessions and/or an economic indemnity in the event of another American reversal. Aside from attempting to incarcerate former President Trump, Biden can only offer empty promises on this front. In what follows we review the critical constraints facing the US and Iran. The US’s Constraints The first constraint on the US is the stagflationary economy. High inflation and oil prices pose a threat to President Biden and the Democrats not only in this year’s midterm elections but also in the 2024 presidential election. A recession is not at all unlikely by that time, given the inverted yield curve (Chart 2). If the US can help maintain stability in the Middle East, then the odds of another major oil supply shock (on top of Russia) will be reduced. Lifting sanctions on Iran will free up around 1 million barrels of oil to feed global demand. With Europe and the US imposing an oil and oil shipping embargo on Russia, the world is likely to lose around two million barrels of crude per day that the Gulf Arab states can only partially make up for, according to our Chief Commodity Strategist Bob Ryan (Table 3). This is a notable material constraint – and the main reason that Bob is more optimistic about an Iran deal than we are. Chart 2US Economic Constraint: Stagflation​​​​​ Table 3The Oil Math Behind Any Iran Deal However, Saudi Arabia would be alienated by a US-Iran détente. The American view is that Iranian production would threaten Saudi market share and force the Saudis to produce more. But the Saudis are seeing weakening global demand and have signaled that they will cut production. There is still an economic basis for an Iran deal but it is not clear that it will lower prices, especially in the short run. Over the long run the Saudis are a more reliable oil producer than Iran for both economic and geopolitical reasons. The second constraint is political. The US public is primarily concerned about the economy. Stagflation or recession could ultimately bring down the Biden administration. However, in the short run, American voters are much more concerned about domestic social issues (such as abortion access) than they are about foreign policy. In the long run, American voters are likely to maintain their long-held negative view of Iran (Chart 3). So the Biden administration has an incentive to prevent geopolitical events from hurting the economy but not to join arms with Iran in a major diplomatic agreement. The third constraint is military. Americans are not as war-weary today as they were in 2008 or 2016 but they are still averse to any new military conflicts in the Middle East. An Iranian nuclear bomb could change that view – but until a bomb is tested it will persist. Chart 3US Political Constraint: Americans Ignore Foreign Policy, Dislike Iran​​​​​​ Chart 4US Military Constraint: Strait Of Hormuz If Iran freezes its nuclear program then it will reduce the odds of a Middle Eastern war and large-scale oil supply disruptions. If Iran does not freeze its nuclear program, then Israel will have to demonstrate a credible military threat against nuclear weaponization, and then Iran will have to demonstrate its region-wide militant capabilities, including the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz (Chart 4). The Biden administration wants to delay this downward spiral or avoid it altogether. Chart 5US Strategic Constraint: Avoid Mideast Quagmires The fourth constraint is strategic. The Biden administration wants to avoid conflict if possible because it is attempting to reduce America’s burden in the Middle East so that it can focus on emerging great power competition in Eastern Europe and East Asia. The original motivation for the Iran deal was to enable the US to “pivot to Asia” and counter China. Iranian hegemony in the Middle East is less of a threat than Chinese hegemony in East Asia (Chart 5). This logic is sound if Iran can really be brought to halt its nuclear program. The Europeans need to stabilize and open up the Middle East to create an alternative energy supply to Russia. The Americans need to avoid a nuclear arms race and war in the Middle East that distracts them from China. However, if Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon, then the US suffers strategically for doing a short-term deal that provides Iran with time and access to funds. Ultimately the only thing that can dissuade Iran from going nuclear is American power projection in the Middle East – and this capability is also one of the US’s greatest advantages over China. Bottom Line: The US has a strategic, military, and economic interest in concluding a deal that freezes Iran’s nuclear program. It arguably has an interest in a deal even if Iran violates the deal and pursues nuclear weaponization, since that will provide a legitimate basis for what would then become a necessary military intervention. The Biden administration faces some political blowback for a deal but will suffer more if failure to get a deal leads to a Middle Eastern oil shock. For all these reasons Biden administration is attempting to clinch a deal. But Iran is the sticking point. Iran’s Constraints Our reasons for pessimism regarding the nuclear talks hinge on Iran, not the United States. