Equities

Special Report

Dear Client, I have been on the road visiting clients in St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Chicago this week. Instead of our regular Weekly Report, we are sending you a Special Report on European bank stocks written by my colleague Xiaoli Tang from our Global Asset Allocation service. In advance of the holiday season, we will be publishing next week’s report summarizing our key views for 2019 on Tuesday morning. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist   Highlights Euro area bank profits are driven more by economic growth than monetary factors. This growth link explains the close correlation between the relative performance of banks within the euro area and the relative performance between euro area and U.S. equities. It also highlights the importance of euro area banks to global asset allocators. Euro area banks now have attractive valuations, which are offset however by a lackluster profit outlook. Long-term investors should avoid banks in the region. Investors with a more tactical mandate and much nimbler style could use our valuation indicators to “time” their entry and exit into banks as a short-term trade. Feature Banks in the euro area have underperformed the region’s broader market by about 50% since March 2009, when global equities reached their financial crisis lows. In the same period, the overall euro area equity index also underperformed U.S. equities by about 50% in common-currency terms. In fact, the relative performance of euro area banks to the euro area broad market has been joined at the hip with the relative performance of euro area equities vs. U.S. equities over the past decade (Chart 1, panel 1). Getting the bank view right in the euro area is therefore an important input into our country allocation decision between U.S. and euro area equities. Chart 1Is It Time To Buy Euro Area Banks? With a more than 50% discount to the broad market in terms of price-to-book (P/B), banks are now looking very cheap. However, banks in the euro area have always traded at a discount to the broader market on an absolute basis. Currently the relative P/B reading of 0.45 is only slightly lower than the 3-year average of 0.47 – still higher than the lower band of the valuation range (Chart 1, panel 2). The relative dividend yield also gives similar information (Chart 1, panel 3). Historically, when the relative P/B discount hits the lower band and the relative dividend yield hits the upper band, a rebound in relative return performance could be expected. In order to support sustainable outperformance, however, banks need to have sustained profitability. In this Special Report, we delve into the fundamental factors that affect a bank’s profit outlook such as capital position, loan growth and non-performing loan situation to determine if banks in the euro area are cheap for a reason, or are about to embark on a period of sustainable outperformance. What Drives Bank Share Performance? According to research published in BCA’s Global Asset Allocation Special Report on July 27, 2017,1 it is clear that return on equity (ROE) has historically been closely correlated with the performance of bank shares, especially on a relative-to-the-broad-market basis (Chart 2, panel 1). Chart 2Euro Area Bank Performance Drivers The recovery of ROE has so far been tepid. This is largely a result of deleveraging in the banking system and very low asset utilization, because both return on assets and net profit margins have recovered strongly (Chart 2, panels 2 and 3). Since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), euro area banks have steadily reduced leverage to a multi-decade low, while asset utilization has been in a downtrend since the 1990s – even though this ratio seems to have been stabilizing over the past few years. Profit margins reached a historical high of 12.7% in Q4/2006, then collapsed during the GFC and reached a low of 0.34% in Q3/2009. The subsequent rebound in profit margins was short-circuited by the euro debt crisis, causing net profit margins to plummet into negative territory, reaching a historical low of -7.6% in Q3/2012. They have recovered strongly since, reaching 9.8% in Q3/2018, not far from the 2006 peak margin level. As such, banks have to increase their leverage and asset utilization in order to generate higher ROE. This also means they need to increase their asset base and take on more risk. Do banks in the euro area have the ability to do so? Capital Adequacy Vs. Deleveraging The capital adequacy ratio (CAR), the ratio of a bank’s regulatory capital to its risk-weighted assets, measures a bank’s ability to absorb shocks. As shown in Chart 3, banks in all countries have steadily increased this ratio since the GFC. Banks in Ireland, the Netherlands and Finland have the highest CAR values, but they have all come down from their respective peak levels. On the other hand, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese banks have the lowest CAR readings, though they are still improving. French banks stand out because their capital adequacy ratio has been in a steady uptrend with the least volatility. Chart 3Improving Capital Position, But... Looking at CAR alone, however, could be misleading when trying to gauge a bank’s capital situation. In fact, the generally rising capital adequacy ratio has mainly been achieved through the reduction of risk-weighted assets in all countries except France (Chart 4). Chart 4...With Massive Leverage French banks’ risk-weighted assets have been more or less stable since 2006, with a small decline into 2015 and a gradual increase since. Belgian banks have also experienced similar asset growth as French banks over the past few years, though that is after massive deleveraging occurred between 2007 and 2014 (Chart 4, panel 1). Both Spanish and Italian banks tried to grow assets in 2014 after several years of deleveraging, but the attempt was short-lived as both resumed asset reduction, starting in 2015 (Chart 4, panel 2). Dutch banks seem to have stabilized their asset base since 2014, while Irish banks, which cut half their asset base between 2010 and 2014, have continued to deleverage, albeit at a much slower pace (Chart 4, panel 3). The deleveraging process in Portuguese and Finish banks has been ongoing since 2010, and it seems that the painful deleveraging process may have come to a stage of stabilization (Chart 4, panel 4). In terms of regulatory capital, the numerator of the capital adequacy ratio, French banks again stand out with a steadily increasing regulatory capital base, while Dutch banks have also grown their regulatory capital base at a similar pace. The regulatory capital bases in Spanish, Italian and Belgian banks, however, have been oscillating over the past decade, while Portuguese and Irish banks’ regulatory capitals have declined significantly (Chart 5). Chart 5Regulatory Capital Growth: No Synchronization Another indicator of bank resilience, the ratio of non-performing-loans (NPLs) net of provision relative to capital, measures if a bank can write off all of its bad loans and remain solvent. How do all the banks measure up in this aspect? Even though banks in all countries now have good readings (less than 100%), both Italy and Portugal were under severe stress until only a few years ago. Despite significant improvement since, banks in these two countries still have high levels of bad loans relative to capital compared to banks in other countries in the region (Chart 6). Chart 6Bad Loans Are Well Provisioned Loan Quality Vs. Quantity The ratio of NPLs-to-gross loans provides potentially useful insights into the quality of assets. NPL ratios in France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, and Finland are all less than 5%, while those in Italy, Portugal and Ireland are higher than 10%, and Spain is in between (Chart 7). Since the peak around 2015, the NPL ratios in all countries other than Finland have come down. Compared to levels before 2006, however, bad loan ratios are still high. Chart 7NPL Ratio In addition, despite the improvement in asset quality, banks have not aggressively grown their loan books. Only banks in France and Finland have been consistently lending to their respective private sectors – along with German banks, albeit at a lesser pace. Lending to the private sector in Spain, Portugal and Ireland has in fact contracted by 40%-50% since 2008, while loan growth from banks in Italy, Austria and the Netherlands has basically been flat since the GFC, as shown in Chart 8. Chart 8Bank Loans To Private Sector Exposure To Emerging Markets Banks in the euro area are known to have a strong presence in the emerging markets. As shown in panel 1 of Chart 9, Spanish banks have more than doubled their lending to emerging markets (EM) since 2006; even after a reduction over the past two years, loans to EM still account for over 16% of total lending. This stands in stark contrast to their domestic lending, which has contracted sharply since peaking in early 2009 (Chart 8, panel 3). Portuguese banks share similar patterns to Spanish banks in terms of loan growth to EM and domestically, however, their absolute amounts have been much smaller (Chart 8, panel 3 and Chart 9, panel 2). Dutch banks shrank their loan books to EM right after the GFC but have been gradually building them back up since 2011, while Austrian banks have been steadily reducing the pace of their lending to EM (Chart 9, panels 3 and 4). Chart 9Bank Exposure To EM After the turbulence earlier this year in Turkey and Argentina, BCA’s Global Investment Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy services identified six countries (Argentina, Turkey, Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, and Chile) as the most vulnerable to catching the “Turkish Flu,” based on the following factors: current account balance, net international investment position, external debt, external debt-service obligation, external funding requirements, private-sector savings/investment, private-sector debt, government budget balance, government debt, foreign ownership of local-currency bonds, and inflation2 (Table 1). The vulnerability of Latin America highlights the poor performance of Spanish banks, given their heavy exposure to the region. For example, Banco Santander, the largest Spanish bank and also the largest component in the euro area bank index, has aggressively expanded into Latin America to beef up asset utilization and return on assets. However, loan quality from Latin America has been much lower, as evidenced by the much-higher percentage of bad loan provisions from the region compared to its share of loans. Currently, loans to Latin America account for about 18% of total lending, yet bad loan provisions account for about 42% of total provisions (Chart 10). Chart 10Banco Santander: More Like An EM Bank Exposure To Italian Government Debt The fiscal budget saga in Italy has been a negative factor impacting euro area assets, especially Italian banks. Italian banks have been large buyers of Italian government debt securities, reaching over 400 billion euros at the peak and accounting for about a quarter of total debt securities. Following the European Central Bank’s quantitative easing program (QE) that started in March 2015, Italian banks’ share of government debt holdings subsequently dropped to about 18% by the end of 2017. In 2018, however, Italian banks purchased more government bonds to a level of 393.8 billion euros as of September 2018, or about 20% of the overall debt securities outstanding – only a tad lower than the peak level before the QE program (Chart 11). Chart 11Italian Debt By Type Of Investor Now the ECB’s QE program is expected to come to an end soon. With government debt securities holdings accounting for 24% of tier 1 capital in Italian banks, (Chart 12), investors should pay close attention to the “Doom Loop,” i.e. when weakening government bonds threaten to topple the banks that own those bonds, the banks are forced to unload the bond holdings, which in turn pushes the government into additional fiscal stress. Chart 12The Doom Loop Moreover, Italian banks are not the only banks in the euro area which are exposed to Italian government debt. According to the European Banking Authority’s 2017 Transparency Exercise, French and Spanish banks held 44 billion euros and 29 billion euros of Italian debt, respectively. For example, the largest French bank, BNP Paribas (BNP), which is the second-largest component by market cap in the euro area bank index, has gradually added more Italian government debt securities since 2015 (when the ECB started buying Italian bonds) following a large reduction in 2011 (Chart 13). Investment Implications The euro area banks and diversified financial sector indices are currently mostly dominated by Spain (30%), France (25%) and Italy (15%), which all have grown at the expense of the German banks over the past two decades (Chart 14). Chart 14Euro Area Bank Index: High Concentration From a fundamental perspective, only French banks have both good-quality assets with decent and steady loan growth; the largest weight – Spanish banks – has experienced negative loan growth domestically while expanding aggressively to emerging markets up until 2017. Some may argue that exposure to Italian debt and emerging markets may have already been fully priced in, given the massive underperformance of the banks. This may well be true, and there could be a short-term bounce in bank stocks, given the attractive valuation metrics. For long-term investors, however, such a bounce may not be captured easily. We suggest long-term investors stay away from euro area banks, in line with our regional equity view of favoring the U.S. over the euro area. Why? Because cheap valuations are offset by lackluster profit outlook at a time when growth is slowing and monetary policy is becoming less accommodative (Charts 15A and 15B). Relative earnings growth for both banks and diversified financials are closely tied to the euro area PMI, the leading indicator for economic growth (Charts 15A and 15B, panel 2). This growth link explains why the banks’ relative performance in the euro area has such a close correlation with the performance of euro area equities relative to their U.S. peers. Chart 15APoor Profit Outlook For Banks Chart 15BPoor Profit Outlook For Diversified Financials For investors with a more tactical mandate and much nimbler style, however, Chart 1 could be used as a guide to “time” an entry and exit to the industry: go overweight when the relative price-to-book reaches the lower band and relative dividend yield reaches the upper band, and vice versa.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1 Euro Area Bank Indexes Different index providers have different classifications and compositions for banks, based on their different respective index methodologies.3, 4 GAA uses the MSCI All Country Equity index as its global equity benchmark. As such, whenever possible, we use the MSCI indexes in our research work. When data is not available from MSCI, however, we also use the Datastream Thomson Reuters (Datastream) index. In this Special Report, we have combined the MSCI “Bank Index” and “Diversified Financials Index” into one Aggregate Bank Index for one reason: MSCI reclassified Deutsche Bank as a “diversified financial” from a “bank” in 2003. Appendix Table 1 and Appendix Table 2 show the comparisons between the Datastream Bank Index and the MSCI Aggregate Bank Index. Even though Datastream includes 16 countries and MSCI includes only eight countries, both indexes are quite concentrated in Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands. These four countries account for 77.4% of the Datastream Bank Index with 34 stocks, while they account for 78.8% of the MSCI aggregate bank index with 19 stocks. What’s more, the top five stocks are the same in both indexes, but they account for half of the MSCI Aggregate Bank Index and only 42% of the Datastream Bank Index.   Consequently, while the two indexes are quite similar, users should be aware of the differences. For example, since March 2009, the MSCI Aggregate Bank index has underperformed the broader index by 48%, but Datastream banks have underperformed the broad index by 55%, as shown in Appendix Chart 1. Footnotes   1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “What Drives Bank Share Performance?” dated July 27, 2017 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Hot Dollar, Cold Turkey,” dated August 17, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see https://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_GIMIMethodology_Nov2018.pdf 4 Please see http://www.datastream.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DatastreamGlobalEquityIndicesUGissue05.pdf  

