Trade

Special Report

Highlights The chance of a U.S.-China trade agreement is still only 40% – but an upgrade may be around the corner. Trump is on the verge of a tactical trade retreat due to fears of economic slowdown and a loss in 2020. Xi Jinping is now the known unknown. His aggressive foreign policy is a major risk even if Trump softens. Political divisions in Greater China – Hong Kong unrest and Taiwan elections – could harm the trade talks. Maintain tactical caution but remain cyclically overweight global equities. Feature “I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do it. So I’m taking on China. I’m taking on China on trade. And you know what, we’re winning.” – U.S. President Donald J. Trump, August 21, 2019 On August 1, United States President Donald Trump declared that he would raise a new tariff of 10% on the remaining $300 billion worth of imports from China not already subject to his administration’s sweeping 25% tariff. Then, on August 13, with the S&P 500 index down a mere 2.4%, Trump announced that he would partially delay the tariff, separating it into two tranches that will take effect on September 1 and December 15 (Chart 1). Chart 1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo Six days later Trump’s Commerce Department renewed the 90-day temporary general license for U.S. companies to do business with embattled Chinese telecom company Huawei, which has ties to the Chinese state and is viewed as a threat to U.S. network security. Trump’s tendency to take two steps forward with coercive measures and then one step back to control the damage is by now familiar to global investors. Yet this backpedaling reveals that like other politicians he is concerned about reelection. After all, there is a clear chain of consequence leading from trade war to bear market to recession to a Democrat taking the White House in November 2020. Trump’s approval rating is already similar to that of presidents who fell short of re-election amid recession (Chart 2) – an actual recession would consign him to the dustbin of history. Will Trump Stage A Tactical Retreat On Trade? Yes. Trump’s predicament suggests that he will have to adjust his policies. Global trade, capital spending, and sentiment have deteriorated significantly since the last escalation-and-delay episode with China in May and June. Beijing’s economic stimulus measures disappointed expectations, exacerbating the global slowdown (Chart 3). This leaves him less room for maneuver going forward. Chart 3China's Gradual Stimulus Yet To Revive Global Economy Chart 4Trump's Economy Grew Slower Than Thought Despite Fiscal Stimulus Even “Fortress America” – consumer-driven and relatively insulated from global trade – has seen manufacturing, private investment, and business sentiment weaken. GDP growth is slowing and has been revised downward for 2018 despite a surge in budget deficit projections to above $1 trillion dollars (Chart 4).   Q4 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. The U.S. Treasury yield curve inversion is deepening. While we at BCA would point out reasons that this may not be a reliable signal of imminent recession, Trump cannot afford to ignore it. He is sensitive to the widening talk of “recession” in American airwaves and is openly contemplating stimulus options (Chart 5). His approval rating has lost momentum, partly due to his perceived mishandling of a domestic terrorist attack motivated by racist anti-immigrant sentiment in El Paso, Texas, but negative financial and economic news have likely also played a part (Chart 6). Chart 5Trump Fears Growing Talk Of Recession In short, the fourth quarter of 2019 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. The core predicament for Trump continues to be the divergence in American and Chinese policy. Chart 7Trump's Fiscal Policy Undid His Trade Policy In the U.S., the stimulating effect of Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act is wearing off just as the deflationary effect of his trade policy begins to bite. In China, the lingering effects of Xi’s all-but-defunct deleveraging campaign are combining with the trade war, and slowing trend growth, to produce a drag on domestic demand and global trade. The result is a rising dollar, which increases the trade deficit – the opposite of what Trump wants and needs (Chart 7). The United States is insulated from global trade, but only to a point – it cannot escape a global recession should one develop, given that its economy is still closely linked to the rest of the world (Chart 8). With global and U.S. equities vulnerable to additional volatility in the near term, Trump will have to make at least a tactical retreat on his trade policy over the rest of the year. First and foremost this would mean: Chart 8If Total Trade War Causes A Global Relapse, The U.S. Economy Cannot Escape Expediting a trade deal with Japan – this should get done before a China deal, possibly as early as September. Ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada “NAFTA 2.0” agreement – this requires support from moderate Democrats in Congress. The window for passage is closing fast but not closed. Removing the threat to slap tariffs on European car and car part imports in mid-November. There is some momentum given Europe’s need to boost growth and recent progress on U.S. beef exports to the EU. Lastly, if financial and economic pressure are sustained, Trump will be forced to soften his stance on China. The problem for global risk assets – in the very near term – is that Trump’s tactical retreat has not fully materialized yet. The new tariff on China is still slated to take effect on September 1. This tariff hike or other disagreements could result in a cancellation of talks or failure to make any progress.1 Even if Trump does pivot on trade, China’s position has hardened. It is no longer clear that Beijing will accept a deal that is transparently designed to boost Trump’s reelection chances. Thus, the biggest question in the trade talks is no longer Trump, but Xi. Is Xi prepared to receive Trump kindly if the latter comes crawling back? How will he handle rising political risk in Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan island,2 and will the outcome derail the trade talks? Bottom Line: Global economic growth is fragile and President Trump has only tentatively retracted his latest salvo against China. Nevertheless, the clear signal is that he is sensitive to the financial and economic constraints that affect his presidential run next year – and therefore investors should expect U.S. trade policy to turn less market-negative on the margin in the coming months. This is positive for the cyclical view on global risk assets. But the risk to the view is China: whether Trump will take a conciliatory turn and whether Xi will reciprocate. Can Xi Jinping Accept A Deal? Yes. It is extremely difficult for Xi Jinping to offer concessions in the short term. He is facing another tariff hike, U.S. military shows of force, persistent social unrest in Hong Kong, and a critical election in Taiwan. Certainly, he will not risk any sign of weakness ahead of the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, which will be a nationalist rally in defiance of imperialist western powers. After that, however, there is potential for Xi to be receptive to any Trump pivot on trade. China’s strategy in the trade talks has generally been to offer limited concessions and wait for Trump to resign himself to them. Concessions thus far are not negligible, but they can easily be picked apart. They consist largely of preexisting trends (large commodity purchases); minor adjustments (e.g. to car tariffs and foreign ownership rules); unverifiable promises (on foreign investment, technological transfer, and intellectual property); or reversible strategic cooperation (partial enforcement of North Korean and Iranian sanctions) (Table 1). Many of these concessions have been postponed as a result of Trump’s punitive measures. Table 1China’s Offers Thus Far In The Trade War It is