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s goal is to secure the regime and arrange for a stable succession in the coming years. A deal with the Americans made sense in that context. But going forward, if dealing with the Americans does not bring credible security guarantees and yet makes the economy vulnerable again to a future snapback of sanctions, then the justification for the deal falls apart. We cannot read Khamenei’s mind any more than we can read Biden’s mind, so we will look at the material limitations. Chart 6Iran's Economic Constraint: Stagflation First, the economic constraint: The Iranian economy suffered a huge negative shock from the reimposition of sanctions in 2019 (Chart 6). However, the economy has sputtered through this shock and the Covid-19 shock without collapsing. Social unrest is an ever-present risk but it has not spiraled out of control. There has not been an attempted democratic revolution like in 2009. The upswing in the global commodity cycle has reinforced the regime. Sanctions do not prevent exports entirely. There is still a huge monetary incentive to let the Biden administration lift sanctions if it wants to do so: a deal is estimated to free up $100 billion dollars per year in revenue for the regime for ten years.2 Realistically this should be understood as more than $275 billion for two years since the longevity of the deal is in question. The problem is that Iran’s economy would be fully exposed to sanctions again if the US changed its mind. The bottom line is that the economic constraint does not force Iran to accept a deal but it is enticing. Second comes the political constraint. President Ebrahim Raisi hopes to become supreme leader someday and is loath to put his name on a deal with weak foundations. He originally opposed the deal, was vindicated, and does not now want to jeopardize his political future by making the same mistake as his hapless predecessor, Hassan Rouhani. Opinion polls may not be reliable in putting Raisi as the most popular politician in Iran but they probably are reliable in showing Rouhani at the bottom of the heap (Chart 7). There is a significant political constraint against rejoining the deal. Chart 7Iran’s Political Constraint: Risk Of American Betrayal Chart 8Iran’s Military Constraint: Outgunned, Unsure Of Allies Third comes the military constraint. While Iran is extremely vulnerable to Israeli and American military attack, it is also a fortress of a country, nestled in mountains, and airstrikes may not succeed in destroying the entire nuclear program or bringing down the regime. An attack by Israel could convert an entirely new generation to the Islamic revolution. And Iran may believe that the US lacks the popular support for military action in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran may also believe that China and Russia will provide military and economic support (Chart 8). Ultimately, America has demonstrated a willingness to attack rogue states and Iran will try to avoid that outcome, since it could succeed in toppling the regime. But if Iran believes it can acquire a deliverable nuclear weapon in a few short years, then it may make a dash for it, since this solution would be a permanent solution: a nuclear deterrent against western attack, as opposed to temporary diplomatic promises. We often compare Iran’s strategic predicament to that of Ukraine, Libya, and North Korea. Ukraine gave up its Soviet nuclear weapons after the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which promised that Russia, the US, the UK, France, and China would guarantee its security. Yet Russia ended up invading 20 years later – and none of the others prevented it or sent troops to halt the Russian advance. Separately Libya gave up its nuclear program in 2003 but NATO attacked and toppled the regime in 2011 anyway. Meanwhile North Korea played the diplomatic game with the US, ever inching along on the path toward nuclear weapons, and today has achieved nuclear-armed status and greater regime security. The outflow of refugees from the various regimes shows why Iran will emulate North Korea (Chart 9). Chart 9Iran’s Strategic Constraint: The Need For A Nuclear Deterrent Bottom Line: Iran has a short-term economic incentive to agree to a deal and a long-term military incentive. But ultimately the US cannot provide ironclad security guarantees that would justify halting the quest for a nuclear deterrent. A nuclear deterrent would overcome the military constraint. Therefore Iran will continue on that path. Any deal will be a ruse to buy time. Final Assessment The 2015 deal occurred in a context of Iranian strategic isolation, when American implementation was credible, oil prices were weak, and Iran had not achieved nuclear breakout capacity. Today Iran is not isolated (thanks to US quarrels with Russia and China), American guarantees are not credible (thanks to the polarization of foreign policy), oil prices are not weak (thanks to Russia), and Iran has already achieved nuclear breakout (Table 4). Table 4Iran’s Nuclear Program Status Check, Aug. 31, 2022 The US’s strategic aim is to create a balance of power in the region but Iran’s strategic aim is to ensure regime survival. The US’s emerging balancing