Highlights A progressing Sino-U.S. trade truce, rallying commodities and EM FX as well as improving Swedish economic activity point to a respite in the global growth slowdown. This should support commodity currencies and cause a correction in the dollar – moves we would fade. Ultimately, tightening U.S. policy and a rising Chinese marginal propensity to save point to both slower growth and a stronger dollar over the coming six to nine months. The European Central Bank is extremely data dependent, and in our view, our outlook on global growth will compromise the ECB’s ability to lift rates in September 2019. A tactical trade: Sell EUR/GBP. Feature Glimmers of hope are emerging for dollar bears and EM bulls. The Sino-U.S. trade truce seems to be progressing: Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, was released on bail this week, and U.S. President Donald Trump suggested he would lean in her favor; China dropped its tariffs on U.S. auto imports to 15%; and the communication channels between China and the U.S. are clearly open. Green shoots for global growth have also emerged, with commodity prices staging a bit of a rebound, and data in some small, open economies very levered to global growth showing improvement. These developments can easily help risk assets temporarily rebound, lifting EM currencies and G-10 commodity currencies in the process while hurting the greenback for a month or two. However, we remain doubtful that these glimmers of hope for global growth will morph into a sustained rebound in global industrial activity. Consequently, we are inclined to use any weakness in the greenback to buy the dollar, and any rebound in EM and commodity currencies to sell them in anticipation of deeper lows. A Set Up For Some Dollar Weakness… The continued warming up in Sino-U.S. relations is encouraging, but as we argued last week, a more important consideration is whether global growth is finding a floor.1 In recent weeks, a few market signals have offered some hope. The growth-sensitive CRB Raw Industrials index has been firming, and the Baltic Dry index has recouped 40% of its loss from August to November (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Green Shoots In The Commodity Space... EM FX has also staged a bit of a rebound, led by the Turkish lira. The most positive development on this front has been the recent gains in the yuan. Its rebound keeps at bay a large deflationary shock for the global economy, and the stability in EM FX means that EM financial conditions are not deteriorating further (Chart I-2). Chart I-2...Green Shoots In EM FX... In our view, the greatest source of optimism comes from the Swedish economy. Sweden is a small, open economy where industrial and intermediate goods account for 25% of exports, or 11% of GDP. Its manufacturing PMI have been rebounding – a phenomenon repeated across multiple data sets. In fact, our diffusion index of 15 Swedish economic variables has been recovering. Based on history, the current recovery in the Swedish economic advance/decline line points to an upcoming rebound in EM exports growth, and to a temporary stabilization in the Global Leading Economic Indicator (Chart I-3). Chart I-3...And Green Shoots In Sweden As Well! Any sign of stabilization in global economic activity will generate a period of weakness in the dollar, a traditionally countercyclical currency, which has now been made more vulnerable to good global growth by extended long speculative positioning. However, before bailing on the greenback, we need to see if this period of respite for the world will prove durable. Bottom Line: Indications that the Sino-U.S. trade truce has staying power for now, coupled with signs from both financial market prices and from Sweden – one of the G-10’s most growth sensitive economies – are likely to prompt a dollar correction over the next month or two. Short-term traders are likely to be able to take advantage of this move. ...But Not For A Cyclical Top… Even the most ferocious dollar bull markets can be punctuated by periods of weakness. This was the case throughout the first half of the 1980s and the second half of the 1990s. There is no reason why this rally will prove different. Thus, a period of stabilization in global growth prompting a dollar correction should not come as a surprise. However, at this juncture, the global policy set up still favors remaining long the dollar and using any correction to build up bigger long-dollar bets. Today, our BCA central bank monitor continues to point to the need of tightening U.S. monetary policy. However, the same cannot be said about the rest of the G-10 in aggregate. We estimated the performance of G-10 currency pairs versus the dollar when, like today, the BCA central bank monitors showed a greater need for policy tightening in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. What we found was during the past 26 years, this kind of environment is associated with depreciations versus the U.S. dollar in the euro, the yen, the Australian dollar, the Canadian dollar, the Swiss franc and the Scandinavian currencies (Chart I-4). Interestingly, the GBP and the NZD seem to buck this trend. Chart I-4The Current Currency Setup Is Dollar Bullish The EUR/USD pair is of particular interest, as it accounts for 58% of the DXY dollar index and is often the preferred vehicle for investors to bet on the dollar’s trend. Right now, in sharp contrast with the U.S., the euro area central bank monitor points to a need for easing policy in Europe (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Economic Conditions Warrant More Hikes In The U.S., But Not In Europe... We expect our monitors to continue to point toward the need for tighter U.S. than European monetary policy. Today, European growth has decelerated, and the slowdown in euro area M1 money supply indicates that continental growth will slow further before finding a bottom (Chart I-6, top panel). The European Central Bank is not immune to growth risks. Chart I-6...And This Is Not About To Change Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is fixated on inflationary developments, especially those emanating from the labor market. While U.S. core PCE has disappointed, U.S. wages, as measured by average hourly earnings and the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, are all trending higher (Chart I-6, middle panel). Moreover, while there has been a concerning slowdown in the U.S. housing sector, mortgage applications are beginning to regain some vigor (Chart I-6, bottom panel). The Fed may thus pause in March, but we do not think it is done hiking for the remainder of 2019, as markets currently expect. As a result, we anticipate one-year-ahead policy differentials between the U.S. and the DXY-weighted G-10 central banks to widen, lifting the dollar in the process (Chart I-7). Therefore, any dollar correction should be short-lived. Investors with longer investment horizons than three months should ride the volatility and remain long the dollar. Chart I-7More Dollar Upside Bottom Line: BCA’s Fed monitor is pointing to the need for further U.S. rate hikes. Meanwhile, outside the U.S., G-10 policy should remain easy. Historically, this set-up is associated with dollar strength. The dichotomy between slowing European growth and growing U.S. wages suggests expected policy differentials will remain negative for EUR/USD. Stay long the dollar. ...Especially As China Remains Challenged China is now such an important diver of the global industrial cycle that it could nullify any of the conclusions noted above. However, at this point, Chinese economic dynamics seem to reinforce the dollar-bullish outcome, not weaken it. Chinese policy rates have collapsed, and the People’s Bank of China has cut the Reserve Requirement Ratio to 14.5%, injecting RMB 750 billion into the interbank market. This apparent easing in policy lifted hopes that we would see a significant rebound in the credit number in November. However, as Chart I-8 illustrates, total social financing excluding equity issuance has not picked up and continues to crawl along at a 16-year low. Moreover, the shadow-banking sector remains weak. Chart I-8Despite Stimulus, Chinese Credit Is Still Slowing Why is the Chinese economy not responding to what seems like an easing in liquidity conditions? First, it is far from clear that Beijing has abandoned its desire to limit the growth of indebtedness in China. As a result, bankers remain reluctant to open the lending taps aggressively. Second, Chinese borrowers themselves have curtailed their appetite for credit. After binging on easy credit, state-owned enterprises have misallocated vast amounts of capital and are now unable to generate sufficient returns on assets to cover their costs of borrowing (Chart I-9). Meanwhile, the private sector is also reluctant to borrow aggressively amid uncertainty regarding the Chinese growth outlook. Chart I-9Too Much Debt Leads To Misallocated Capital The result is a sharp rise in the Chinese marginal propensity to save (MPS). We can approximate China’s MPS by looking at the growth of M2 money supply relative to M1. The difference between the two monetary aggregates are savings deposits. If M2 grows faster than M1, Chinese economic agents are parking their funds in savings deposits faster than they are adding to their checking accounts, despite low interest rates. This suggests a greater desire to save. This means it will take much more stimulus than what has so far been injected into the Chinese economy to put a floor under growth. Indeed, this proxy for China’s MPS has historically been a reliable leading indicator of Chinese economic activity, announcing turning points in the Li Keqiang index (Chart I-10, top panel). The rising MPS is currently signaling a further deceleration in Chinese import volumes growth (Chart I-10, second panel), which is reflected in a call for greater downside to global export growth (Chart I-10, third panel). Finally, China’s MPS also forewarns that global industrial activity, as measured by our nowcast, will slow more (Chart I-10, bottom panel). In aggregate, China’s rising marginal propensity to save clearly points toward further global growth weakness. Chart I-10China's Rising Marginal Propensity To Save Hurts Global Growth As we have shown many times, slowing global growth is good for the dollar, as it has a more negative impact on economic activity outside the U.S. than inside.2 Additionally, when global growth decelerates in response to slowing Chinese economic activity, Chinese interest rates also normally fall relative to U.S. ones, as China is forced to ease policy vis-a-vis the U.S. This interest rate differential has already narrowed considerably. If the correlation of the past 12 years is any guide, this means the recent rebound in the CNY is to be faded, and that USD/CNY has significant upside in the upcoming six to nine months (Chart I-11). This is deflationary for the global economy. Chart I-11Chinese Rates Will Further Lag U.S. Ones, The Yuan Will Follow The impact of falling Chinese interest rates relative to the U.S. is not limited to the USD/CNY. As Chart I-12 shows, when U.S. one-year rates rise relative to China, the DXY also strengthens. This is again because U.S. rates overtake Chinese rates in an environment where global growth is slowing. Today, U.S. 12-month rates are higher than Chinese rates, and the differential will widen as Chinese policymakers are forced to continue stimulating. Hence, any correction in the USD should prove transitory. Chart I-12When U.S. Rates Rise Relative To China, The DXY Appreciates The impact of these dynamics is most evident in the currencies of the economies most exposed to the Chinese business cycle. As Chart I-13 shows, when Chinese 12-month interest rates fall relative to U.S. 12-month rates, EM FX and G-10 commodity currencies depreciate significantly. A further drop in the Sino-U.S. spread, a consequence of a high and rising MPS hurting Chinese growth, will lead to further weakness in EM FX, the AUD, the NZD, the CAD, and the NOK against the dollar. Thus, it seems any respite these currencies may currently enjoy will prove temporary. Chart I-13Falling Sino-U.S. Spreads Will Hurt EM FX And Commodity Currencies Bottom Line: Despite injections of stimulus, China’s credit growth is not rising because the Chinese marginal propensity to save has risen significantly. It will take much more stimulus before credit growth rises anew. Thus, Chinese and global growth will not find a durable bottom for at least two more quarters. This implies that rate differentials between China and the U.S. will fall further, and hence USD/CNY and the DXY have more upside on a six- to nine-month basis, even if they weaken in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, EM FX and commodity currencies have a lot more downside in their future. ECB: The End Of An Era Yesterday, the ECB announced the well-anticipated end of its asset purchase program, but couched its discussion in rather hedged terms. The ECB focused on the importance of forward guidance and is open to adding to the TLTRO program if need be. The first rate hike being through the summer of 2019 is clearly conditional on economic circumstances. In this regard, the ECB downgraded its growth forecast for 2018 and 2019 to 1.9% from 2% and to 1.7% from 1.8%, respectively. The inflation forecast was revised up to 1.8% from 1.7% in 2018 and was revised down to 1.6% from 1.7% in 2019. Additionally, ECB President Mario Draghi highlighted that risks to the forecasts are balanced, but downside risk is growing. Not only do we agree that downside risk is growing, we also agree on the source of this risk: foreign growth and global protectionism. However, on this front, we are more pessimist than the ECB as we expect a greater deterioration in EM conditions and global trade. As a result, we think that risks are very significant that the ECB will find it difficult to implement a first rate hike in September 2019, yet markets are currently pricing in a 10 basis-point move that month. Hence, we expect that if our view on global growth is correct, the ECB will guide markets to price in the first hike later than September 2019, a process that will weigh on the euro, especially as investors already take a dim view on the capacity of the Fed to lift rates next year. Bottom Line: The ECB is ending its asset purchase program, but it remains committed to supporting growth in the euro area. The ECB is now heavily leaning on forward guidance, and any policy tightening is conditional on economic circumstances. BCA’s view on global growth suggests that it will be hard for the ECB to lift rates in September 2019. Short-Term Trade: Sell EUR/GBP This week’s political survival of Prime Minister Theresa May means that for another year, the hard Brexiters cannot challenge her for leadership of the Conservative Party. While it does not mean that the Brexit saga is over, it does mean that the probability of a Hard, No-Deal Brexit has fallen even further. As such, this implies that the politically driven rally in EUR/GBP since mid November is likely to reverse (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Tactical Trade: Sell EUR/GBP Additionally, the outperformance of British wages relative to the euro area should also support the pound in the short term (Chart I-15). A lower risk of a crash Brexit together with an ECB displaying a somewhat dovish side should cause an upgrade by investors in the expected path of monetary policy in the U.K. relative to the euro area. Moreover, while the euro area current account surplus has rolled over, the U.K.’s is steadily improving, making the pound progressively less dependent on international flows. Chart I-15Relative Wages Favor BoE Hikes Versus ECB Hikes As such, we are opening a tactical trade: selling EUR/GBP with a tight stop at 0.9100 and a target at 0.8700.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Waiting For A Real Deal”, dated December 7, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Appetite For Destruction? FX Investing For Slowing Global Growth And Inflation”, dated November 23, 2018, as well as the Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China’s Stimulus”, dated August 3, 2018. Both are available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: Core inflation came in line with expectations at 2.2%. This measure also increased from last month’s reading. Meanwhile, the JOLTS job openings outperformed expectations, coming in at 7.079 million However, while nonfarm payrolls underperformed expectations, coming in at 155 thousand, U.S. average hourly earnings remains solid DXY has risen by 0.5% this past week. We continue to be bullish on the U.S. dollar. The current environment of falling global growth and inflation has historically been very positive for this currency. Moreover, the market has already priced out any Fed hikes beyond December. This means that the risk for U.S. rates vis-à-vis the rest of the world remains to the upside. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area has been mixed: Industrial production yearly growth surprised to the upside, coming in at 1.2%. However, the Sentix Investor Confidence index surprised negatively, coming in at -0.3. Finally, Gross domestic product yearly growth underperformed expectations coming in at 1.6%. EUR/USD has been flat this week. Yesterday, the ECB downgraded its 2018 and 2019 growth forecasts. Moreover ECB president Mario Draghi hinted at increasing caution, as he remarked that downside risks where growing. We believe that EUR/USD has further downside, towards the 1.08-1.05 range, as the ECB will be unable to tighten monetary policy in the current environment of slowing global growth. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Evaluating The ECB’s Options In December - November 6, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been negative: Machinery orders yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 4.5%. Moreover, the final revisions to GDP annualized growth also surprised downside, coming in at -2.5%. Finally, the leading economic index also surprised negatively, coming in at 100.5. USD/JPY has risen by 0.8% this week. We are positive on the yen for the first quarter of 2019, especially on its crosses. The current risk off environment should be positive for safe havens like the yen. We are particularly negative on EUR/JPY, as this cross is very well correlated with bond yields, which have possess short-term downside. Report Links: 2019 Key Views: The Xs And The Currency Market - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan? - October 5, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Industrial production yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.8%. Moreover, the claimant count change also surprised negatively, coming in at 21.9 thousand. However, average hourly earnings excluding and including bonus both outperformed expectations, coming in at 3.3%. GBP/USD has fallen by 1.2% this week on political risks. However, on Wednesday PM Theresa May survived a vote of no confidence that would have removed her from the leadership of the tory party. With this win, Prime Minister May is now protected from intra-party challenges for at least a year, strengthening her ability to fend-off demands by hard-brexiters. This event has created a tactical opportunity to sell EUR/GBP. Report Links: Six Questions From The Road - November 16, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia has been positive: The house price index yearly growth came in line with expectations, declining by -1.5%. Moreover, home loans growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 2.2%. AUD/USD has been flat this week. We believe that the AUD is the currency with the most potential downside in the G10. After all, Australia is the G-10 economy most leveraged to the Chinese industrial cycle, due to Australia’s high reliance on industrial metal and coal exports. This means that the continued tightening by Chinese authorities should be most toxic for this currency. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game - August 14, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has fallen by 0.5% this week. After being bullish in the NZD for a couple of months, we have recently turned bearish, as this currency is very likely to suffer in the current environment of declining inflation and global growth. said that being said, we remain bullish on the NZD relative to the AUD, given that the kiwi economy is less exposed to the Chinese industrial cycle than Australia’s. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 In Fall, Leaves Turn Red, The Dollar Turns Green - October 12, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been positive: Net change in employment surprised positively, coming in at 94.1 thousand. Moreover, the unemployment rate also surprised positively, coming in at 5.6%. Finally, housing starts growth also surprised to the upside, coming in at 216 thousand. After falling by nearly 1%, USD/CAD finished the week flat. While we are bearish on the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar, we are more positive on the CAD against the AUD. Renewed tightening in oil supply should serve as a support for global oil producers. Meanwhile, Chinese deleveraging will continue, hurting base metals in the process. This will cause oil to outperform base metals, which means that the CAD should have upside against currencies like the AUD. Finally, domestic economic conditions favor BoC hikes versus RBA hike, even after the recent pause flagged by the BoC. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has been flat this week. Our bullish view on EUR/CHF is a high conviction view for the first part of 2019. This is because the recent strength in the franc is choking out any inflationary pressures in the Swiss economy. Thus, we are reaching the threshold at which the SNB is very likely to intervene in the currency market to prevent the franc’s strength from derailing the path toward the inflation target. In fact, the SNB even acknowledged this reality this week by downgrading its inflation outlook. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has risen by 0.7% this week. While we maintain a bearish stance toward the krone versus the U.S. dollar, we are short AUD/NOK, as a way to take advantage of stabilizing oil prices and a continued growth slowdown in China. Moreover, AUD/NOK is expensive in PPP terms, and is technically overbought. Finally, this currency is one of the most mean-reverting within the G10, which means that the recent surge in this cross is likely to reverse. Report Links: Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Clashing Forces: The Fed And EM Financial Conditions - October 19, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 USD/SEK has risen by 0.9% this week. On a short-term basis, we are negative on the krona, given that this currency is very sensitive to global growth dynamics, which means that the continued tightening by both Chinese authorities and the Fed will create a headwind for any SEK rally. That being said, on a longer-term basis we are more positive on the krona, as the Riksbank has a lot of room to lift rates as the Swedish economy is increasingly displaying large internal imbalances that need to be addressed. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - November 2, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights On the bright side, Malaysia’s structural backdrop is improving notably, especially in the semiconductors segment. Yet the cyclical growth outlook remains downbeat. While we are maintaining a market-weight allocation to Malaysian equities within an EM equity portfolio, we are putting this bourse on our upgrade watch list. As a play on the ameliorating structural outlook, we recommend an overweight position in Malaysian small-cap stocks relative to the EM universe – both the small-cap and overall equity benchmarks. Feature Malaysian stocks have performed quite poorly in recent years: the equity index, in U.S. dollars, is close to its 2016 lows in absolute terms, and relative to the emerging markets (EM) benchmark, it is not far from the lows of last decade (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Malaysian Stocks & Commodities Prices: Tight Relationship Odds are that a structural bottom in this bourse’s relative performance versus the EM index may have been reached. Hence, we are putting Malaysian equities on our upgrade watch list while maintaining a market-weight allocation due to tactical considerations. On the negative side, the past credit excesses have not been recognized and provisioned for by Malaysian commercial banks. The latter account for a notable 34% of the MSCI Malaysia index, and they will be a drag on this bourse's performance. Absolute performance also still hinges on global growth, commodities prices and the overall direction of Asian/EM markets. We are still negative on these parameters. Critically, there are various signs indicating an ameliorating structural backdrop in Malaysia. The country is undergoing notable improvements in the semiconductor sector, thereby reducing its dependence on commodities and increasing its exposure to a high-value industry. To capitalize on this theme of an improving structural backdrop, we are recommending an overweight position in Malaysian small-cap stocks relative to the EM universe – both the small-cap and overall equity benchmarks. Shifting Away From Commodities And Toward Electronics Parting Ways With Commodities Malaysia and its financial markets have been very exposed to commodities prices over the past 15 years or so (Chart I-1, top panel). Nevertheless, the country seems to be shifting away from its considerable reliance on the resource sector and moving into other value-added segments: in particular, semiconductors and technology. Such a structural shift – if successful – would be an extremely positive development as it would lead to rising productivity gains and higher per capita income growth. In short, the country would be able to achieve higher rates of sustainable non-inflationary growth, feeding into a sustainable bull market in Malaysian equities. Several points are noteworthy in this regard: The real output of crude and petroleum products as well as palm oil are declining sharply relative to the economy’s real total output (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Malaysia's Commodities Output Is Falling In Importance Exports volumes of palm oil, crude oil and natural gas have all been falling relative to Malaysia’s total overseas shipment volumes (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Commodities Export Volumes Are Declining In Relative Terms Crude oil, gas, and palm oil now account for 4%, 5%, and 7% of total exports in value terms, respectively. Crucially, not only is the importance of commodities in the overall Malaysian economy diminishing in volume terms, it is also falling in nominal terms due to low resource prices. For instance, net export revenues from fuel (i.e. crude oil, petroleum and natural gas) have fallen from US$18 billion in 2013 to US$5 billion today (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-4Commodities' Net Export Revenues Are Also Diminishing Meanwhile, net exports of palm oil (and other plant-based fats) have dropped from US$20 billion to US$10 billion (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Improvement In High-Value-Added Manufacturing There are also some positive structural signs taking place in the Malaysian economy that are signaling an improvement in productivity and competitiveness: Malaysian export volumes of machinery and transport equipment are expanding in absolute terms as well as relative to overall export volumes (Chart I-5, top and middle panels). Chart I-5Malaysia's Machinery Exports Are Rocking Remarkably, Malaysian aggregate export volumes are quickly regaining lost global market share (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Further, the ratio of exports to imports has hit a structural bottom and is slowly picking up in volume terms (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Malaysian Overall Exports Are Regaining Lost Market Share This suggests some improvements in the competitiveness of domestic industries is slowly underway. Meanwhile, Malaysian high-skill and technology intensive exports as a share of global high-tech exports seem to have made a major bottom in U.S. dollar terms and will begin to rise (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Bottom In Malaysia's High-Tech Global Share? Advanced education enrollment is high and improving – and is only outpaced by Korea and China in emerging Asia (Chart I-8). Importantly, Malaysia has among the best demographics of mainstream developing countries. The working age population as a share of the total population will continue to be high all the way to 2040. Chart I-8Malaysians Like Going To School Malaysian expenditures on R&D have also been on the rise, outpacing a lot of other countries in the region (Chart I-9, top panel). R&D expenditures in Malaysia could also be catching up to Singapore’s (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Chart I-9Malaysia's Expenditure On R&D Is Rising In line with these positives, net FDIs into Malaysia have been rising briskly (Chart I-10). Importantly, these investments have been driven by European companies, meaning the latter are transferring valuable technological know-how to Malaysia. Chart I-10Net FDIs Are Rising The Malaysian ringgit is cheap (Chart I-11) and has reached almost two-decade lows against many Asian currencies. This makes Malaysia increasingly more competitive. Chart I-11The Ringgit Is Cheap Finally, our colleagues from the Geopolitical Strategy team believe that the recently elected Pakatan Harapan government will improve governance and transparency, which had significantly deteriorated under Najib Razak’s rule. A Marriage To Electronics Malaysia is attempting to reestablish itself as a major semiconductor hub in the region. Remarkably, after declining for 15 years, semiconductor exports are finally rising as a share of GDP (Chart I-12) and Malaysian semiconductor exports are outperforming those of its neighbors. Chart I-12Malaysian Semiconductor Exports Are Booming The Malaysian government since 2010, has identified the semiconductor sector as a key area for development and prosperity. In turn, it has been introducing programs and setting up institutions to support the industry. The 2019 budget reinforces the government’s priority to develop the sector. Several anecdotal observations confirm that Malaysia is moving up the value chain in the semiconductor industry, and is going beyond simple testing and assembly: Growing the semiconductor cluster: The Malaysian Institute of Microelectronic Systems (MIMOS) has established a shared services platform for advanced analytical services in the semiconductor industry to provide support to Malaysian semiconductor companies. The Economic Industrial Design Centre (EIDC) is also providing support to SMEs in order to enhance their efficiency. Similarly, the Semiconductor Fabrication Association of Malaysia (SFAM) has been partnering with local universities to enhance their engineering programs and offer training, internships and research opportunities for students. Developing home-grown semiconductors: In 2015, Malaysian public institutions in partnership with private companies developed the Green Motion Controller (GMS), an integrated circuit that reduces energy consumption. This semiconductor is an energy efficient controller that carries applications in hybrid cars and air conditioners, among other things. Nanotechnology: NanoMalaysia – a nanotechnology commercialization agency – is providing services to SMEs and start-ups to help increase their competitiveness by enabling them to upgrade to more efficient production methods. Light-emitting Diode (LED) manufacturing: Malaysia is becoming a hub for the manufacturing of energy efficient LED chips. This is the result of OSRAM’s – a German light manufacturer – large investment in a high-tech production facility. There are early signs already that the above developments are beginning to bear results. Chart I-13 shows that the difference between exports and imports of semiconductors (in U.S. dollars) have been surging. This shows Malaysia is able to add greater value to the semiconductors it imports and then re-exports. Chart I-13Malaysia Adds Value To The Semis It Imports Bottom Line: Commodities are declining in importance to the Malaysian economy. Meanwhile, Malaysia’s structural backdrop is improving as the semiconductor and hardware technology segments are rising in prominence. Cyclical Weakness Despite the positive structural backdrop, Malaysia’s cyclical outlook remains challenging. Our view on commodities and global trade continues to be negative. Not only are commodities prices deflating but semiconductor prices are also falling, and their global shipments are weakening (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Cyclical Weakness In Global Semiconductor Cycle The epicenter of the global trade slowdown, however, will be in Chinese construction activity. Consequently, industrial resources prices are more vulnerable than electronics in this global growth downturn. The above deflationary forces would negatively shock Asia’s growth outlook, and consequently Malaysian growth as well: The top panel of Chart I-15 shows that Malaysian narrow money growth has already rolled over decisively and is foreshadowing weaker bank loan growth. Chart I-15Malaysian Domestic Growth Set To Weaken Slower bank loan growth will weaken purchasing power and impact domestic consumption. The middle panel of Chart I-15 shows that car sales – having surged this summer because of the abolishment of the GST – are weakening anew. Malaysian companies and banks have among the largest foreign currency debt loads (Table I-1). We expect more currency depreciation in Malaysia, as we do in EM overall. This will make foreign currency debt more expensive to service, and consequently dampen companies’ and banks’ appetites for expansion. Table I-1Malaysia's External Debt Breakdown Finally, the real estate sector remains depressed. Property volume sales are contracting and have dropped to 2008 levels, and housing construction approvals are slumping (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Malaysia's Property Sector Is Depressed While this means that cleansing has been taking place in the property sector, the banking sector has not recognized NPLs and remains the weakest link in the Malaysian economy. Specifically, the top panel of Chart I-17 illustrates that the NPLs in the banking system still stand at a mere 1.5%. This is in spite of the fact that since 2009, non-financial private sector credit to GDP has risen significantly. Therefore, the true level of NPLs is probably considerably higher. Chart I-17Malaysian Banks Are Under-Provisioned Further, Malaysian banks have been lowering provisions to boost profits (Chart I-17, bottom panel). This is unsustainable. As growth weakens, Malaysian banks will see their NPLs rise and will need to raise provisions. Chart I-18 demonstrates that if provisions rise by 20%, bank operating earnings will contract and bank share prices would fall. Chart I-18Malaysian Banks' Share Prices Will Fall Bottom Line: Malaysia’s cyclical growth outlook is still feeble, with the banking system being the weakest link. Banks’ large weight in the equity index makes this bourse still vulnerable in the coming months. Optimal Macro Policy Mix Fiscal Consolidation… Fiscal policy is set to be tighter as per the Malaysian government budget announced on November 2 and its preference to pursue fiscal consolidation to reduce the deficit. The budget projects only a slight increase in expenditures in 2019, which means it will likely slowdown from 8% currently (Chart I-19). Chart I-19Government Expenditure Growth Will Soften The government will also recognize public-sector liabilities not presently shown on its balance sheet and strengthen both transparency and administrative efficiency. Critically, the budget also includes strategies to support the entrepreneurial part of the economy. Overall, this budget bodes very well for the structural outlook. Yet it will not support growth cyclically. …To Be Offset By Easy Monetary Policy Despite continued currency weakness, the Malaysian monetary authorities will not be in a hurry to raise interest rates to defend the ringgit. This is in contrast with other central banks in the region like Indonesia and the Philippines. This is presently an optimal policy mix for Malaysia and is positive for the stock market’s relative performance versus its counterparts in many other EMs. Malaysia’s structural inflation is low: core inflation hovers around zero. Therefore, the central bank will neither raise interest rates nor sell its foreign exchange reserves to defend the currency. Both currency depreciation and low interest rates are needed to mitigate the downturn in exports as well as offset fiscal consolidation. In the meantime, the ringgit is unlikely to depreciate in a sudden and vicious manner but rather will likely fall gradually. First, the current account will remain in surplus, even as global trade contracts. The basis is that if Malaysian exports fall, imports will simultaneously follow. The country imports a lot of intermediate goods to then process and re-export. Second, Malaysia is unlikely to witness pronounced capital flight as occurred in 2015. The new government has increased confidence in the economy among both locals and foreigners. In addition, net portfolio investments have been negative for a while. This means that a large amount of foreign capital has exited already, reducing the risk of further outflows. What’s more, foreign ownership of local currency bonds has fallen from 33% in June 2016 to 24% today. Moreover, at 28% of market cap, foreign ownership of equities is among the lowest in EM. These also limit potential foreign selling. Bottom Line: Policymakers are adopting a wise policy mix for the economy at the current juncture: tight fiscal and easy monetary policies. This is structurally positive, even if it does not preclude cyclical weakness. Investment Conclusions Weighing structural positives versus the cyclical growth weakness and the unhealthy banking system, we are maintaining a market-weight allocation to Malaysian stocks within the EM universe, but are placing this bourse on our upgrade watch list. We need to see a selloff in bank stocks before we upgrade it to overweight. Within Malaysian equities, we recommend shorting/underweighting banks and going long/overweighting small cap stocks. To capitalize on Malaysia’s improving structural growth outlook, we recommend buying Malaysian small caps, but hedging positions by shorting the EM aggregate or small-cap indexes. The ringgit is poised to depreciate further versus the U.S. dollar along with other EM/Asian currencies. We continue to short the ringgit versus the greenback. With respect to sovereign credit and local government bonds, dedicated portfolios should currently have a market-weight allocation. The negative cyclical growth outlook is offset by the right macro policy mix and improving growth potential.   Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com​​​​​​​ Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

  The most recent National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) small-business optimism index marked a notable shift in small business sentiment, coming in at its lowest level in seven months. Considering its correlation with the relative performance of small cap equities, it is no wonder the latter have been falling recently. Two drivers underlie the weak survey: first, far fewer respondents expect the economy to improve (a net 11% fewer month-over-month) and second, planned labor compensation increases have continued to push new highs (second panel). It is the latter of these that causes us the most concern, particularly considering the divergence from the national trend. Historically, small and large caps have shared similar levels of profitability but that relationship has steeply diverged over the last three years (bottom panel). We expect small caps will struggle harder to fill vacancies (currently the biggest challenge facing small business owners, according to the NFIB survey) relative to large caps, implying ongoing margin challenges from relatively higher compensation cost growth. In an era where small cap leverage ratios are skyrocketing relative to large caps,1 margin compression is especially worrying and the resulting higher equity risk premium should continue to drag small caps down. We reiterate our high-conviction underweight recommendation on small caps relative to large caps. 1    Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, “ The Days In The Sun Are Over For Small Caps,” dated December 7, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.  

The SPX had a significant reversal earlier this week and washed out technical conditions likely signal that the recent triple bottom formation will pave the way for a rebound. The CBOE VIX index of volatility also stayed below the February intraday peak, and suggests that a trough may already be in place. Importantly, taking a cue from Sweden is interesting. Sweden is a small open economy driven by net exports and a slew of economic indicators are currently springing higher. Could Sweden’s exporters sniff out an end to the global trade slowdown and a likely de-escalation in the U.S./China trade tussle? The short answer is yes. The Swedish manufacturing PMI is on fire and a visible exception compared with grim prints throughout Europe (third panel). Keep in mind that Sweden’s PMI troughed mid-year, leading even the hyper-sensitive EM FX index (bottom panel). Financial markets also corroborate the healthy Swedish PMI signal; relative Swedish stock performance is in a V-shaped recovery (second panel). This is significant given that industrials stocks comprise over 30% of the MSCI Sweden index. Bottom Line: Across the board improvement in Swedish data suggests that global export growth is likely at a turning point. Sweden may also be sniffing out that the trade dispute between the U.S. and China will take a turn for the better. The upshot is that the SPX may have already put in a trough.

Special Report

Highlights So What? The tech war will continue to disrupt the trade truce. Why? The U.S. and China have legitimate national security concerns about each other’s tech policies. The 90-day trade talks cannot succeed without some compromises on tech issues. Chinese structural reforms could also reduce U.S. concerns over tech transfer. Feature The fanfare over President Donald Trump’s tariff ceasefire, agreed at the G20 summit on December 1, has already proved short-lived. We know now that on the same day President Trump sat down with Chinese President Xi Jinping to negotiate the truce, Canadian authorities arrested Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei, under a U.S. warrant. Huawei is the world’s biggest telecoms equipment maker, second-biggest smartphone maker, and one of China’s high-tech champions. So far the controversial arrest – which prompted Beijing to make representations to the U.S. ambassador – has not derailed the trade truce. China’s Commerce Ministry has announced that tariffs will be eased and imports of American goods will increase. The CNY-USD has climbed upwards despite a rocky global backdrop in financial markets (Chart 1). Chart 1Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Nevertheless, Meng’s arrest calls attention to our chief reason for skepticism about the ability of the U.S. and China to conclude a substantive trade deal. In essence, “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance. Trade War? Tech War! The historian Paul Kennedy, in his bestselling The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, argued that the history of competition between nations is determined by economic and technologically advanced industrial production.1 Eighteenth-century Britain defeated France; Ulysses S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee; and the U.S., the allies, and Russia defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This thesis helps to explain why China’s recent technological acceleration has provoked a more aggressive reaction from the U.S. than its general economic rise over the past four decades. For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart 2). If it comes to match the U.S.’s ratio then it will overwhelm it in real R&D investment, at least in dollar value. And R&D is just one of many factors showing that China is eroding the U.S.’s global dominance. Chart 2The U.S. Has Some Competition In September, an inter-agency U.S. government task force initiated by President Trump’s Executive Order 13806 sought to assess the strength of the U.S. defense industrial base and resilience of its supply chains.2 The conclusion was that the U.S.’s military-industrial base is suffering from a series of macro headwinds that need to be addressed urgently. The report cited key domestic issues, such as the erosion of the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 3). It argued that the country is rapidly losing the ability to source its defense needs from home, develop human capital for future needs, and surge capabilities in a national emergency. Chart 3Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base However, foreign competition, specifically “Chinese economic aggression,” also holds a central place in the report. The obvious risk is U.S. overreliance on singular Chinese sources for critical inputs, as highlighted during the 2010 rare earth embargo, when Beijing halted exports of these metals to Japan during a flare-up of their maritime-territorial dispute in the East China Sea (Chart 4). Chart 4China’s Rare Earth Supply Chain Leverage The authors’ point is not simply that China’s near-monopoly of rare earths remains a threat to the U.S. supply chain, but that Beijing’s willingness to leverage its advantageous position in the supply chain to coerce its neighbors could be used in other areas. After all, Washington’s reliance on China is rapidly extending to industrial goods that are critical for U.S. defense supply chains, such as munitions for missiles. But Washington’s greatest fear is China’s move into higher-end manufacturing and information technology – and hence the flare-up in tensions over ZTE and Huawei this year. Bottom Line: Technological sophistication and economic output determine which nations rise and which fall over the course of history. While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Semiconductors: The Next Battlefront While the U.S. lacks a national industrial policy, Beijing has made a concerted effort to promote indigenous production and innovation. The obvious example is Beijing’s state-backed ascent to the top of the global solar panel market. More broadly, China’s export growth has been fastest in the categories of goods where the U.S. has the greatest competitive advantage (Chart 5). Again, the U.S. concern is not market share in itself, but China’s ability to compete as an economically advanced “great power.” Chart 5China’s Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share Semiconductors are rapidly becoming the next major battleground, as China is trying to build its domestic industry and the U.S. is considering a new slate of export controls that could constrict the flow of computer chips to China.3 Semiconductors are critical as the building blocks of the next generation of technologies. The semiconductor content of the world’s electronic systems is ever rising. Breakthroughs such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things (IoT) promise to create a huge boost in demand for chips in the coming decades. China’s predicament is that the U.S. and its allies control 95% of the global semiconductor market (Chart 6), and yet China is the world’s largest importer, making up about a third of all imports, and its largest consumer (Chart 7). This is a dangerous vulnerability that China has been working to mitigate. Back in 2014 Beijing launched a $100-$150 billion semiconductor development program and has more or less stuck with it. The Made in China 2025 program projects that China will produce 70% of its demand for integrated circuits by 2030 (Chart 8). Chart 6China’s Chip Makers Are Still Small FryChart 7China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand While China-domiciled chip companies have a long way to go, they are rising rapidly, and China has already become a big player in global semiconductor equipment manufacturing (18% market share to the U.S.’s 11%). Chart 8Made In China 2025 Targets The problem for the U.S. is that semiconductors are one area where China runs a large trade deficit. Indeed, the U.S.’s share of China’s market is somewhat larger than the U.S. share of the global market, suggesting that the U.S. has not yet gotten shut out of the market (Chart 9). Chart 9U.S. Chips Still Have An Edge In China Moreover, 60% of U.S. semi imports from China and 70% of exports are with “related parties,” i.e. U.S. corporate subsidiaries operating in China. The U.S.’s highly competitive semiconductor industry is the most exposed to the imposition of tariffs (Chart 10). This may explain why so many exemptions were granted to the U.S. Trade Representative’s third tariff schedule: out of $37 billion in semi-related Chinese imports to face tariffs, $22.9 billion were given waivers.4 Chart 10Tariffs Are Harmful To U.S. Chip Makers The Barack Obama administration, initially faced with China’s disruptive entrance into this sector, determined that the U.S.’s best response would be to “win the race by running faster.” A council on science and technology warned that the U.S. would have to make extensive investments in STEM education, job retraining, manufacturing upgrades, research and development, international collaboration, and export promotion in order to stay ahead.5 However, these initiatives proved to be either too rhetorical (due to policy priorities and gridlock in Washington) or too slow-in-coming to make a difference in light of China’s rapid state-directed investments under the Xi Jinping administration. The Trump administration has obviously taken a more punitive approach. Trump originally focused on China’s alleged currency manipulation and criticized its large trade surpluses with the United States, but his focus has evolved since taking office. Under the influence of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer – who is now heading up the 90-day talks – Trump’s complaints have given way to a Section 301 investigation into forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and indigenous innovation. This investigation eventually provided the justification for imposing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports. Over this time period, it has become clear that there is considerable consensus across the U.S. government, on both sides of the aisle, to take a more aggressive approach with China that includes tariffs, sanctions, foreign investment reviews, and potentially new export controls. Significantly, the high-tech conflict has escalated separately from the trade war: it operates on a different timeline and according