unlikely that Beijing will offer much more under today’s adverse circumstances. The exception is cooperation on North Korea, which should improve. So the contours of a deal are generally known. This is what Trump will have to accept if he seeks to calm markets and restore confidence in the economy ahead of his election. But this slate of concessions is ultimately acceptable for the U.S. China’s demands are that Trump roll back all his tariffs, that purchases of U.S. goods must be reasonable in scale, and that any agreement be balanced and conducted with mutual respect. Of these three, the tariffs and the “balance” pose the most trouble. Trade balance: Washington and Beijing can agree on the terms of specific purchases. China can increase select imports substantially – it remains a cash-rich nation with a state sector that can be commanded to buy American goods. Tariff rollback: This is tougher but can be done. The U.S. will insist on some tariffs – or the threat of tech sanctions – as an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Beijing implements the structural concessions necessary for an agreement. But China might accept a deal in which tariffs were mostly rolled back – say to the original 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of goods. This would likely offset the degree of yuan appreciation to be expected from the likely currency addendum to any agreement. Balance and respect: This qualitative demand is the sticking point. Fundamentally, China cannot reward Trump for his aggressive and unilateral protectionist measures. This would be to set a precedent for future American presidents that sweeping tariffs on national security grounds are a legitimate way of coercing China into making economic structural reforms. Moreover if the U.S. wants to improve the trade balance, China thinks, it cannot embargo Chinese high-tech imports but must actually increase its high-tech exports. Clearly this is a major impasse in the talks. The last point is the likeliest deal-breaker. It may ultimately hinge on strategic events outside of the realm of trade. But before discussing it further, it is important to recognize that China is not invincible – it has a pain threshold. The threat of a divorce from the U.S. is a danger to China’s economy and the Communist regime. Chart 9China's Ultimate Economic Constraint Deterioration in China’s labor market is of utmost seriousness to any Chinese leader (Chart 9). And the economy is still struggling to revive. Xi’s reform and deleveraging campaign of 2017-18 has been postponed but the lingering effects are weighing on growth and the property sector remains under tight regulation. Moreover the removal of implicit guarantees, and rare toleration of creative destruction (Chart 10), have left banks and corporations afraid to take on new risks. The state’s reflationary measures, including a big boost to local government spending, have so far been merely sufficient for domestic stability. These problems can be addressed by additional policy easing. But the domestic political crackdown and the break with the U.S. have shaken manufacturers and private entrepreneurs to the bone, suppressing animal spirits and reducing the demand for loans. Chart 10Creative Destruction In China Ultimately a short-term trade deal to ease this economic stress would make sense for Xi Jinping, even though he knows that U.S. protectionism and the conflict over technological acquisition will persist beyond 2020 and beyond Trump. The threat of a sharp and destabilizing divorce from the U.S. is a real and present danger to the long-term stability of China’s economy and the Communist regime. Xi is a strongman leader, but is he really ready for Mao Zedong-style austerity? Is he not more like former President Jiang Zemin (ruled 1993-2003), who imposed some austerity while prizing domestic economic and political stability above all? To this question we now turn. Bottom Line: China has become the wild card in the trade war. Trump’s need to prevent a recession is known. Beijing has a higher pain threshold and could walk away from the deal to punish Trump (upsetting the global economy and diminishing Trump’s reelection prospects). This would set the precedent for future American presidents that China will not bow to gunboat diplomacy. Will Xi Jinping Overplay His Hand? Be Afraid. For decades China’s main foreign policy principle has been to “lie low and bide its time,” to paraphrase former leader Deng Xiaoping. In the current context this means maintaining a willingness to engage with the U.S. whenever it engages sincerely. This approach implies making the above concessions to minimize the immediate threat to stability from the trade war, while biding time in the longer run rivalry against the United States. Such an approach would also imply assisting the diplomatic process on the Korean peninsula, avoiding a military crackdown in Hong Kong, and refraining from aggressive military intimidation ahead of Taiwan’s election in January. Chart 11China's Vast Market Its Most Persuasive Tool After all, there is no better way for the Communist Party to undercut dissidents in Hong Kong and Taiwan than to strike a deal with the United States. This would demonstrate that Xi is a pragmatic leader who is still committed to “reform and opening up.” It would help generate an economic rebound that would bring other countries deeper into Beijing’s orbit (Chart 11). China’s vast domestic market is ultimately its greatest strength in its contest with the United States. In short, conventional Chinese policy suggests that Xi should perpetuate the long success story since 1978 by striking another deal with another Republican president. The catch is that Xi Jinping is not conventional. Since coming to power in 2012, Xi has eschewed the subtle strategies of Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping in favor of a more ambitious approach: that of declaring China’s arrival as a major power and leveraging its economic and military heft to pursue foreign policy and commercial interests aggressively. Xi’s reassertion of Communist rule and state-guided technological acquisition is the biggest factor behind the new U.S. political consensus – entirely aside from Trump – that China is foe rather than friend. There are several empirical reasons to think that Xi might overplay his hand: Xi failed to make substantive concessions with President Barack Obama’s administration on North Korea, the South China Sea, and cyber security, resulting in Obama’s decision to harden U.S. policy toward both China and North Korea in 2015 – a trend that predates Trump. Xi formally removed presidential term limits from China’s constitution even though he could have attracted less negative attention from the West by ruling from behind the scenes after his term in office, like Deng Xiaoping or Jiang Zemin. China has mostly played for time in negotiations with the Trump administration, as mentioned, and this aggravated tensions. Deep revisions to the draft agreement, which was supposedly 90% complete, broke the negotiations in May, sparking this summer’s standoff. Aggressive policies in territorial disputes have alienated even China’s potential allies. This includes regional states whose current ruling parties have courted China in recent years, in some cases obsequiously – South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The East and South China Seas remain a genuine source of “black swans” – unpredictable, low-probability, high-impact events – due to their status as critical sea lanes for the major Asian economies. China continues to militarize the islands there and aggressively prosecute its maritime-territorial disputes. We calculate that $6.4 trillion worth of goods flowed through this bottleneck in the year ending April 2019, 8% of which consists of energy goods from the Middle East that are vital to China and its East Asian neighbors, none of whom can stomach Chinese domination of this geographic space (Diagram 1). Even if Washington abandoned the region, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would see Chinese control as a threat to their security. Diagram 1The South China Sea As The World’s Traffic Roundabout Ultimately, however, China’s adventures in its neighboring seas are a matter of choice. Not so for Greater China – in Hong Kong and Taiwan, political risk is rapidly mounting in a way that enflames the U.S.