coalition (Israel and the Gulf Arab states) increases the strategic threat to Iran and hence its need for a nuclear deterrent. While Russia and China formally support the 2015 deal, they each see Iran as a valuable asset in a great power struggle with the United States. Iran sees them the same way. Russia needs Iran as a partner to bypass western sanctions. Regardless, it benefits from Middle Eastern instability, which could entangle the United States. China must develop a deep long-term partnership with Iran for its own strategic reasons and does not look forward to a time when the US divests from that region to impose tougher strategic containment on China. China can survive a US conflict with Iran – and such a conflict could reduce the US ability to defend Taiwan. While neither Russia nor China positively desire Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, neither power stopped North Korea from obtaining the bomb – far from it. Russia assumes that Israel and the US will take military action to prevent weaponization, which would be catastrophic for the region but positive for Russia. China also assumes Israel and the US will act, which reinforces its need to diversify energy options so that it can access Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern oil via pipeline. Investment Takeaways Our negative view on the global economy and geopolitical backdrop is once again being priced into global financial markets as equities fall anew. An Iran deal would delay a notable geopolitical risk for roughly the next 24 months and hence remove a major upside risk for oil prices. This would be marginally positive for global equities, although it will not be the driver. Europe’s and China’s economic woes are the drivers. The failure of a deal would bring major upside risks for oil into the near term and as such would be negative for equities – and could even become the global driver, as Middle Eastern oil disruptions will follow promptly from any failure of the deal. We continue to recommend that investors overweight US equities relative to global, defensive sectors relative to cyclicals, and large caps relative to small caps. We are overweight aerospace and defense stocks, India and Southeast Asia within emerging markets, and underweight China and Taiwan.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See Iran International, “Exclusive: Ex-IAEA Official Says US And Iran To Sign Deal Soon,” August 30, 2022, iranintl.com. See also Francois Murphy, “Iran enriching uranium with more IR-6 centrifuges at Natanz -IAEA,” Reuters, August 31, 2022, reuters.com. 2     See Saeed Ghasseminejad, “Tehran’s $1 Trillion Deal: An Updated Forecast of Iran’s Financial Windfall From a New Nuclear Agreement,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies, August 19, 2022, fdd.org. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary The Recovery of Chinese Property Market Relies On Home Sales Property sales, starts, developers’ total financing, and construction activity will likely continue to contract in the next three-to-six months, albeit at a slower rate. More supportive government policies will be released in the coming months, including mortgage rate cuts. It will take time for a recovery in sales and construction activity to occur, because of enormous excesses in the mainland property market/industry. Plus, China’s economy is challenged by the dynamic zero-COVID policy, a budding contraction in exports, and generally weak income growth.   Property developers started to shift their business model from “pre-selling, then completing” to “completing first, selling after.” The move is a long-term positive for China’s property market by reducing financial stability risk. However, it means that the industry will take a longer time to contribute to growth in the broader economy. Bottom Line: We continue to hold a bearish view on the share prices of both onshore and offshore Chinese property developers in absolute terms and relative to China’s overall equity benchmark. A continued weakness in construction volume in the next few months implies less demand for commodities, such as iron ore, steel, cement, and glass.   Chart 1Low Sentiment in Both Current and Future Income The turmoil in China’s property market has not abated. Homebuyers remain unwilling to buy houses because of concerns over widespread sold but unfinished properties, falling confidence in future incomes, and worsening employment expectations (Chart 1). Property sales, starts, and completions have all collapsed by 25-45% from their mid-2021 peak (Chart 2 and 3). However, these variables will likely start to improve on a rate-of-change basis (i.e., the pace of contraction will moderate) in the months ahead (Chart 3). The rationale is that accelerated policy easing in the housing sector will help on the margin. Notably, policies curbing housing demand have loosened much more this year than they did in 1H2020. Plus, the authorities will introduce more accommodative real estate policy initiatives later this year and early next year, including additional mortgage rate cuts. Chart 2Property Sales, Starts, And Completions Will Further Decline In Their Level Terms… Chart 3...Albeit Improving On A