to a different set of interests. For example: The ZTE affair: The Commerce Department’s denial order against telecoms equipment maker ZTE came on April 15, even as the U.S. and China were trying (ultimately failing) to negotiate a trade deal to head off the Section 301 tariffs. CFIUS reforms: The U.S. Congress proceeded throughout the summer on its efforts to modernize the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, culminating in the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The Treasury Department released its implementing rules for the law in October, which will take effect even as trade negotiations get underway. The secretive body’s major actions have always been to block deals with China or related to China (Table 1). Table 1U.S. Foreign Investment Reviews Usually Hit China Chipmaker sanctions: The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Chinese chipmaker Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit despite the November diplomatic “thaw” between the two countries in preparation for the G20 summit.6 This action occurred even as top American and Chinese diplomats and generals engaged in talks intended to simmer down strategic tensions in the South China Sea and elsewhere. New export controls: Despite the 90-day trade talks scheduled through March 1, the U.S. government is currently holding public hearings on whether to expand U.S. export controls to cover a range of emerging technologies. These hearings, to conclude on December 19, are being held pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act signed into law in August along with the CFIUS reform. Most recently, the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, falls into this trend – casting doubt on the viability of the tariff ceasefire and forthcoming trade talks. The incident highlights how the pace, scale, and momentum of the tech conflict are substantial and will be difficult to reverse. Furthermore, the U.S. is building alliances with like-minded Western countries in order to encourage a unified embargo of Huawei, ZTE, and potentially other Chinese tech companies. In particular the U.S. and its allies are trying to block Chinese companies out of their upcoming 5G networks. The U.S. banned Huawei back in 2012, but it fears that allied countries – particularly those that host U.S. military bases – will have their commercial networks compromised by Huawei.7 5G will enable superfast connections that form the basis of the Internet of Things. If Huawei is embedded in 5G networks, it could theoretically gain unprecedented penetration into Western society and industry. Since China’s Communist Party has prioritized the “fusion” of civilian capabilities with military,8 and since the country’s security forces and cyber regulators are authorized to have access to Chinese companies’ critical infrastructures and data at will, American government departments have been soliciting allied embassies not to adopt Huawei as a supplier despite its competitive pricing and customizability. Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have effectively banned Huawei from 5G for their own reasons; the U.K. and others are considering doing the same. The expansion of this coalition creates a difficult backdrop for negotiating a final trade deal by March 1. And yet the G20 ceasefire clearly improved the odds of such a deal. So what will break first, the tech war or the trade ceasefire? Bottom Line: The tech war is intensifying even as the trade war takes a pause. The large-scale U.S. mobilization of a coalition of states opposed to China’s growing presence is a bad sign for the 90-day talks, though so far they are intact. What A Deal Might Look Like To get a sense of whether the tech war will upend the trade talks, or vice versa, we need to consider what a final trade deal that includes the U.S.’s technological demands would look like. It is significant that on November 20, the eve of the G20 summit, U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer released a report updating the findings of his Section 301 investigation.9 Lighthizer’s position matters because he is leading the 90-day talks and a critical swing player within the administration.3 Lighthizer’s report is essentially the guideline for the U.S. position in the 90-day talks. It makes the following key claims: China has not altered its abusive and discriminatory trade practices since the Section 301 investigation was concluded. These practices include grave accusations of cyber-theft and industrial espionage. The report also argues that China’s state-driven campaign to acquire tech through mergers and acquisitions is ongoing, despite the drop in Chinese mergers and acquisitions in the United States over 2017-18 (Chart 11). The reason, the USTR alleges, is that China tightened controls on investment in real estate and other non-strategic sectors (essentially capital flight from China), whereas Chinese investment to acquire sensitive technology in Silicon Valley is still intense and is being carried out increasingly through venture capital deals (Chart 12). Chart 11M&A No Longer China’s Best Way To Get Tech...Chart 12...Now Venture Capital Deals Offer A Better Way China’s concessions so far are “incremental” and in some cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program, as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies, but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 13). Other concessions, such as on foreign investment equity caps, are similarly unsatisfactory thus far, according to the USTR. For instance, China’s pledge gradually to allow foreigners to operate wholly owned foreign ventures in the auto sector is said to arrive too late to benefit foreign car manufacturers, who have already spent decades building relationships under required joint ventures. Chart 13The Opposite Of U.S.-China Compromise Trade partners share the U.S.’s concerns and are taking actions to address the same problems. In addition to the aforementioned actions on the 5G, the EU is developing foreign investment review procedures for the first time. Foreign industry groups share the U.S. business lobby’s fear of China’s forced tech transfers. Ultimately, Lighthizer’s report shows both that a trade deal is possible and that it will be extremely difficult to achieve: Possible, because while the report touches on deep structural factors underlying China’s practices, it emphasizes technical issues. Since these issues can often be adjusted by degree, there is ostensibly room to bargain. Difficult, because the main takeaway of the report is that the U.S. is giving China an ultimatum to stop cyber theft and industrial espionage. At minimum, the U.S. will demand assurances that China’s military, intelligence, and cyber agencies will rein in their hacking, spying, and tech acquisition campaigns. Other disputes are more susceptible to tradeoffs, but it will be hard for the U.S. to compromise on a list of grievances that so plainly enumerates national security violations. Can China really compromise on aspects of its Made in China 2025 industrial plan? Possibly. What China cannot compromise on is technological advancement in general, since its future economic sustainability and prosperity depend on it. So China may not accept getting shut out of investment opportunities in Silicon Valley. But if the 2025 plan provokes foreign sanctions, then it interferes with China’s technological advance, and hence can be compromised in order to achieve China’s true end. It makes sense for China and the U.S. to focus on the above tech issues – that is, for the “structural” part of the trade talks – as opposed to any macroeconomic structural demands that are more difficult to pull off at a time when China’s credit cycle is exceedingly weak and the economy is slowing. For instance, on China’s currency, while the U.S. will have to have some kind of agreement, and China has already shown it will allow some appreciation to appease the U.S., China is highly unlikely to agree to a dramatic, Plaza Accord-style currency appreciation. Therefore the negotiators will have to accept a nominal agreement on currency practices, perhaps as an addendum as was done with the U.S.-Korea trade renegotiation. As for other strategic tensions, China is continuing to support the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts with North Korea. Therefore the U.S. is unlikely to get much traction on its demand that China remove missiles from the South China Sea. But unlike cyber theft and corporate hacking, the South China Sea could conceivably be set aside for the purposes of a short-term trade deal and left for later rounds of negotiations, much as Trump’s border wall with Mexico was set aside during the NAFTA renegotiation. Bottom Line: The U.S. is demanding that China (1) rein in its hacking and spying (2) shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors (3) adjust its Made in China targets to allow for more foreign competition (4) lower foreign investment equity restrictions. Our sense, from looking at these demands, is that a trade deal is possible. But given the underlying strategic rivalry, and the intensity of the tech conflict, we think it is more likely that the tech war will ultimately derail the trade talks than vice versa. China’s Reform And Opening Up Turns 40 Finally, a word about China’s reforms, which are no longer discussed much by investors, given that many of the ambitious pro-market reforms outlined at the 2013 Third Plenum flopped. This month marks the 40th anniversary of China’s “Reform and Opening Up” policies under Deng Xiaoping. The original Third Plenum, the third meeting of the 11th Central Committee at which Deng launched his sweeping policy changes, occurred on December 18-22, 1978. In the coming days, General Secretary Xi Jinping will commemorate the anniversary with a speech. Various party media outlets have been celebrating reform and opening up over the past few months. We have no interest in adding to the hype. But we do wish to highlight the interesting overlap in the deadline for the trade talks, March 1, with the annual meeting of China’s legislature, when new policy initiatives are rolled out. To conclude a substantive trade deal, China needs to make at least a few structural concessions. And to satisfy the Trump administration, these concessions will have to be implemented, not merely promised, since the administration has argued consistently that past dialogues have gone on forever without tangible results. The surest way to achieve such a compromise would be to strike a trade deal and then begin implementation at the appropriate time in China’s own political calendar, which would be the March NPC session – right after the 90-day negotiation period ends. What kind of structural changes might China make? Of the four points outlined above, the one that is likely to get the most traction is lifting foreign venture equity caps (Table 2). This would be substantive because it would remove an outstanding structural barrier to foreign market access – China’s prohibitive FDI environment – while depriving China of a means of pressuring firms into conducting technology transfers. It would also have the added benefit of attracting investment that could push up the renminbi. Table 2China’s Foreign Investment Equity Caps In this context, we will watch very carefully both for progress in the 90-day talks and for any new and concrete proposals within President Xi’s upcoming economic statements. This includes the annual Central Economic Work Conference as well as the 40th anniversary of the historic Third Plenum. Bottom Line: The basis for a substantial U.S.-China trade deal would be Chinese structural changes to grant the U.S. (and others) greater market access for investment and a safer operating environment for foreign intellectual property. While we remain pessimistic, the reform agenda is important to watch. Investment Conclusions We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China is not likely forthcoming – at least not in the 90-day timeframe. The difficulty of working out a deal with the tech issues above should support this baseline view. Nevertheless, given that there is a possible path forward, and given that Chinese tech stocks are heavily oversold, is now a good time for investors to buy? Our view is no, on a cyclical 6-12 month horizon. Relative to the MSCI China investable index, tech stocks are not so badly beaten down as they first appear (Chart 14). The incredible earnings performance of this sector over the past five years has rolled over lately, as reflected in trailing earnings-per-share. This is true relative to U.S. tech stocks and the global equity market as well (Chart 15). Chart 14China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market Chart 15Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Since this is a decline in trailing earnings, it does not stem from the trade war, but rather from internal factors like consumer sentiment and retail sales (given the large weights of consumer-related firms like Alibaba and Tencent in this sector). Relative to global tech stocks, Chinese tech has definitely become less expensive after the recent selloff. But they are still not cheap (Chart 16). Given the headwinds outlined above – the fact that the tech war is more likely to derail the trade talks than the trade talks are likely to resolve the tech war – we think it is too early to bottom-feed. Chart 16Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap In short, U.S.-China tensions are rising when looked at from the perspective of, first, China’s aggressive state-backed industrial programs and technological acquisition and, second, the U.S.’s emerging technological protectionism and alliance formation. Two long-term implications can be drawn: First, many of the United States’ complaints stem not only from China taking advantage of its economic openness, but also from the U.S.’s low-regulation environment and opposition to state-driven industrial policy. The U.S. will not have much luck demanding that China stop pouring billions of dollars of government funds into its nascent industries; it will deprive its own emerging sectors of funds if it prevents Chinese investment into Silicon Valley. In other words, the U.S. will have to become less open and more heavily regulated. The CFIUS reforms and the proposed export controls highlight this trend. In addition, any escalation of tensions will likely result in Chinese reprisals against U.S. companies. The U.S. tech sector is the marginal loser (Table 3). Table 3S&P Tech Companies With Large China Exposure Second, while it is often believed that China is playing “the long game,” the government’s technological acquisition policies suggest a very short-term modus operandi. The allegations of widespread and flagrant use of tech company employees by intelligence agencies, and gross cyber intrusions, if true, imply that China is making a mad dash for technology even at the risk of alienating its trading partners and driving them into a coalition against it. Since no government can overlook the national security implications of such practices, China will continue to suffer from foreign sanctions and embargoes, until it convinces foreign competitors it has changed its ways. As a result, China’s tech and industrial sectors are the marginal losers. The big picture is that the U.S. is setting up a “firewall” of rules and regulations to protect its knowledge and innovation, and China is frantically “downloading” as much data as possible before the firewall is fully operational. This dynamic will be difficult to reverse given that the overall context is one of rising suspicion and strategic distrust.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500-2000 (Random House, 1988). 2      Please see “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” Interagency Task Force in Fulfillment of Executive Order 13806, September 2018, available at media.defense.gov. 3      Please see U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Department of Commerce, November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 4      Please see Dan Kim, "Semiconductor Supply Chains and International Trade,” SEMI ITPC, November 5, 2018. 5      Please see President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership In Semiconductors,” Report to the President, January 2017, available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. 6      Please see Department of Justice, “PRC State-Owned Company, Taiwan Company, and Three Individuals Charged With Economic Espionage,” Office of Public Affairs, November 1, 2018, available at www.justice.gov. 7      Please see Stu Woo and Kate O’Keeffe, “Washington Asks Allies To Drop Huawei,” Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2018, available at www.wsj.com. 8      Please see Lorand Laskai, “Civil-Military Fusion and the PLA’s Pursuit of Dominance in Emerging Technologies,” China Brief 18:6, April 9, 2018, available at Jamestown.org. 9      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at ustr.gov.