-China strategic distrust and threatens to prevent a trade agreement. Hong Kong: The Dust Has Not Settled Mass protests in Hong Kong have lost some momentum, based on the size of the largest rally in August versus June. But do not be fooled: the political crisis is deepening. A plurality of Hong Kongers now harbors negative feelings toward mainland Chinese people as well as the government in Beijing – a trend that is spiking amid today’s protests but began with the Great Recession and has roots in the deeper socioeconomic malaise of this capitalist enclave (Chart 12A & 12B). A majority also lacks confidence in the political arrangement that ensures some autonomy from Beijing – known as “One Country, Two Systems” (Chart 13). This is a particularly worrisome sign since this is the fundamental basis for stable political relations with Beijing. With clashes continuing between protesters and police, students calling for a boycott of school this fall, and Beijing openly drilling its security forces in Shenzhen for a potential intervention, Hong Kong’s unrest is not yet laid to rest and could flare up again ahead of China’s sensitive National Day celebration. U.S. tariffs and sanctions are already in effect, reducing the ability of the U.S. to deter China from using force if it believes instability has gone too far. And as President Trump has warned – and would be true of any U.S. administration – a violent crackdown on civilian demonstrators would greatly reduce the political viability of a trade deal in the United States. Taiwan: The Black Swan Arrives Since Taiwan’s 2016 election, we have argued that it is a potential source of “black swans.” Mass protests in Hong Kong may have taken the cake. But these protests are now affecting the Taiwanese election dynamic and potentially the U.S.-China trade talks. Chart 14U.S. Approves Big New Arms Sale To Taiwan On August 20, the United States Department of Defense informed Congress that it is proceeding with an $8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets and other military arms and equipment to Taiwan – the largest sale in 22 years and the largest aircraft sale since 1992 (Chart 14). This sale is not yet complete and delivered, but ultimately will be – the question is the timing. Arms sales to Taiwan are a perennial source of tension between the United States and China – and China is increasingly assertive in using economic sanctions to get its way over such issues, as it showed in the lead up to South Korea’s election in 2017. This sale is not a military “game changer” – the U.S. did not send over fifth-generation F-35s, for instance – but China will respond vehemently. It is threatening to impose sanctions on American companies like Lockheed Martin and General Electric for their part in the deal. The sale does not in itself preclude the chance of a trade agreement but it contributes to a rise in strategic tensions that ultimately could. The context is Taiwan’s hugely important election in January. Four years ago, President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party swept to power on the back of a popular protest movement – the “Sunflower Movement” – that opposed deeper cross-strait economic integration. It dangerously resembled the kind of anti-Communist “color revolutions” that motivate Xi Jinping’s hardline policies. Tsai shocked the world when she called Trump personally to congratulate him after his election, which violated diplomatic protocol given that Taiwan is a territory of China and not an independent nation-state. Since then Trump has largely avoided provoking the Taiwan issue so as not to strike at a core Chinese interest and obliterate the chance of a trade deal. But the U.S. has always argued that the provision of defensive arms to Taiwan is a condition of the U.S.-China détente – and Trump is so far moving forward with the sale. Chart 15A 'Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis' Would Have A Seismic Equity Impact How will Xi Jinping react if the sale goes through? In 1995-96, China’s use of missile tests to try to intimidate Taiwan produced the opposite effect – driving voters into the arms of Lee Teng-hui, the candidate Beijing opposed. This was the occasion of the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, in which U.S. President Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carriers to the region, one that sailed through the Taiwan Strait. The negative effect on markets at that time was local, whereas anything resembling this level of tensions would today be a seismic global risk-off (Chart 15). Since the 1990s, leaders in Beijing have avoided direct military coercion ahead of elections. But Xi Jinping has hardened his stance on Taiwan throughout his term. He has dabbled with such coercion in his use of military drills that encircle Taiwan in recent years. While one must assume that he will use economic sanctions rather than outright military threats – as he did with South Korea – saber-rattling cannot be ruled out. The pressure on him is rising. Prior to the Hong Kong unrest, Taiwan’s elections looked likely to return the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) to power and remove the incumbent President Tsai – a boon for Beijing. That outlook has changed and Tsai now has a fighting chance of staying in power (Chart 16). The prospect of four more years of Tsai would not be too problematic for Beijing if not for the fact that the U.S. political establishment is now firmly in agreement on challenging China. But even if Tsai loses, Taiwan’s outlook is troublesome. And this makes Xi’s decision-making harder to predict. It is not that Tsai or her party will necessarily prevail. The manufacturing slowdown will take a toll and third-party candidates, particularly Ko Wen-je, would likely split Tsai’s vote. Moreover her Democratic Progressives still tie the KMT in opinion polling (Chart 17). The Taiwanese people are primarily concerned about maintaining the strong economy and cross-strait peace and stability, which her reelection could jeopardize (Chart 18). Tsai could very well lose, or she could be a lame duck presiding over the KMT in the legislature. Rather, the problem for Xi Jinping is that the Taiwanese people clearly sympathize with the protesters in Hong Kong (Chart 19). They fear that their own governance system faces the same fate as Hong Kong’s, with the Communist Party encroaching on traditional political liberties over time. While Hong Kong ultimately has zero choice as to whether to accept Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan has much greater autonomy – and the military support of outside forces. It is not a foregone conclusion that Taiwan must suffer the same political dependency as Hong Kong. Indeed, Taiwan has a long history of exercising the democratic vote and has even dabbled into the realm of popular referendums. In short, Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis in the long run than Hong Kong. But the Hong Kong events have accentuated this fact, for two key reasons: First, Taiwanese people identify increasingly as exclusively Taiwanese, rather than as both Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart 20). The incidents in Hong Kong reveal that this sentiment is tied to immediate political relations and therefore deterioration would encourage further alienation from the mainland. Second, while a strong majority of Taiwanese wish to maintain the political status quo to avoid conflict with the mainland, a substantial subset – approaching one-fourth – supports eventual or immediate independence (Chart 21). This means that relations with the mainland will eventually deteriorate even if the KMT wins the election. The KMT itself must respond to popular demand not to cozy up too much with Beijing, which is how it fell from power in 2016. Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis than Hong Kong. Meanwhile, under KMT rule, Taiwan’s progressive-leaning youth are likely to set about reviving their protest movement in the subsequent years and imitating their Hong Kong peers, especially if the KMT warms up relations too fast with the mainland. Ultimately these points suggest that Xi Jinping will strive to avoid a violent crackdown in Hong Kong. A crackdown would be the surest way for him to harm the KMT in the Taiwanese election and to hasten the rebuilding of U.S.-Taiwan security ties. Call The President The best argument for Xi to lie low and avoid a larger crisis in Greater China is that it would unify the West and its allies against China. So far Xi’s foreign policy has not been so aggressive as to lead to diplomatic isolation. Europe is maintaining a studied neutrality due to its own differences with the United States; Asian neighbors are wary of provoking Chinese sanctions or military threats. A humanitarian crisis in Hong Kong or a “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” would change that. For markets, the best-case scenario is that Xi Jinping exercises restraint. This would help Hong Kong protests lose steam, North Korean diplomacy get back on track, and Taiwanese independence sentiment simmer down. China would be more likely to halt U.S. tariffs and tech sanctions, settle a short-term trade agreement, and delay the upgrade in U.S.-Taiwan defense relations. China would still face adverse long-term political trends in both the U.S. and Taiwan, but an immediate crisis would be averted. The worst-case scenario is that Xi indulges his ambition. Hong Kong protests could explode, relations with Taiwan would deteriorate, and U.S.-China relations would move more rapidly in their downward spiral. Trade talks could collapse. Xi Jinping would face the possibility of a unified Western front, instability within Greater China, and a global recession. This might get rid of Donald Trump, but it would not get rid of the U.S. Congress, Navy, or Department of Defense. The choice seems pretty clear. Xi, like Trump, faces constraints that should motivate a tactical retreat from confrontation, at least after October 1. While this does not necessarily mean a settled trade agreement, it does suggest at least a ceasefire or truce. Our GeoRisk indicators show that market-based political risk in Taiwan – and less so South Korea – moves in keeping with global economic policy uncertainty. The underlying U.S.-China strategic confrontation and trade war are driving both (Chart 22). A deterioration in this region has global consequences. Chart 22U.S.-China Strategic Conflict Fuels Global Economic Uncertainty And Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk In Tandem Xi is a markedly aggressive “strongman” Chinese leader who has not been afraid to model his leadership on that of Chairman Mao. He could still overplay his hand. This is why we maintain that the odds of a U.S.-China trade agreement remain 40%, though we are prepared to upgrade that probability if Trump and Xi make pro-market decisions. Investment Implications On the three-month tactical horizon, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy is paring back our tactical safe-haven trades: we are closing our “Doomsday Basket” of long gold and Swiss bonds for a gain of 13.6%, while maintaining our simple gold portfolio hedge going forward. Trump has not yet decisively staged his tactical retreat on trade policy, while rising political risk in Greater China increases uncertainty over Xi Jinping’s next moves. On the cyclical horizon, the above suggests that there is a light at the end of the tunnel – if both Trump and Xi recognize their political constraints. This means that there is still a political and geopolitical basis to reinforce BCA’s House View to remain optimistic on global and U.S. equities over the next 12 months, with the potential for non-U.S. equities to recover and bond yields to reverse their deep dive.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Negotiations between Trump and Xi are slated for September in Washington. There is a prospect for Trump to hold another summit with Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in late September and at the APEC summit in Chile in mid-November. 2 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, while Taiwan is recognized as a province or territory.

Highlights The current global trade downtrend has primarily been due to a contraction in Chinese imports. The latter reflects weakness in China's domestic demand in general and capital spending in particular. The current global manufacturing and trade downturns will prove to be drawn out. Several important markets have already experienced technical breakdowns, and a few others are at risk of doing so. EM domestic bonds and EM credit markets could be the last shoe to drop in this EM selloff. Steel, iron ore and coal prices, will all deflate further due to supply outpacing demand in China. Feature In our report last week, we argued that the odds of a liquidation phase in EM are growing. This week’s report continues exploring this theme, offering additional rationale and evidence of a pending breakdown in EM. Trade Tariffs: The Wrong Focus? The media and many investors seem to be solely focused on the impact of U.S. tariffs against imports from China. Yet these tariffs have not been the primary cause of the ongoing global manufacturing and trade recessions. It appears that the headlines and many investors are looking at individual trees and ignoring the forest. Chart I-1Chinese Imports Are Worse Than Exports Global trade contraction and China’s growth slump are not solely due to the trade tariffs imposed by the U.S. but rather stem from weakening domestic demand in China. Chart I-1 illustrates that Chinese aggregate exports are faring much better than imports. If the imposed tariffs were the main culprit behind both weakness in Chinese growth and global trade, mainland exports would have registered a far-greater hit by now than imports. However, they have not yet done so. This entails that U.S. tariffs have so far not had a substantial impact on Chinese and global manufacturing. The key point we would like to emphasize is that the current global trade downtrend has primarily been due to a contraction in Chinese imports. In turn, the accelerating decline in mainland imports is a reflection of relapsing domestic demand in China. The latter has been instigated by lethargic money/credit impulses owing to the government’s 2017-2018 deleveraging campaign and its reluctance to undertake an economy-wide irrigation type stimulus. What’s more, the recent RMB depreciation will likely intensify the Chinese import contraction already underway, as the same amount of yuan will buy less goods priced in U.S. dollars than before (Chart I-2). Given the majority of goods and commodities procured by mainland companies are priced in dollars, suppliers will receive fewer dollars, and their revenue derived from sales to and in China will continue to shrink (Chart I-3). Chart I-2RMB Depreciation Will Depress China's Purchases From Rest Of The World Chart I-3China Is In A Recession From Perspective Of Its Suppliers   We do not deny that the trade war has prompted a deterioration in sentiment among Chinese businesses and consumers as well as multinational companies, which in turn has dented both their spending and global trade. We do not see these issues reversing anytime soon. If the imposed tariffs were the main culprit behind both weakness in Chinese growth and global trade, mainland exports would have registered a far-greater hit by now than imports. Chart I-4EM EPS Are Contracting Even though U.S. President Donald Trump is flip-flopping on tariffs and their implementation, barring a major deal between the U.S. and China, business sentiment worldwide will not improve on a dime. In