Rate-Of-Change Basis Nevertheless, the construction industry, its suppliers, and the entire economy will take small consolation from the moderating pace of decline in the property sector. The basis for this response is that the level of activity will continue falling in the next three-to-six months, albeit at a slower rate than that of the present moment. Overall, aggressive policy easing will take time to produce a meaningful recovery in the mainland’s property market because it is occurring amid the structural breakdown in the real estate market and a confidence crisis among stakeholders. Policy Support Has Accelerated  Chinese authorities have accelerated their policy initiatives in the real estate sector to restore homebuyers’ confidence and stabilize the sagging domestic property market. Chart 4The Recovery of Chinese Property Market Relies On Home Sales A nearly 30% year-on-year decline in floor space sold in residential commodity buildings has exacerbated a liquidity crisis among property developers. Deposits, advanced payments, and mortgage payments originating from property pre-sales, have historically contributed to about 50% of property developers’ financing (Chart 4, top panel). Hence, renewed homebuyers’ confidence and a revival in house purchases would alleviate the liquidity crunch among cash-strapped developers (Chart 4, bottom panel), who could then complete more housing units under construction. Chinese authorities have introduced an assortment of supportive housing measures, including the following: Measures To Help Complete Pre-Sold Apartments In response to the homebuyer confidence crisis, the Politburo demanded that local governments be responsible for ensuring the delivery of housing projects. Since July, at least 36 local governments in 15 provinces have released concrete policies in this respect (Box 1).   Box 1 Local Governments:  The Delivery Of Pre-sold Housing Units Turns into a Political Task "Pre-sale fund supervision"1 is an important policy related to "guaranteed delivery" for presold properties. Real estate development enterprises must deposit pre-sale funds into a bank's special supervision account, which can only be used for the construction of a specific project and cannot be withdrawn or used at will. Another important policy is implementing "one building, one policy" and stipulating local government involvement to resolve problems. With the support of local government, a fund required to complete an unfinished building can be raised in various ways including, but not limited to the following: 1) increasing financing from local banks or asset management companies;2  2) encouraging good SOEs or high-quality homebuilders to take over stalled projects; 3) local governments purchasing back unused land from property developers; or 4) asking desperate buyers of those pre-sold and unfinished projects to contribute additional funds.3   Last month, the authorities also established a real estate fund of initially RMB 80 billion, which was funded by China Construction Bank and the central bank. In mid-August, China introduced procedures to ensure property projects are delivered to buyers through special loans from policy banks. The amount of this special loan will be about RMB 200 billion.4 This will be also a part of the real estate fund established last month, which could potentially be increased to RMB 300-400 billion and will be used only to ensure the delivery of presold but unfinished projects. Moreover, the government started to ease policies on property developers’ onshore bond issuance. In August, Chinese regulators instructed China Bond Insurance to provide guarantees for onshore bond issuance by private property developers. We expect more policy easing on developers raising funds though bank loans and more onshore bond issuance (Chart 5).  Measures To Increase Homebuyers’ Affordability The average mortgage rate has been decreased three times so far this year, falling to 4.3% for first-time home buyers. This is the lowest rate since 2009 (Chart 6).  Chart 5Chinese Developers Needs More Policy Easing On Their Borrowing Chart 6Easing Policies On Mortgage Rate Since the beginning of this year, over 80 cities relaxed their restrictive policies on loan borrowing. Among these cities, nearly 60 lowered their down payment ratio for a first home purchase, while about 40 reduced their down payment ratio for a second home purchase.5 Local governments also offered financial support for shantytown renewal and cash rebates for home purchases. Multiple cities have also issued incentives to encourage households with second or third children to buy additional properties. Bottom Line: Authorities have ramped up their supportive housing policies in recent months.  