Special Report

Feature An infrastructure bill has been the focus of economists and strategists as the next leg in fiscal easing to sustain the economy. On the face of it, such a thesis appears eminently believable. Despite historically low unemployment, 2018 has seen tremendous fiscal easing (Chart 1), both via the tax cuts at the end of 2017 and through the bipartisan spending agreement in early 2018, implying the current administration fears neither inflation nor deficits in its pursuit of economic growth. Further, after the Republicans’ shellacking in the midterm elections, it is also logical to expect the GOP to double down on their Trump card through the 2020 presidential election cycle. Chart 1An Already-Strong Fiscal Thrust As such, much hope has been placed in the passage of an infrastructure bill, which began in late 2016 following the election of the Trump administration and its promise “to invest $550 billion to ensure we can export our goods and move our people faster and safer”. The excitement surrounding infrastructure diminished following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the implied much lower probability of an infrastructure bill in light of the debt implications of the unfunded tax cut. Further, the White House released their infrastructure plan in February, 2018 which sought only $200 billion in funding, but planned to stimulate $1.5 trillion in new investment via the multiplicative effect of public-private partnerships (PPP). However, the midterm elections have made infrastructure a hot topic once again for our clients. Is passage of an infrastructure bill likely? Would such a bill prolong the business cycle? At first glance, the market’s dimmed hopes of an infrastructure bill seem justified, in the context of the already-powerful fiscal thrust. Still, our sister Geopolitical Strategy service believes the odds of passage are above 50%.   BOX 1 Will Trump And The Democrats Pass An Infrastructure Bill? President Donald Trump, laser focused on reelection in 2020, faces a big decision about how to conduct domestic policy in the wake of the midterm election. Will he negotiate and compromise with the opposition in the House, like President Bill Clinton did after 1994? Or will he become mired in disagreements, like President Barack Obama after 2010? Infrastructure spending is one of the few areas where Trump and the Democrats have a clear basis for passing a major piece of legislation. It is much harder for these two to agree on immigration – given Trump’s demand for funding the border wall – or health care – given Trump’s opposition to Obama’s Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). By contrast, Trump campaigned vociferously on the need for more infrastructure and proposed a $1.5 trillion spending plan ($200 billion in federal funds) in February.1 Democrats are fully in support of infrastructure investment. The likeliest next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has been saying “build, build, build” both before and after the midterms, and her lieutenant, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), has recently emphasized his eagerness to work with Trump on this issue. There is no doubt whether the public will approve – infrastructure spending always receives high levels of support, and it is one of the few policy areas unaffected by partisanship and polarization (Chart 2). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Pelosi have begun negotiations and Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), likely the next head of the House Transportation Committee, has already outlined a plan. Chart 2U.S. Public Wants Infrastructure Spending The chief constraint is funding, obviously. Republicans want to use a limited amount of federal seed money in order to spur public-private partnerships but Democrats want direct federal funding sourced through indexing the federal fuel tax to inflation and issuing government bonds. There will have to be a new Democratic-authored bill, which may or may not merge with aspects of Trump’s plan.  How much money are we talking about? Trump’s plan called for $1.5 trillion over 10 years, of which $200 billion would be federal. Hence $20 billion in federal spending per year, but with cuts to existing programs. Some analysts have argued that Trump’s plan would actually have seen a net reduction in federal infrastructure spending over the long run due to its cuts to existing federal programs (which happen to be infrastructure-oriented) in order to offset his proposed spending increases. Democrats will insist on no cuts to existing programs, plus funding for new building.2   The mainstream Democrats are proposing $100 billion in new spending per year for 10 years, but this number includes zero cuts to existing programs. Mainstream Democrats are therefore asking for less in actual new spending than meets the eye, but are unlikely to go for less than Trump’s $20 billion. As a reference, President Obama’s last budget proposal was looking at $32 billion in federal infrastructure increases per year.3 An agreement on $20-$40 billion per year in new spending is not insurmountable given that both sides agree that they could raise the $0.18 per gallon tax on gasoline, which has not been raised since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation. Trump has proposed raising it by $0.25 per gallon, and this is more than other proposals (at $0.15 per gallon) or than merely indexing to inflation. This would raise an estimated $375 billion over 10 years.4 In addition, the Democrats are looking to revise aspects of Trump’s tax cuts to fund infrastructure. While Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin says no one in the administration is considering paring back the recent sharp reductions in the corporate rate, Trump has already signaled willingness to negotiate on the corporate rate to provide for a middle-class tax cut. This suggests that modifications to his 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act are not out of the question as infrastructure funding. Signature pieces of major legislation help presidents get reelected. The tax cuts were a product of traditional conservative policy, with limited popularity, whereas a populist compromise to the tax cuts in order to fund an infrastructure package (as long as it is still a net tax cut from pre-2017) could produce a signature piece of legislation from Trump “the builder” going into 2020. In other words, Trump can refrain from vetoing a federal gasoline tax hike or an adjustment to his own corporate tax cuts in order to pass a popular infrastructure initiative. The Democratic opposition will have written the bill, so both parties would “share the blame.” And the Democrats in the Senate would only need 15-18 GOP Senators to support a profligate infrastructure plan. Given popular and presidential support, and that the GOP-controlled Senate agreed with the budget spending blowout in early 2018, we think that more than enough Republican Senators can go along with an infrastructure plan. The bill will come at a time when other major legislative options are on ice and when both Trump and the Democrats will need at least one achievement to sell to voters in 2020. Might the Democrats sabotage such a bill in order to deny the president any fiscal help ahead of the 2020 election? Possibly. But they would have to pretend to negotiate before pulling out of the deal. It could backfire mightily. Whereas passing a big infrastructure bill would demonstrate their ability to govern and would help them win over voters in the vital Midwestern battleground states, where collapsing bridges and poisonous water systems have made headlines. Bottom Line: There is a greater than 50% chance that a bill will pass. As a baseline estimate, a bill worth $200-$400 billion over ten years is a reasonable estimate for a bill that could pass in late 2019 or (less likely) early 2020. Needless to say, $200-$400 billion over 10 years is a far cry from headline numbers like $1.5 trillion. It is an even farther cry from the progressive Democrats’ “People’s Infrastructure Plan” which calls for $2 trillion over ten years. Net new spending of $20-$40 billion per year is about 10%-20% of existing annual infrastructure spending and only 0.1%-0.20% of American GDP.   In our examination, we will frequently reference the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the most recent major infrastructure bill aimed at stimulating the economy. This bill cost $787 billion, of which $500 billion was cash outlays (the remainder was tax incentives). However, only $105 billion of the ARRA was targeted at infrastructure spending ($20 billion per year). Still using the 2009 ARRA as an analogy, the midpoint of high and low estimates from the CBO’s post-mortem of the ARRA’s efficacy, the ARRA added 1.1% to real GDP in 2009, followed by 2.4% in 2010. If we assume the goal of this bill is truly to prolong the business cycle to align with the election cycle, it stands to reason that time is of the essence. Further, the PPP requirements to achieve the $1.5 trillion in new investment envisaged by the White House raise a host of issues. Buy-in from private partners, the associated incremental planning and an assumed dearth of shovel-ready PPP-appropriate projects lead us to believe that a Q1 passage of a bill would be necessary for it to achieve its goals. Lastly, when the 2009 ARRA became effective, the unemployment rate was 8.3%. It is 3.7% now (Chart 3). We would anticipate an inflation-fearing Fed to deliver a monetary response to this fiscal slack in the form of interest rate hikes that would at least partially offset the stimulus. With two opposing forces pushing on the economy, it is ambiguous to us whether the stimulus would, in fact, stimulate. Chart 3Historically Low Unemployment What Drives Domestic Infrastructure Stocks Anyway? As equity strategists, our role is to offer clients insights into the best way to play the anticipated fiscal largesse. Accordingly, we have created an index from a range of industrials and materials GICS3&4 indexes that should see a positive reaction to a spur in infrastructure demand; we present the BCA Infrastructure Basket in Chart 4 with details of its constituents included in an appendix following this report. Chart 4BCA's Infrastructure Basket… Much like the initial excitement surrounding the prospect of an infrastructure bill following Trump’s election, our infrastructure basket leapt in November 2016. However the diminishing hopes of a bill, especially of the size discussed on the campaign trail, are reflected in the basket’s mostly steady decline from its late 2016 peak. This decline accelerated following the passage of the tax cuts at the end of 2017. A reasonable assumption would be that the price of our basket of equities would track in line, by and large, with most leading economic indicators as they are broadly a reflection of the industrial economy. Testing this hypothesis over the past 30 years is revealing: we found no material correlation between domestic leading indicators, even capital expenditures and planned capital expenditures that should be significant top line drivers (Chart 5). The upshot is that domestic private sector sentiment is unrelated to infrastructure stock performance. Chart 5...Is Not Correlated With Leading Indicators When plotted against the historic budget deficit and government debt levels, a better picture emerges (Chart 6). Our inference is that public spending and the infrastructure basket tend to move together, which is corroborated by the aforementioned recent moves around rising and falling hopes for a Trump infrastructure bill. Still, this analysis is incomplete as the infrastructure basket and fiscal growth were inversely correlated between 2004 and 2009 before reestablishing a positive relationship and even then the relationship is relatively loose. Chart 6Fiscal Expansion And Infrastructure Stocks Mostly In Sync Accordingly, we widened our analysis to global indicators excluding the U.S., where we found a significantly tighter correlation (Chart 7), though only post-2001. We ascribe the close post-2001 relationship to China’s joining of the WTO and their resulting ascendency in driving equity returns in the emerging market space. Chart 8 confirms our hypothesis; our infrastructure basket and the EM equity index overlap. Chart 7Global Leading Indicators Are Better Chart 8EM And Infrastructure Go Hand In Hand Drilling down on China seems appropriate in this context and further corroborates our assertion that China is increasingly the driver of U.S. domestic infrastructure stock performance. Particularly in the post-GFC era, the slowdown in Chinese capex and money supply growth appear to be the principal drivers of these stocks (second and bottom panels, Chart 9). This message is echoed when we compare the infrastructure basket to the Chinese credit growth impulse and the Keqiang index (Chart 10). Chart 9Chinese Growth Drives Domestic Infrastructure Stocks Chart 10Slowing Growth In China Points To A Down Leg Bottom Line: Domestic private sector sentiment has little impact on the BCA Infrastructure Basket, though U.S. government spending clearly has a significant impact on the performance of the stocks. Still, it appears that Chinese growth is at least as important as domestic government spending to the relative performance of the infrastructure basket. In light of BCA’s view of flat or slowing growth in China, at least for the year ahead, we would wait for a positive catalyst before adding this basket as a holding.  A Value Trap In The Making Investors may correctly point out that our infrastructure basket has already been beaten up and the stage may be set for a relief rally. In fact, the basket has already notched two months of outperformance, lifting it off its decade low relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 11). However, as shown in the middle panel of Chart 12, this rally has come while forward EPS growth estimates have trailed the broad market, meaning that the rally has been exclusively a valuation rerating rather than a fundamental turning point in earnings (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Fairly Valued Over Long Term... Chart 12...And A Value Trap In The Short Term Further, while the bear market for this basket of stocks is set to enter its second year, we would caution that a turning point may be further off in the distance than optimists may hope. Witness the six year period from 1995 to 2001 when the infrastructure basket dramatically underperformed the market (Chart 11). Valuations in the infrastructure basket were only a third of the broad market before a rally occurred, a far cry from where they are now. As well, the relative rally likely had more to do with the souring of the tech sector than a particular affection for infrastructure stocks; it took another five years for the basket to reach its average valuation. We would further note that on a longer-term basis, while still a discount to the broad market, valuations remain roughly in line with their historical average (Chart 11). Bottom Line: History has shown bear markets for infrastructure stocks can be deep and prolonged. Thus while the infrastructure basket is relatively cheap compared to the recent past, looking further back in history tells us that this may not be the case. Accordingly, we think the BCA Infrastructure Basket has all the markings of a value trap. So What Does It All Mean The passage of an infrastructure bill seems likely, though the form it will take remains subject to debate. As well, the timing and efficacy of such a bill may mean that it both undershoots expectations with respect to its size and eventual economic impact. The BCA Infrastructure Basket has tended to trade off of domestic fiscal expansion but EM in general and China in particular appear to have taken over as the core drivers of relative stock performance. While bearishness has reigned in this basket for the past year, we caution that this still looks like the early stages of underperformance. We would wait for a positive catalyst in the EM and/or China before chasing the BCA Infrastructure Basket. Details on the composition of this basket are in an appendix that follows.   Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Footnotes 1      Please see the White House, “Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America,” 2018, available at www.politico.com. 2      Please see Jacob Leibenluft, “Three Key Questions About The Trump Infrastructure Plan,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 30, 2018, available at www.cbpp.org. 3      Please see Senate Democratic Caucus, “Senate Democrats’ Jobs & Infrastructure Plan For America’s Workers,” March 7, 2018, available at www.democrats.senate.gov. 4      Please see Lauren Gardner, Tanya Snyder, and Brianna Gurciullo, “Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say,” Politico, February 14, 2018, available at www.politico.com.