brief, delaying some import tariffs from September to December is unlikely to promote an imminent global trade recovery. The confrontation between the U.S. and China is profoundly not about trade: it is a geopolitical confrontation for global hegemony that will last years if not decades. Businesses in China and CEOs of multinational companies realize this, and they will not change their investment plans on Trump’s latest tweet delaying some tariffs. For now, we do not detect signs of an impending growth turnaround in China’s domestic demand and global trade. Therefore, China-related risk assets, commodities and global cyclicals are at risk of breaking down. Economic Rationale The global trade and manufacturing recession will linger for a while longer, and a recovery is not in the offing: The business cycle in EM/China continues to downshift. Consistently, corporate earnings are already or soon will be contracting in EM, China and the rest of emerging Asia (Chart I-4). EM corporate EPS contraction is broad-based (Chart I-5A and I-5B). The recent declines in oil and base metals prices entail earnings shrinkage for energy and materials companies (Chart I-5B, bottom two panels). Chart I-5AEM EPS Contraction Is Broad Based Chart I-5BEM EPS Contraction Is Broad Based   China’s monetary and fiscal stimulus has not yet been sufficient to revive capital spending in general and construction activity in particular (Chart I-6). Chinese household spending is also exhibiting little signs of recovery (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China: Building Construction Is Dwindling Chart I-7China: Consumer Spending Has Not Yet Recovered   Domestic demand continues to deteriorate, not only in China but also in other emerging economies, as we documented in our July 25 report. In EM ex-China, imports of capital goods and auto sales are contracting (Chart I-8). High-frequency freight data point to ongoing weakness in shipments in both the U.S. and China (Chart I-9). Chart I-8EM Ex-China: Domestic Demand Is Depressed Bottom Line: The current global manufacturing and trade downturns will prove to be drawn out, and investors should be wary of betting on an impending recovery. This is BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy view and is different from BCA’s house view which is anticipating an imminent global business cycle recovery. Chart I-9Global Freight Does Not Signal Recovery   Breakdown Watch Financial market segments sensitive to the global business cycle have been splintering at the edges. These cracks appear to be proliferating to the center and will render considerable damage to aggregate equity indexes. EM corporate EPS contraction is broad-based. We explained our rationale behind using long-term moving averages to identify significant breakouts and breakdowns in last week’s report. We also highlighted the numerous breakdowns that have already transpired. Today, we supplement the list: EM equity relative performance versus DM has fallen below its previous lows (Chart I-10, top panel). Crucially, emerging Asian stocks’ relative performance versus DM has clearly breached its 2015-2016 lows (Chart I-10, bottom panel). The KOSPI and Chinese H-share indexes have broken below their three-year moving averages (Chart I-11, top two panels). Chart I-10EM Equities Relative Performance Has Broken Down Chinese bank stocks in particular have been responsible for dragging China’s H-share index lower (Chart I-11, bottom panel). In addition, Chinese small-cap stocks dropped below their December low, as have copper prices and our Risk-On versus Safe-Haven currency ratio1 (Chart I-12). Finally, German chemical and industrial share prices such as BASF, Siemens and ThyssenKrupp have decisively broken down (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Breakdowns In Korea And China...   Chart I-12...In Commodities Space As Well Chart I-13German Manufacturing Stocks Are In Free Fall   This implies that Germany’s manufacturing slowdown is not limited to the auto sector but rather is pervasive. Besides, these companies are greatly exposed to China/EM demand, and their share prices simply reflect the ongoing slump in China/EM capital spending. There are several other market signals that are at a critical technical juncture, and their move lower will confirm our downbeat view on global growth and cyclical markets. In particular: The global stocks-to-U.S. Treasurys ratio has dropped to a critical technical line (Chart I-14, top panel). Failure to hold this defense line would signal considerable downside in global cyclical assets. Similarly, the Chinese stock-to-bond ratio – calculated using total returns of both the MSCI China All-Share index and domestic government bonds – has plunged. The path of least resistance for this ratio might be to the downside (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Given China is the epicenter of the global slowdown, this ratio is of vital importance. The lack of recovery in this ratio signifies lingering downside growth risks. Finally, global cyclical sectors’ relative performance versus defensive ones is sitting on its three-year moving average (Chart I-15). A move lower will qualify as a major breakdown and confirm the absence of a global manufacturing and trade recovery. Chart I-14Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio: Sitting On Edge Chart I-15Global Cyclicals Versus Defensives: At A Critical Juncture   Bottom Line: Several important markets have already experienced technical breakdowns, and a few others are at risk of doing so. All in all, these provide us with confidence in maintaining our downbeat stance on EM risk assets and currencies. EM Bonds: The Last Shoe To Drop? Although EM share prices are back to their December lows, EM local currency and U.S. dollar bonds have done well this year, benefiting from the indiscriminate global bond market rally. However, there are limits to how far and for how long the performance of EM domestic and U.S. dollar bonds can diverge from EM stocks, currencies and commodities prices (Chart I-16). EM domestic bond yields have plunged close to the 2013 lows they touched prior to the Federal Reserve’s ‘Taper Tantrum’ selloff (Chart I-17, top panel). That said, on a total return basis in common currency terms, the GBI EM domestic bond index has not outperformed U.S. Treasurys, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart I-17. Chart I-16Which Way These Gaps Will Close? Chart I-17EM Domestic Bonds: Poor Risk-Reward Profile   Looking forward, EM exchange rates remain critical to the returns of this asset class. With the GBI EM local currency bond index’s yield spread over five-year U.S. Treasurys at about 400 basis points, EM currencies have very little room to depreciate before foreign investors begin experiencing losses. We believe that further RMB depreciation, commodities prices deflation and EM exports contraction all bode ill for EM exchange rates. Consequently, we expect EM local bonds to underperform U.S. Treasurys of similar duration over the next several months. German chemical and industrial share prices such as BASF, Siemens and ThyssenKrupp have decisively broken down. Finally, the euro has begun rapid appreciation versus EM currencies. This will erode EM local bonds’ returns to European investors and trigger a period of outflows. Within this asset class, our overweights are Mexico, Russia, Central Europe, Chile, Korea and Thailand, while we continue to recommend underweight positions in the Philippines, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Peru within an EM local currency bond portfolio. As to EM credit space (hard currency bonds), these markets are overbought, and investors positioning is heavy. EM currency depreciation and lower commodities prices typically herald widening spreads. Argentina has a large weight in the EM credit indexes, and the crash in Argentine markets could be a trigger for outflows from this asset class. Technically speaking, there are already several negative signposts. The excess returns on EM