We expect more policy stimulus (e.g., another mortgage rate cut) to be announced over the next three-to-six months. Housing Turnaround Takes Time Despite considerable supportive policies in place, housing starts and construction activity will continue to contract and home prices will deflate further in the next three-to-six months. The policies will take time to work, especially ones related to ensuring the delivery of pre-sold housing. A significant amount of financing will be required for problematic projects that real estate developers are unable to build and deliver. Many local governments are also facing financial distress. Therefore, it will take time to arrange financing from third parties. Even after securing financing for incomplete housing projects, there will be delays in the construction and delivery of these units. Potential homebuyers may be willing to purchase in installments and provide funds to developers, but only if they witness increased deliveries of pre-sold homes. These funds are critical to developers as they account for about half of their total financing (Chart 4 above). The willingness to buy has been suppressed by falling confidence over future incomes, worsening future employment expectations and weakening growth of current income (Chart 1 on page 2). The willingness of households to save recently hit a record level; it is higher than during the first outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020. Meantime, the propensity to invest has tumbled to a multi-year low (Chart 7). Chart 7More Chinese Households Intend To Save Rather Than Invest Chart 8Property Sales In Rich Eastern Provinces: Still In A Deep Contraction The growth of residential floor space sold in the eastern provinces often leads the rest of China (Chart 8). The Eastern provinces account for about 44% of China’s total residential floor space sales. Residential floor space sales in the Eastern provinces were still down by 30% in July.  The lack of an upturn in the Eastern provinces, especially after the re-opening in Shanghai and Shenzhen, indicates that a property market recovery will not be imminent or V-shaped. Chart 9A Majority Of Key Cities Have Declining Housing Prices Currently still 70% and 85% of the 70-city house price indexes are showing year-over-year price declines in newly constructed houses and secondary houses, respectively (Chart 9).  Shrinking pre-sales mean less financing for homebuilders and, ultimately, contracting property investment in the next three-to-six months (Chart 10). Many developers will continue to struggle to attract sufficient financing. Hence, they must cut their starts and completions (Chart 11). Chart 10Shrinking Pre-sales Will Lead To Falling Property Investment Chart 11Property Developers Have Been Starting And Preselling But Not Completing High prices/low affordability, speculative behavior of both developers and homebuyers, very high leverage and risky financing schemes, large volumes of supply and high inventories and vacancies , all need to be absorbed. A dynamic zero-COVID policy, a budding contraction in exports and generally weak income growth will challenge China’s economy in general.  Chart 12Insufficient Financing Will Lead To Weaker Construction Activity Ahead Bottom Line: The authorities’ supportive policies will take time to relieve the liquidity crisis among property developers and boost sentiment among homebuyers. Property sales, starts, developers’ total financing and construction activity will likely continue to contract in the next three-to-six months, albeit at a slower rate (Chart 12). A Structural Shift In Developers’ Business Model Chinese property developers started to shift their business model from “preselling, then completing” to “completing first, selling after.” The move is a long-term positive for China’s property market. It will lower the leverage of and curb real estate assets hoarding by developers and, thereby, improve stability in the industry. The old model of “preselling then completing” is not sustainable. In the past decade, Chinese real estate developers aggressively pursued a business model of “buying land, quickly starting property projects, and preselling unfinished homes but not completing them.”6  Chart 13A Structural Shift In Developers' Business Model As this model was essentially raising funds via launching property starts despite shrinking completions (Chart 13, top panel), it has resulted in a significant increase in Chinese property developers’ liabilities and unfinished construction carried on the balance sheet of developers. In short, as we have argued before, real estate developers have been involved in a massive carry trade. This is one of the root causes of the current crisis in China’s real estate sector. With this business model, developers carried real estate assets (land and started properties) on their balance sheets to benefit from the positive “carry”; i.e., the difference between the cost of funding and real estate asset price appreciation. However, the carry has turned negative as property asset prices are now flat or deflating rather than rising at double-digit rates. Hence, developers are under pressure to liquidate their assets and reduce their debts. Yet, to sell their not-pre-sold housing projects that are under construction, they first need new funds to complete unfinished homes before they can be sold. Furthermore, both the “three-red lines” policy for property developers and the new bank lending regulations limiting lending to the real estate sector – both put into effect in H2 2020 – remain in place. This means that Chinese real estate developers have no choice but to change their business model to a more sustainable one – the one