Highlights Our take on the key macro drivers of financial markets hasn’t evolved much since we laid it out this summer, … : Monetary policy is still accommodative; lenders are ready, willing and able; and the expansion remains intact. ... but the inflection points are getting nearer: The good times won’t last forever, though. The Fed is resolutely tightening policy, BBB-heavy investment-grade issuance has the corporate bond market flirting with a plague of fallen angels, and the global economy is slowing. Our strategy remains more cautious than our outlook for now, … : Although we think the equity bull market has another year to run, and the expansion will stretch into 2020, we are only equal-weight equities, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash. … but we’re alert to opportunities to get more aggressive: Investment-grade and high-yield bonds are unlikely to offer an attractive risk-reward profile, but the S&P 500 shouldn’t decline much more if the economy holds up. Feature Mr. and Ms. X’s annual visit is an occasion for every BCA service to look toward the coming year, mindful of how it could improve on the one just past. The theme we settled on in last year’s discussion, Policy and Markets on a Collision Course, began asserting itself in earnest in October, and appears as it will be with us throughout 2019. The Fed is nearing its fourth rate hike this year, on the heels of three in 2017, and markets are warily contemplating the tipping point at which higher interest rates begin to interfere with activity. The yield curve has become a constant worry (Chart 1), with short rates moving in step with the fed funds rate while yields at the long end have been just one-half as sensitive (Chart 2). Chart 1Yield Curve Anxiety Has Exploded ...   Chart 2... As The Curve Has Steadily Flattened Trade tensions are an even thornier policy challenge. After flitting on and off investors’ radar earlier in the year, trade barriers have been a major source of angst in recent months as central banks, investor polls and company managements increasingly cite them among their foremost concerns. Unfortunately, our geopolitical strategists do not expect relief any time soon. They see trade as just one aspect of an extended contest for supremacy between China and the U.S. Late-Cycle Turbulence, our 2019 house theme, pairs nicely with Policy-Market Collision. The gap between our terminal fed funds rate expectation and the money market’s is huge, and leaves ample room for a repricing of the entire yield curve. Trade has been a roller coaster, capable of inducing whiplash in 140 characters or less, and it may already have brought global manufacturing to the brink of a recession. Oil lost 30% in two months at the stroke of a pen; its immediate fate is in the hands of OPEC, but the caprice with which Iranian sanctions may or may not be re-imposed is likely to feed uncertainty. As we advised Mr. and Ms. X a few weeks ago, investors should stay nimble; there is no point to committing to a twelve-month strategy right now.1 The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Our equilibrium fed funds rate model estimates that the equilibrium fed funds rate, the rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity, is currently around 3%. It projects that the equilibrium rate will approach 3¼% by the middle of 2019, and 3⅜% by year end. The implication is that policy is comfortably accommodative now, and will not cross into restrictive territory for another 12 months – assuming that the Fed hikes four times next year, in line with our ambitious expectation. If the Fed steps back from its gradual pace, and only hikes three times in 2019 (as per the dots), or just once (as per the money market), the day when the economy and markets will have to confront tight monetary conditions will be pushed even further into the future. Stretching monetary accommodation until late next year would seem to forestall the arrival of the next recession until at least the first half of 2020. Tight policy is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a recession, as recessions have only occurred when the policy rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium over the six decades covered by our model. A longer stretch of accommodation would also continue to nourish the equity bull market and discourage allocations to Treasuries. Over the last 60 years, the S&P 500 has accrued all of its real returns when policy was easy (Table 1), while Treasuries have wilted, especially in the current phase of the fed funds rate cycle (Table 2). Table 1Equities Flourish When Policy’s Easy ...   Table 2... While Treasuries Stumble The Business Cycle The state of policy is one of the three components in our simple recession indicator. Neither of the other two is sounding the alarm, either. Our preferred 3-month-to-10-year segment of the Treasury yield curve is still comfortably upward sloping, even if it has been steadily flattening and we expect it to invert late next year (Chart 3). Year-over-year growth in leading economic indicators decelerated slightly last month, but remains well above the zero line that has reliably preceded past recessions. Chart 3Flattening, But Not Yet Flat The Credit Cycle Anyone following the credit cycle would do well to start with the axiom that bad loans are made in good times. Its converse is just as true: good loans are made in bad times. Loan officers are every bit as susceptible to the recency bias as other human beings, and they tend to extrapolate from the freshest observations when assessing a borrower’s prospects. When things are good, lenders assume they will continue to be good, and let their guard down by lending to marginal borrowers and/or relaxing the terms on which they will lend. When things are bad, on the other hand, loans have to be underwritten so tightly that they squeak. The upshot is that lending standards and loan performance are tightly bound up with one another. In the near term, standards and performance are joined at the hip; over a five-year period, standards lead performance as a contrary indicator. Defaults almost certainly bottomed for the cycle in 2014, to judge by speculative-grade bonds (Chart 4, top panel), and loans (Chart 4, bottom panel). Standards reliably followed, and the proportion of lenders easing standards for corporate borrowers, as per the Fed’s senior loan officer survey, spiked (Chart 5). Chart 4Weakening, But Not Yet Weak   Chart 5Standards Follow Performance In Real Time ... The 2012 and 2014 peaks in willingness suggest that performance is due to erode (Chart 6). We do not foresee a step-function move higher in defaults, or a sudden collapse in loan availability, but we do expect some fraying at the edges. Given how tight spreads remain, any weakness at the margin could go a long way to wiping out much, if not all, of spread product’s excess return. The bottom line is that the credit cycle is well advanced, and investors should expect borrower performance and lender willingness to weaken from their current levels. Chart 6... And Lead Them Over The Intermediate Term Bonds We have written at length on our bearish view on rates and Treasuries.2 The key pillar supporting our rationale is the gap between our terminal fed funds rate estimate, 3.5-4%, and the market’s view that the Fed will not go beyond 2.75%, if indeed it gets to that level at all (Chart 7). The gap is big enough to drive a truck through, and leaves a lot of room for yields to shift higher all along the curve, even if the Fed were to slow its 25-bps-a-quarter tempo, as the Wall Street Journal suggested it might in a report last Thursday. We continue to believe that inflation is the inevitable outcome once surging aggregate demand collides with limited spare capacity, and that the Fed will be forced to push the fed funds rate to 3.5% and beyond. Chart 7Something's Gotta Give Our view that the credit cycle has already passed its peak drives our view on spread product. Though we remain constructive on the economy and the outlook for corporate earnings, we are not enamored of the risk-reward offered by corporate bonds. Although high-yield spreads blew out by nearly 125 bps from early October to late November, high yield still does not look cheap (Chart 8, bottom panel). The same holds for investment-grade spreads, which remain near the bottom of their long-term range despite widening by over 50 bps (Chart 8, top panel). Chart 8Spreads Are Still Tight Bottom Line: We recommend that investors underweight fixed income within balanced portfolios, while underweighting Treasuries and maintaining below-benchmark duration. We recommend benchmark holdings in spread product, but we expect to downgrade it to underweight before the end of the first half. Equities With monetary policy still accommodative, and the expansion still intact, the cyclical backdrop is equity-friendly. If we’re correct that policy won’t turn restrictive for another twelve months or so, the bull market should have about another year to go. We downgraded equities to equal weight as a firm in mid-June nonetheless, on signs of global deceleration and the potentially malign effects of tariffs and other impediments to global trade. U.S. Investment Strategy fully supported that decision, but we are alert to opportunities to upgrade equities to overweight within U.S. portfolios if prices decline enough to make the prospect of a new cycle high attractive on a risk-reward basis. The risk-reward requirement implies that the fall in price would have to occur without a material weakening of the fundamental backdrop. For now, we think the fundamental supports remain stable, as per the equity downgrade checklist we constructed to keep tabs on them. The checklist monitors recession indicators, none of which betray any concern now; factors that may weigh on corporate earnings; inflation measures, because higher inflation could motivate the Fed to hike more quickly than planned, with adverse consequences for the bull market; and signs of overexuberance (Table 3). Table 3Equity Downgrade Checklist The earnings-pressure section focuses on the key factors that might signal margin contraction – wage growth, dollar strength and rising bond yields – but none of them look especially problematic now. While we think compensation gains will eventually push the Fed to go beyond its own terminal rate estimates, they have not yet picked up enough to cause concern. The dollar has paused in its advance, mostly marking time since the end of October. Only BBB corporate yields have gotten closer to checking the box (Chart 9). BCA’s preferred margin proxies remain in good shape, on balance (Chart 10), and our EPS profit model is calling for robust profit growth across all of next year (Chart 11). Chart 9Higher Rates Will Exert Some Margin Pressure   Chart 10In The Absence Of Margin Pressures, ...   Chart 11... 2019 Earnings Could Hold Up Nicely Oil’s plunge has pulled both headline CPI and longer-run inflation expectations lower. Although we think that the inflation respite is merely a head fake, and that oil will soon regain its footing (please see below), the run of harmless inflation data has the potential to soothe some market concerns about the Fed. If the Fed itself takes the data at face value, it may signal that the current 25-bps-a-quarter gradual pace could be slowed. As for exuberance, the de-rating the S&P 500 has endured since its forward multiple peaked at 18.5 in January suggests that it’s not a problem. We are not living through anything remotely resembling an equity mania. Bottom Line: BCA’s mid-June downgrade of global equities from overweight to equal-weight was timely. We remain equal-weight in balanced U.S. portfolios, but are more likely to upgrade U.S. equities than downgrade them, given the supportive cyclical backdrop. Oil We devoted our report two weeks ago to the oil outlook and its implications for the economy. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service’s bullish 2019 view has not changed: it still sees a market in a tight supply/demand balance with high potential for supply disruptions and a smaller-than-usual inventory reserve to make up the slack. The unexpected release of over a million barrels a day of Iranian output has played havoc with oil prices, but does not provoke the growth concerns that declining demand would. Provided OPEC is able to agree on production cuts, and abide by them going forward, our strategists see Brent and WTI averaging $82 and $76/barrel across 2019. The Dollar We remain bullish on the dollar, though it will find the going rougher than it did in 2018. Traders have built up sizable net long positions, so it will take more for the greenback to extend its advance than it did to begin it. Ultimately, we think desynchronization between the U.S. and the rest of the major DM economies will keep the dollar moving higher. If the U.S. does not continue to outgrow the currency-major economies by a healthy margin, and/or the Fed does not respond to that growth by hiking rates to prevent overheating, the dollar’s advance may be nearly played out. Putting It All Together Three major assumptions underpin our views: The U.S. economy is at risk of overheating in its second year of markedly above-trend growth fueled by fiscal stimulus, and the Fed will respond to that risk by decisively raising rates. There will be a noticeable global slowdown, but it will not go far enough to turn into a recession. The U.S. will remain mostly immune to the global slump. We will be positioned well if all of these assumptions are validated by events, though timing is always uncertain. Financial-market volatility often increases late in the cycle, and we expect the backdrop to remain fluid. We are trying to maintain a fluid mindset in kind, monitoring the incoming data to make sure our cyclical assessments still apply, while remaining alert to opportunities created by significant price swings. Although we are neither traders nor tacticians, we want to retain some flexibility, and are trying to resist mentally locking in our positioning for the entire year. We are particularly focused on the monetary policy backdrop and the transition from accommodative to restrictive policy, which has historically been critically important for asset allocation. Our main goal is to anticipate the approach of inflection points in the key cycles – business, credit and monetary – as adeptly as we can. We are also resolved to look through the noise of one-off price swings and the blather that has already been clogging the airwaves. We seek to help our clients formulate a strategy for navigating the turbulence without being swept up in it. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the December 2018 Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2019: Late-Cycle Turbulence,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the July 30, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy, “The Rates Outlook,” the September 17, 2018; U.S. Investment Strategy, “What Would It Take To Change Our Bearish Rates View?” and the November 5, 2018; U.S. Investment Strategy, “Checking In On Our Rates View,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Deep-seated economic and political forces will undermine the trade truce between China and the United States. U.S. economic momentum is strong enough to allow the Fed to deliver more rate hikes next year than what the market is discounting. Global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year as China picks up the pace of stimulus and the dollar peaks. Until then, a cautious stance towards global equities and other risk assets is warranted. Global bond yields will fall further in the near term, but will rise by a faster-than-expected pace over a horizon of 6-to-18 months. Feature Trade War Roller Coaster Investors breathed a short-lived sigh of relief following the G20 summit in Buenos Aires this past weekend. During the course of a two-and-a-half hour dinner on the sidelines of the summit, President Donald Trump agreed to postpone raising tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese imports by two months to March 1st. For his part, President Xi Jinping pledged to engage in substantive talks to open up the Chinese economy to U.S. imports, while addressing U.S. concerns about forced technology transfers and IP theft. In one of the more ironic moments in history, China also agreed to restrict opioid exports to the West. Unfortunately, the euphoria did not last very long. By Tuesday, President Trump was back to his old self, calling himself “Tariff Man” and ominously warning that “We are going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all – at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States.” News reports indicated that the Chinese were “puzzled and irritated” by Trump’s change in tone. The mood brightened on Wednesday. Trump sounded more conciliatory, perhaps reflecting China’s decision to immediately resume importing soybeans and liquefied natural gas from the United States. By Wednesday night, however, global equities were in turmoil again due to revelations that a high-ranking Chinese tech executive had been arrested in Canada at the behest of the U.S. government on suspicion of violating sanctions against Iran. U.S. stocks recouped some of their losses Thursday afternoon, but the S&P 500 still finished down fractionally for the day. Political Stumbling Blocks To A Trade Deal At times like this, it is crucial to focus on the big picture, which is that major hurdles remain to consummating a trade deal that satisfies both sides. As our geopolitical strategists have argued, the trade war is just as much a tech war.1 China wants access to western technology, but the West, fearful of China’s ascent, is reluctant to provide it. The fact that China has had a history of appropriating western technology without due compensation only makes things worse. It is notable that U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.2 Domestic U.S. politics will also undermine prospects for a lasting trade war ceasefire. Protectionism against China remains popular in the U.S., especially in the Midwestern swing states. If Trump agrees on a permanent deal to end the trade war, who will he blame if the trade deficit continues to widen? This is not just idle speculation. Trump’s trade goals are inconsistent with his fiscal policy. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a wider trade deficit. This does not mean that Chinese stocks cannot rally for a few weeks. The MSCI China investable index is in oversold territory, trading at less than 11-times forward earnings, compared to 14-times at the start of the year (Chart 1). Given that China represents nearly one-third of EM stock market capitalization, any sentiment-driven rally that pushes up Chinese stocks is likely to give a solid lift to the aggregate EM equity index (Chart 2). However, for EM equities to put in a durable bottom, two things need to happen: Chinese growth needs to stabilize and the dollar needs to peak. We do not see either happening until the middle of next year. Chart 1Chinese Stocks Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 2China Is Large Enough To Give EM A Lift Waiting For A Bottom In Chinese Growth The slowdown in Chinese growth this year has been concentrated in domestic demand rather than in trade. Chinese exports to the U.S. have actually increased by 13% in the first ten months of the year compared to the same period last year. A lull in the trade war, a weaker yuan, and lower energy input costs are all beneficial to Chinese exporters. However, the collapse in the new export order component of the Chinese manufacturing PMI suggests that these positive developments will not be enough to prevent exports from decelerating sharply in the first half of 2019 (Chart 3). Chart 3China: An Ominous Sign For Exports If Chinese growth is to rebound, domestic demand will need to reaccelerate. While the Chinese government has loosened fiscal and monetary policy at the margin, this has not been sufficient to revive animal spirits. Growth continues to sag, as measured by a variety of activity measures (Chart 4). After a brief rebound, credit growth relapsed in October, pushing the year-over-year change to a multi-year low (Chart 5). Chart 4Still Waiting For Growth To Stabilize Chart 5The Chinese Credit Spigot Has Not Been Opened Looking out, there is a risk that undue optimism over the resolution of the trade war will prompt the government to redouble its efforts on its reform agenda. This agenda has been focused on reducing debt-financed investment spending – exactly the sort of expenditure commodity producers and capital goods exporters around the world rely on. Ultimately, China will be forced to pick up the pace of stimulus, as it becomes increasingly clear that the economy needs it. However, this is likely to be a story only for the second or third quarter of 2019, suggesting Chinese growth may continue to disappoint until then. No Help From The Fed The equity sell-off on Tuesday was exacerbated by comments by New York Fed President John Williams who noted that the Fed should continue raising rates “over the next year or so.”3 Williams is regarded as one of the thought-leaders at the Federal Reserve. He is also generally seen as a centrist on monetary policy. As such, his words often echo the views of the majority of FOMC members.  Williams said that the U.S. economy was “on a very strong path with a lot of momentum.” We tend to agree with this assessment. Despite weakness in a few areas such as housing, the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. The Atlanta Fed’s GDP tracker is pointing to growth of 2.7% in the fourth quarter. Personal consumption is set to rise by 3.4%, one full percentage point above the average during the recovery. The manufacturing sector remains robust. The ISM manufacturing index rose to 59.3 in November from 57.7 the prior month. The all-important new orders component jumped 4.7 points to a three-month high of 62.1. The non-manufacturing ISM index also surprised on the upside. Strong wage growth, lower gasoline prices, and a declining savings rate will boost consumer spending next year. High levels of capacity utilization, easing lending standards, and rising labor costs will also support business investment. Residential investment should stabilize as well, given the recent decline in bond yields (Chart 6). We see the fed funds rate rising by 125 basis points through to end-2019. This stands in sharp contrast to current market pricing, which foresees only 40 basis points of hikes during this period (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Residential Investment Should Stabilize Chart 7The Market Is Ignoring The Fed Dots Don’t Fear A Flatter Yield Curve… Yet The flattening of the yield curve would seem like a major rebuke to our positive U.S. economic outlook. The 10-year/2-year Treasury spread has declined to 14 basis points. The 5-year/2-year spread has fallen into negative territory, marking the first notable inversion of any part of the Treasury curve.  How worried should we be? Some concern is clearly warranted. Policymakers have been too quick to downplay the signal from the yield curve in the past. In 2006, they blamed the “global savings glut” for dragging down long-term yields. In 2000, they argued that the U.S. federal government’s budget surplus was reducing the supply of long-term bonds. In both cases, the bond market turned out to be seeing something more ominous than they were. Nevertheless, one should keep two points in mind. First, part of the recent decline in long-term bond yields reflects a fall in inflation expectations stemming from lower oil prices (Chart 8). As we discussed last week, lower oil prices should give consumers more spending power without hurting energy capex to the degree that they did in 2015.4 Chart 8Oil Price Decline Is Dragging Down Inflation Expectations Second, the term premium – the extra compensation that investors demand for buying long-term bonds compared to rolling over short-term bills – is currently negative (Chart 9). This partly stems from the fact that investors see long-term Treasurys as a good hedge against recession risk (i.e., bond prices tend to go up when the economy weakens). Chart 9The U.S. Term Premium Is Negative Partly Because Bonds Are A Good Hedge Against A Weaker Economy Quantitative easing has also driven down the term premium. While this effect has diminished as the Fed’s balance sheet has shrunk, estimates by the New York Fed indicate that the 10-year yield is still 65 points lower than it would have been in the absence of asset purchases.5 If the term premium were 84 basis points – the average between 2004 and 2007 – the 10-year/3-month slope would be 195 basis points. Empirically, the 10-year/3-month slope is the best recession predictor of any yield curve measure. It still stands at 50 basis points. If long-term yields stay put and the Fed raises rates once per quarter, this part of the yield curve will not invert until the second half of next year. It usually takes about 12-to-18 months for an inversion in the 10-year/3-month slope to culminate in a recession (Chart 10). In the last downturn, the slope fell into negative territory in February 2006, 22 months before the start of the recession. This suggests that the next recession will not occur until late 2020 at the earliest. Chart 10The U.S. Yield Curve: An Admirable Track Record In Forecasting Recessions Investment Conclusions The signal for global equities from our tactical MacroQuant model has improved since early October, mainly because the sell-off has gone a long way towards discounting some of the negative macro developments that have occurred. Nevertheless, the model continues to signal downside risks for global stocks stretching into early 2019 (Chart 11). Chart 11The MacroQuant Equity Score Has Improved, But Is Still In Bearish Territory The model utilizes a “what you see is what you get” approach, meaning that it only relies on observable data rather than estimates of unobservable variables like the neutral rate of interest. Right now, global growth is decelerating and financial conditions have tightened, which has caused the model to turn bearish on the near-term outlook for stocks. If we are correct that China will be forced to step up the pace of stimulus; that worries over Italian debt will fade, at least temporarily, with an agreement over next year’s budget; and that U.S. growth will remain buoyant even in the face of higher rates (implying that the neutral rate is higher than widely believed), then global growth should stabilize by the middle of next year. The dollar tends to weaken whenever global growth accelerates, which should provide a further reflationary impulse to the world economy (Chart 12). Chart 12Accelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bearish For The Dollar Equity bull markets typically end about six months before the onset of a recession (Table 1). If the next global recession does not occur for at least another two years, this will provide enough time for a blow-off rally in stocks starting in mid-2019. Hence, investors should stay tactically cautious towards global equities over a 3-month horizon, but be prepared to turn cyclically opportunistic over a 6-to-18 month horizon. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Over the past few months, we have argued that bond yields will temporarily decline due to slower global growth amid widespread bearish bond sentiment. This has indeed happened. Yields are likely to remain under downward pressure into early 2019, but should then begin to stabilize and move higher, ultimately rising much more than expected as global inflation accelerates. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift?” dated December 3, 2018; and “Trump’s Demands On China,” dated April 4, 2018. 2      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 3      Jonathan Spicer, “Fed's Williams says rate hikes 'over next year or so' still make sense,” Reuters, December 4, 2019. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018. 5      Please see Brian Bonis, Ihrig, Jane, and Wei, Min, “The Effect of the Federal Reserve’s Securities Holdings on Longer-term Interest Rates,” FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve (April 20, 2017). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

  Underweight Small Caps/Large Caps (High-Conviction) Small caps are severely debt saddled. Sustained small cap balance sheet degradation is worrying, with S&P 600 net debt-to-EBITDA close to 4 compared with less than 2 for the SPX (second panel). Such gearing is fraught with danger as one of our key themes for 2019 is a higher Fed funds rate. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have a higher dependency on bank credit as opposed to the bond market access that mega caps enjoy. Most bank credit is floating rate debt and so are lines of credit, and as the Fed remains firm on tightening monetary policy, interest expense costs are skyrocketing for SMEs. In a relative sense this will weigh on net profits. Moreover, small caps are a lot more sensitive to interest rates, and the selloff in the 10-year Treasury note heralds more pain in 2019 (top panel). Another way to showcase small caps’ riskier status is the close correlation they have with the relative EM equity share price ratio. When EMs outperform the SPX, small caps follow suit and vice versa. Importantly a wide gap has opened recently and we suspect that it will narrow via small caps following the EM higher beta stocks lower (SPX vs. EM ratio shown inverted, bottom panel). Bottom Line: We put the size bias favoring large caps in our high-conviction calls list for 2019; please see Monday’s Weekly Report for more details.