sovereign and corporate bonds seem to have rolled over, having failed to surpass their early 2018 highs (Chart I-18). Besides, EM sovereign CDS spreads are breaking out (Chart I-19, top panel). Chart I-18EM Credit Markets Is Toppy Chart I-19EM Credit Space Is Entering Selloff   Finally, there are noticeable cracks in the emerging Asian corporate credit market. The price index of China’s high-yield property bonds – that account for a very large portion not only of the Chinese but also the emerging Asian corporate bond universes – has petered out at an important technical resistance level (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Further, the relative total return of emerging Asia’s investment-grade corporate bonds against their high-yield peers is correlated with Asia corporate spreads, and presently points to wider spreads (Chart I-20). The rationale is that periods when safer parts of the credit universe outperform the riskier ones are usually associated with widening credit spreads. China’s property market remains vulnerable as the central authorities in Beijing have not provided much housing-related stimulus in the current downtrend. Furthermore, companies in this space are overleveraged, generate poor cash flow and have limited access to credit. The euro has begun rapid appreciation versus EM currencies. This will erode EM local bonds’ returns to European investors and trigger a period of outflows. Overall, Chinese property developers will affect the EM credit space in two ways. First, their credit spreads will likely continue to shoot up, generating investor anxiety and outflows from this asset class. Second, reduced investment by debt-laden and cash-strapped property developers will inflict pain on industrial and materials companies in Asia and beyond. We discuss the outlook for steel, iron ore and coal, which are very exposed to Chinese construction, in the section below. Bottom Line: For asset allocators, we recommend underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. investment grade, a strategy we have been advocating since August 16, 2017 (Chart I-21). For dedicated portfolios, the list of our overweights and underweights, as always, is presented at the end of the report (page 21). Chart I-20Emerging Asian Corporate Spreads Will Widen Chart I-21Favor U.S. Investment Grade Versus EM Overall Credit   As for EM domestic bonds, we continue to recommend betting on yield declines in select countries without taking on currency risk. These include Korea, Chile, Mexico and Russia. We will warm up to this asset class in general when we alter our negative EM currency view. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Chinese Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Markets: Renewed Deflation Chart II-1Is Deflation In Steel And Coal Back? Unlike 2015 when steel, iron ore and coal prices collapsed, in the current downturn they have so far held up reasonably well. They have begun falling only recently (Chart II-1). Even though we do not anticipate a 2015-type Armageddon in steel, iron ore and coal prices, they will deflate further due to supply outpacing demand in China. For both steel and coal, the pace of “de-capacity” reforms in China has diminished considerably, with declining shutdowns of inefficient capacity and rising advanced capacity, as we argued in a couple of reports last year.  This has led to a faster growth in supply, while demand has been dwindling with weak economic growth. Lower steel, iron ore and coal prices will harm Chinese and global producers along with their respective countries.2 Steel And Iron Ore First, both crude steel and steel products output will likely grow at a pace of 5-7% (Chart II-2). As the 2016-2020 steel de-capacity target (150 million tons capacity reduction) was already achieved by the end of 2018, the scale of further shutdowns will be limited. In addition, collapsing graphite electrode prices reflect an increased supply of this material. This along with more availability of scrap steel will facilitate the continuing expansion of cleaner technology (electric furnace (EF)) steel capacity and their output in China. The newly added EF steel capacity is planned at about 21 million tons in 2019 (representing 1.8% of official aggregate steel production capacity), slightly lower than the 25 million tons in 2018. Second, we expect steel products demand to grow at 3-5%, slightly weaker than output. Construction accounts for about 55% of Chinese final steel demand, with about 35% stemming from the property market and 20% from infrastructure. The automotive sector contributes about 10% of final Chinese steel demand. All of these end markets are weak and do not yet show signs of revival (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Steel Production In China Chart II-3No Recovery In Chinese Demand   Concerning iron ore price, we expect more downside than in steel. Supply disruptions among Brazilian and Australian producers were the main cause for the significant rally in iron ore prices this year. Evidence is that these producers have already resumed their output recovery. Current iron ore prices are still well above marginal production costs of major global iron ore producers. Besides, ongoing large currency depreciation in commodity producing countries will push down their marginal production costs in U.S. dollars terms. This will encourage further supply.  As China has increased its use of scrap steel in its crude steel production, the country’s iron ore demand has not grown much. In fact, imports of this raw material have contracted (Chart II-4) As scrap steel prices are currently very low relative to the price of imported iron ore (Chart II-5), steel producers in China will continue to use scrap steel instead of iron ore. Chart II-4China's Imports Of Iron Ore Have Been Shrinking Chart II-5Scrap Steel Is A Cheap Substitute For Iron Ore   Coal Chart II-6Coal Output Is Rising, But Beijing's Goal To Reduce Its Usage Chinese coal prices will also be under downward pressure. First, coal output growth will likely slow but will still stand at 2-4% down from a current 6% level (Chart II-6, top panel). The government has set a production goal of 3900 million tons for 2020. Given last year’s output of 3680 million tons, this implies only a 2.9% annual growth rate this year and the next. Second, the demand for both thermal coal and coking coal will likely weaken. They account for 80% and 20% of total coal demand, respectively. About 60% of Chinese coal is used to generate thermal power. As the country continues to promote the use of clean energy, thermal power output growth will likely slow further. Increasing the nation’s reliance on clean energy is an imperative strategic objective for Beijing. Given that thermal coal still accounts for a whopping 70% of electricity production, China will maintain its effort on reducing coal in its energy mix (Chart II-6, bottom panel). In the same vein, the government will continue to replace coal with natural gas in home heating. Finally, Chinese coal import volumes are likely to decline as the nation is increasingly relying on its domestic sources. In particular, the strategic Menghua railway construction will be completed in October. It will be used to transport the commodity from large producers in the north to the coal-deficit provinces in the south. This will reduce the nation’s coal imports, as the transportation cost of shipping domestic coal to the southern power plants will become more competitive than imported coal. Macro And Investment Implications First, companies and economies producing these commodities will face deflationary pressures. These include - but are not limited to - Indonesia, Australia, Brazil and South Africa, as well as steel producers around the world. Second, the RMB depreciation will allow China to gain further market share in the global steel market. In fact, China’s share of global steel output has been rising (Chart II-7, top panel). The bottom panel of Chart II-7 shows that steel production in the world excluding China have actually come to a grinding halt at a time when mainland producers have enjoyed high output growth. Global steel stocks have broken down and global mining equities are heading into a breakdown (Chart II-8). Chart II-7China Has Been Gaining A Share In Global Steel Market Chart II-8Breakdown In Steel And Mining Stocks   Finally, we remain bearish on commodities and other global growth sensitive currencies. In particular, we continue shorting the following basket of EM currencies against the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR and KRW. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1          Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return (including carry) indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns. 2      This is BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy view and is different from BCA’s house view. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Fixed-Income And Credit Recommendations