with more sales coming from existing properties instead of pre-sales. The new model of “completing first, selling after” is a sustainable one. Homebuyers fear buying unfinished houses, preferring existing ones. Critically, increasing sales of existing houses will provide extra funds to debt-laden builders. In contrast, delivery of pre-sold units does not generate new cash for developers because most cash are received long before completion of a dwelling. Facing a liquidity crunch, there is no incentive for developers to complete pre-sold units. Chart 13 shows such a shift has been underway since mid-2021. Sales of completed houses increased considerably, while properties sold in advance plummeted. This trend also reflects a rising preference among homebuyers for completed properties. Buyers can visit and check the quality of a construction-completed unit versus paying for a future unknown unit. Meanwhile, property developers’ leverage will decline with this new business model. A caveat is that less financing from pre-sales means that developers will have a diminished ability to complete projects already started, and that they also need to reduce land purchases and land hoarding. Local government financing will remain tight as land sales account for 23% of local government aggregate expenditure. This will have negative ramifications on infrastructure spending. Bottom Line: Chinese real estate developers have begun shifting from an unsustainable and high-leverage business model to a new way of operating by which sales of completed properties will be prioritized at the expense of falling pre-sales. This will reduce financial stability risks in the future. Investment Implications We expect a continued decline in property sales, starts, completions, and property price deflation in the next three-to-six months. Thus, we maintain our bearish view of both onshore and offshore Chinese property developers’ share prices in absolute terms and relative to China’s overall equity benchmark (Chart 14).  Construction volume will be persistently weak in the coming months, which means less demand for commodities, such as iron ore, steel, cement, and glass. Hence, we expect prices for those commodities to drop further in the near run (Chart 15). Chart 14Chinese Property Developers' Stocks: Structural Breakdown Chart 15Bearish On Prices Of Construction-related Commodities   Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Supervision of pre-sale funds of presold properties refers to the third-party supervision of such funds by the real estate administrative department in conjunction with the bank. 2     This year, at least six asset management companies injected funds into stalled property projects. So far, the total funds raised for three projects amounts to RMB 17 billion. Source: https://m.huxiu.com/article/644633.html?f=rss 3    Desperate buyers face two options: either add funds to build an unfinished home or continue to wait for an indeterminate period. Buyers tend to increase funds to enable the resumption of construction. 4    Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-22/china-plans-29-billion-in-special-loans-to-troubled-developers  5    Source: https://news.stcn.com/sd/202208/t20220826_4822460.html  6    Please see China Investment Strategy Special Reports "China’s Property Market: Making Sense Of Divergences," dated May 9, 2019, and "China: Is The Property Carry Trade Over?" dated October 28, 2021, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Executive Summary The US dollar has become expensive, but it is not unusual for currencies to overshoot or undershoot their fair value. Valuation is not an effective market timing tool. In the US, high interest rates and a strong exchange rate are needed to bring down inflation. The US dollar will remain firm as long as the Fed maintains its credibility in the fight against inflation. China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. The PBoC will continue cutting interest rates. Persistent divergence between Chinese and US monetary policies heralds further yuan depreciation against the dollar. For a number of EM countries, exchange rate fluctuations have historically determined trends in their interest rates rather than the other way around (i.e., interest rates dictating EM currency trends). Shrinking global trade will boost the US dollar while EM currencies will depreciate further. The US Dollar Is Expensive But Could Still Overshoot Bottom Line: We continue to short the following currencies versus the USD: ZAR, COP, PEN, PLN and IDR. In addition, we recommend shorting HUF vs. CZK, KRW vs. JPY, and BRL vs. MXN. Macro forces that are bullish for the US dollar are bearish for global equities and other risk assets. A defensive investment stance is still warranted. Feature The US dollar is now in expensive territory (Chart of the week above) but we maintain our view that the US dollar is poised to overshoot. Chart 1EM Currencies Are Breaking Down BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team has been structurally bullish on the US dollar since 2011, with a brief period during which we sidestepped our positive view from July 9, 2020 until late March 2021 (Chart 1). We then re-instated short positions in select EM currencies versus the US dollar on March 25, 2021. This strategy has paid off. In this report, we discuss reasons why we expect the greenback to continue overshooting in the near run. Currency Valuations In Appendix 1 we present our valuation models for various currencies using the real effective exchange rate (REER) based on unit labor costs. In our opinion, the REER based on unit labor costs is the most accurate measure of exchange rate valuation. The basis is that it takes into account both wages and productivity. Labor costs are the largest cost component for many companies, and unit labor costs are critical to competitiveness. Hence, this measure is superior to the ones based on CPI and PPI. Table 1Currency Valuation Ranking Using Real Effective Exchange Rate Based on Unit Labor Costs* The underlying data for the REER based on unit labor costs are from the IMF and OECD. Unfortunately, the IMF and OECD do not provide REER based on unit labor costs for many emerging economies. Appendix 1 contains valuation indicators for those EM exchange rates (MXN, CLP, COP, KRW, SING, PLN, HUF and CZK) for which IMF or OECD data is available. Charts 15-17 in the appendix show that the US dollar is currently more than one standard deviation above its fair value. Meanwhile, the euro and yen are extremely cheap – each standing at more than one standard deviation below their respective fair value.   Table 1 shows the valuation ranking of various currencies using REER based on unit labor costs. For mainstream EM currencies, excluding China, Russia, Korea and Taiwan, we have built valuation aggregates using an average REER based on CPI and PPI measures. Chart 2 presents an equal-weighted aggregate REER based on CPI and PPI for 15 EM currencies. This indicator does not suggest that mainstream EM currencies are cheap. Finally, the same indicator − REER based on CPI and PPI – for the Chinese yuan reveals that the currency is modestly cheap (0.8 standard deviation below its mean) (Chart 3). Chart 2Mainstream EM Currencies Are Not Cheap Chart 3The RMB Is Modestly Cheap But Might Undershoot   While we acknowledge that the US dollar is expensive, we continue to expect the greenback to overshoot over the coming months. First, valuations matter only at extremes. Most currencies (other than the yen and the euro) are not cheap. For example, Charts 21-24 (in the Appendix) demonstrate that commodity currencies including AUD, NZD, and NOK are on the expensive side, while the Canadian dollar is fairly valued. Second, our macro themes – a hawkish Fed and contracting global trade (discussed below) − call for a stronger greenback. Finally, our Foreign Exchange Strategy team has shown that momentum indicators work well for currency trading in the short term. Bottom Line: The US dollar has become expensive, but it is not unusual for currencies to overshoot or undershoot their fair value. Valuation is not an effective market timing tool. Presently, the US dollar's momentum is strong and it will likely continue supporting the currency's upward trajectory. Monetary Policy Divergence Chart 4US Core Inflation Is Well Above 2% The US economy is relatively less exposed to headwinds from rising interest rates than the rest of the world. This dynamic favors the US dollar against other currencies. US: We view US inflation as genuine and entrenched. The average of seven measures of underlying inflation remains very elevated at 5.5% (Chart 4). In the US, high interest rates and a strong exchange rate are needed to bring down inflation. As long as the Fed remains committed to bringing down inflation, the US dollar will be firm. The US dollar will plummet if the Fed turns dovish prematurely. The basis is that US inflation expectations will spike and real interest rates will tumble, which will weigh on the dollar. Although the Fed might eventually pivot earlier than needed, this policy shift is not imminent. China: In contrast with the US, China’s inflation is too low: core and services CPI inflation have rolled over and are below 1% (Chart 5). The mainland economy is extremely weak, and the property market is struggling. China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. The PBoC will continue cutting interest rates. Persistent divergence between Chinese and US monetary policies heralds further yuan weakness against the dollar (Chart 6). Chart 5China's Inflation Is Too Low And Falling Chart 6The CNY Will Depreciate Versus The USD     A weakening RMB versus the US dollar is typically associated with declining commodity prices (Chart 7). Falling commodity prices will weigh on commodity currencies. The yuan depreciation will also continue reinforcing the downtrend in emerging Asian currencies. Mainstream EM: For many emerging markets, interest rates do not explain fluctuations in their currencies. In developing countries that run current account deficits and/or rely on foreign capital, interest rates rise when their exchange rates plummet (Chart 8). Chart 7CNY Depreciation = Lower Commodity Prices Chart 8Interest Rates Do Not Drive EM FX   On the flip side, appreciating EM currencies unleash disinflationary pressures in their domestic economies, giving room for central banks to cut