How important is the potential thawing of the Sino-U.S. trade war to oil markets?  On a scale of 1 – 10, this goes up to 11 (Chart of the Week). Brent’s and WTI’s one-day rally of ~ 5% on Tuesday, followed by a 4.5% sell-off on Wednesday, is a testimony to the importance these markets place on the evolution of the Sino-U.S. trade war, and anything that suggests a change in the status quo.1 The rally was an almost-immediate response to the announcement the U.S. would delay until December 15 the imposition of tariffs on ~ $160 billion of $300 billion of goods that become effective September 1. The tariffs were announced August 1 by President Trump. Wednesday's sell-off was triggered by weak global economic data and building U.S. crude stocks. It also was a wake-up that nothing substantive was advanced to resolve the Sino-U.S. trade war. The rally indicates pent-up demand awaits a resolution of trade uncertainties. In this report, we introduce our new proprietary Nowcast model of EM commodity demand.2 We also look at the overall macro backdrop for commodity markets, which is largely supportive, with most of the world’s central banks moving to a recession-fighting mode.3   In addition, we could get a deal between the U.S. and China following the resumption of tariff negotiations in Washington come September, which allows some resumption of trade. We have little doubt markets would welcome such an outcome. However, we remain skeptical of the deeper issues separating the two sides – e.g., IP protection, an end to forced technology transfers – will be resolved in the near future. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Saudi Aramco held its first-ever investor call this week, disclosing it earned close to $50 billion in 1H19. Earnings were down ~ 12% in the period, according to the company, partly as a result of a 4% decline in realized prices for crude oil vs. 1H18. This is a relatively small decline vs. the 7% and 12% 1H19 y/y declines in Brent and WTI, over the same period, reflecting the Kingdom’s premier position as the largest exporter of medium and heavy crudes in the world. These streams are in short supply relative to the light-sweet crude being produced in the U.S. shales. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper also got a lift from renewed trade-talk hopes, rising 2.3% on the back of the unexpected trade news from the Trump administration earlier in the week. Many of the products exempted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative are electronics – cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, and computer monitors – which will marginally support copper prices, and Christmas retail sales. Copper held on to most of its gains Wednesday. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold and silver sold off following the U.S. trade representative’s announcement, but recovered later in the trading day, and Wednesday. Gold continues to trade above $1,500/oz, while silver trades over $17/oz. We remain long both metals as portfolio hedges against policy risk. Ags/Softs: Underweight. With the exception of corn, grains and beans mostly rallied on the trade news, with soybeans ending the day up 1.2% Tuesday. Corn traded down 6.1% Monday and a further 5.0% Tuesday, following the USDA’s WASDE report, which indicated acres planted would fall by less than analysts estimated going into the Monday morning release of the department’s supply-demand estimates, according to agriculture.com. Feature Commodity markets are noted for their ability to cover a year’s worth of price movement in a matter of days. The past two weeks in the oil markets have not disappointed, as the Chart of the Week attests. Despite the volatility introduced by exogenous policy shocks, we remain constructive on crude oil. The underlying resilience in the growth of EM economies, which drives commodity demand generally, is apparent in various gauges we’ve developed to track something close to current conditions in markets. In addition, as noted above, fiscal and monetary policy globally remains supportive of commodity demand. While growth may not match the halcyon pre-GFC days shown in the top panel of Chart 2, growth still is strong and, importantly for commodities, is coming off a higher base level.4 Broader indicators – e.g., global and country-specific LEIs – support our expectation for improved EM growth, which, ultimately is what drives commodity demand. We are compelled to note considerable uncertainty around the prospects for global growth – particularly for EM GDP growth – exists in markets and within BCA Research. Our Special Report on these divergent views elegantly presents these differences, and we highly recommend it to our readers. Fundamentally, we align with the bulls, who argue global growth can be expected to rebound this year, for reasons we cite above. The bears in BCA, which include our Emerging Market strategists, have a different view to ours, particularly on EM domestic demand. The bears expect a further deterioration in global economic activity or a delayed recovery. As a result, they expect additional downside in stocks and risk assets – including commodities – and outperformance of defensives relative to cyclicals, low safe-haven yields, and a generally stronger dollar.5  EM GDP Resilience Our BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast model points to an underlying recovery in oil demand, despite the continued policy-induced volatility in prices (Chart 2). This model is a weighted index of our Global Commodity Factor (GCF), Global Industrial Activity (GIA) Index, and EM Import Volume (EMIV) models (Chart 3).6  Chart 2BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Suggests Oil Demand Rebounding Chart 3BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Components   Chart 4Global Growth Poised To Resume The GCF uses principal component analysis to distill the primary driver of 28 different commodity prices traded globally. The GIA index uses trade data, FX rates, manufacturing data and Chinese industrial activity statistics, which can be updated monthly. Lastly, the EMIV model is driven by EM import volumes reported with a two-month lag by the CPB in the Netherlands, which can be updated to current time using FX rates of economies highly sensitive to EM trade. Our BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast is strongly correlated with y/y growth in nominal EM GDP and non-OECD oil consumption, as Chart 2 shows. This highlights the strong connection between EM GDP growth and oil demand growth. This also is critical to price formation – indeed,  our Nowcast is highly correlated with crude oil prices, which explains why EM GDP is our principal demand variable in forecasting oil prices (Chart 2, bottom panel). Other, broader indicators – e.g., global and country-specific LEIs – support our expectation for improved EM growth, which, ultimately is what drives commodity demand (Chart 4). However, these can change as local economic activity changes.7 One important thing to note, however: While China’s nominal import volumes