rates. Therefore, for EM economies that are dependent on global capital, it is exchange rates that have historically dictated interest rate dynamics, rather than the other way around. Continental Europe: The European economy is hamstrung by extremely high energy prices and rising interest rates. Importantly, wages in Europe are not rising as fast as they are in the US. Household real disposable income is falling faster in Europe than it is in the US. Plus, the continental European economy is more exposed than the US to global trade − which is about to contract (more on this below). Thus, the European economy has a reduced capacity to absorb higher borrowing costs vis-a-vis the US. Consequently, the real interest rate differential will continue moving in favor of the US, supporting the greenback versus the euro. The Anglo-Saxon block: The US economy will prove to be more resilient to higher borrowing costs than many other DM economies such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. As a result, the interest rate differential will move in favor of the US dollar. Chart 9US Households Have Deleveraged In many of these countries, the household debt burden is higher than it is in the US. In fact, US consumer debt and debt servicing have fallen significantly over the past 15 years (Chart 9). Importantly, a considerable portion of outstanding mortgages in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have either a floating rate or a fixed rate for only a few years. As borrowing costs rise, consumer finances in these countries will experience material distress. By comparison, the majority of outstanding US mortgages are fixed for 30 years or so. Hence, rising borrowing costs hurt new American homebuyers but do not impact existing mortgage holders. Bottom Line: On a relative basis, the US is in a better position to absorb higher interest rates than many other economies. As a result, the interest rate differential will move in favor of the US over the rest of the world, hence, supporting the greenback in the near run. Shrinking Global Trade Is Bullish For The US Dollar The US dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, and it will continue to appreciate as the global manufacturing cycle slows (Chart 10).  The rationale is that manufacturing and exports constitute a smaller share of GDP in the US than in many other major economies. What if Fed over-tightening, causes a recession and pushes down US interest rates considerably? Would the US dollar plunge in this case? We do not believe so. Instead, a recession could be positive for the broad trade-weighted dollar. As US domestic demand and consumption shrink, its imports will also drop. The US dollar often rallies when the nation’s imports are contracting (Chart 11). Chart 10The US Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency Chart 11Shrinking US Imports = Rising US Dollar   Dwindling imports mean that the US will be emitting fewer dollars to the rest of the world. Global US dollar liquidity will continue to shrink, and the greenback will rally further, including against EM currencies (Chart 12). Bottom Line: As global trade shrinks, the US dollar will extend its rally. Mainstream EM Currencies In the long run, return on capital – not interest rate differentials – drive mainstream EM currencies. Chart 12 illustrates that EM currencies depreciate when their return on equity differential versus the US is negative and vice versa. In turn, the key driver of return on capital is productivity. Productivity growth has been downshifting across mainstream EMs since 2007 (Chart 13). Chart 12Tightening Global USD Liquidity = A Strong US Dollar Chart 13EM vs. US: Relative Return On Capital And Exchange Rates       Weak productivity growth and lower return on capital (versus the US) explain EM currency and equity underperformance since 2010. We have not yet detected a major change in EM fundamentals. Investment Strategy Chart 14Weak EM Productivity = EM Currency Depreciation The US dollar will overshoot in the near term. We continue to short the following currencies versus the USD: ZAR, COP, PEN, PLN and IDR. In addition, we recommend shorting HUF vs. CZK, KRW vs. JPY, and BRL vs. MXN. When the dollar appreciates it is neither the time to be long EM risk assets in absolute terms nor to be overweight EM in global equity and fixed-income portfolios. We continue underweighting EM in global equity and credit portfolios. EM local currency bonds offer value, but further currency depreciation and more rate hikes by their central banks are near-term risks to EM domestic bonds. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Appendix   Chart 15The US Dollar Chart 16The Japanese Yen Chart 17The Euro Chart 18The British Pound Chart 19The Swiss Franc Chart 20The Swedish Krona Chart 21The Norwegian Krone Chart 22The Canadian Dollar Chart 23The Australian Dollar Chart 24The New Zealand Dollar Chart 25The Korean Won Chart 26The Singapore Dollar Chart 27The Mexican Peso Chart 28The Chilean Peso Chart 29The Colombian Peso Chart 30The Polish Zloty Chart 31The Hungarian Forint Chart 32The Czech Koruna Footnotes   Strategic Themes (18 Months And Beyond) Equities Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)