are weaker y/y, its volume of crude oil imports (Chart 4, top panel) are growing. Partly this is the result of strong refinery margins; but there is a risk too much product will be produced, which could saturate Asian refined-product markets.8 Bullish Crude Oil Term Structure While price levels have been hammered lower by trade policy uncertainty and weekly pivots in direction, the Brent and WTI forward curves remain backwardated (Chart 5). This normally indicates market tightness – i.e., refiners are willing to pay more for prompt-delivered crude than for deferred delivery. Crude oil markets continue to be buffeted by policy shocks – particularly in regard to the Sino-U.S. trade war. Chart 5Crude Oil Forwards Remain Backwardated This is consistent with our reading of the underlying supply-demand dynamics of the crude market. It is important to note the backwardation in these forward curves weakened almost every month since the beginning of the year. This suggests demand slowed – the market is tight, but closer to balanced, and not in as large a supply deficit as it was expected earlier in the year. We expect OPEC 2.0 to continue to maintain production discipline, and for demand to turn up in 2H19.9 In addition, we continue to expect strong demand in 2H19 and in 2020 as we’ve noted above, given the supportive fiscal and monetary backdrop globally. Bottom Line: Crude oil markets continue to be buffeted by policy shocks – particularly in regard to the Sino-U.S. trade war. Despite these shocks, demand for crude is holding up, although it still is lower than what we expected previously – along with the EIA and IEA, we’ve been revising demand lower in our last three monthly Global Oil Balance assessments. Demand is now supported by monetary and fiscal policy easing globally. However, escalation in trade tensions could bring demand down again. Indeed, an escalation in Sino-U.S. trade tensions could push this to a lower equilibrium. It is important to point out our Nowcast is a coincident indicator, and that most of our series' last data points were observed in July, which is before the latest escalation in trade tensions. We could see a move down in some of our indicators next month. To be clear, we are not sounding an all-clear on the trade front, although we are seeing signs of recovery from relatively high base levels of EM GDP activity.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see USTR Announces Next Steps on Proposed 10 Percent Tariff on Imports from China, issued by the Office of the United States Trade Representative August 13, 2019. The USTR’s press release appears to be something of an olive branch, noting, “On May 17, 2019, USTR published a list of products imported from China that would be potentially subject to an additional 10 percent tariff.  This new tariff will go into effect on September 1 as announced by President Trump on August 1.”  This suggests the opening of a possible compromise ahead of trade talks set to resume next month. 2      As discussed below, our BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast combines three of our proprietary models gauging EM commodity demand.  Please see Getting Long Silver, To Hedge Exogenous Shocks, published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy August 8, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    Our prior remains it is highly unlikely the PBOC or the Fed will let their economies weaken substantially without deploying additional monetary stimulus.  In addition, we believe Chinese policymakers will hold off on major stimulus in the next couple of months to get thru National Day, which will allow them to deploy further fiscal stimulus after October and next year, in the event the trade war and currency war worsens.  We also draw attention to the fact that, globally, central banks all are acting as if they’re already fighting a recession – last week, three central banks announced further easing (India, New Zealand, Thailand), following similar action by the Fed and Asian central banks (South Korea and Indonesia).  A full-blown trade war between the U.S. and China would be tumultuous, but, after the dust settles, global supply chains would have to be rebuilt or augmented, as trading blocs centered on the respective antagonists regrouped and reorganized their trading relationships and supply lines. 4     Using World Bank quarterly GDP figures, we calculate Emerging and Developing markets’ GDP will be up close to 74% between 2007 and 2019, averaging $7.24 trillion in constant 2010 USD this year. 5      We urge our clients to read this Special Report, What Goes On Between Those Walls? BCA’s Diverging Views In The Open, published by BCA Research July 19, 2019. 6       The nowcasting index uses the weighted average of each component’s coefficient of determination that falls out of a regression against EM GDP growth. Our analysis indicates EM oil demand is driven by EM GDP growth.  For additional information on the separate gauges, please see Getting Long Silver, To Hedge Exogenous Shocks, Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy August 8 and May 9, 2019.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7      We note Indian economic activity is slowing due to strains on the shadow-banking system in that country.  This bears watching, as India is the second largest EM economy we track in our oil-demand estimates.  Please see India's passenger vehicle sales drop at steepest pace in nearly two decades, published by in.reuters.com August 13, 2019. Auto industry representatives are pushing for government support to address the sales downturn.  S&P’s BSE index measuring the health of Indian banks is down 23% ytd.  8     Please see UPDATE 1-China's July crude oil imports rise as refiners ramp up output published by reuters.com August 8, 2019. 9      We are updating our supply-demand balances and prices forecasts for Brent and WTI next week. For our most recent forecast, please see Weak 1H19 Oil Demand Data Fuels Market Uncertainty published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy July 18, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Economic data suggest the current business cycle in China has not yet reached a bottom. Stimulus measures have not been forceful enough to fully offset a slowing domestic economy and weakening global demand. With possibly more U.S. tariffs to come, intensifying political unrest in Hong Kong and a currency set to depreciate further, the potential downside risks outweigh any potential upside over the near term. Investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long. We are still early in a credit expansionary cycle, and we expect further economic weakness to pave the way for more policy support in China. However, we recommend investors who are not yet invested in Chinese assets to remain on the sidelines until clearer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. Feature Chart 1A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks Financial market volatility surged in the first half of the month following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tweet, vowing to impose a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods by September 1st. By the end of last week, prices of China investable stocks relative to global equities had nearly wiped out all their 2019 year-to-date gains. (Chart 1) The extent of the decline has left some investors wondering whether the time has come to bottom-fish Chinese assets. In our view, the answer is no. In this week’s report we detail five reasons why the near-term outlook for China-related assets remains negative. We remain bullish on Chinese stocks over the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) horizon and recommend investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets stay long. However, we also recommend investors who are not yet invested to remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. As we go to press, the U.S. Trade Representative Office announced that the Trump administration would delay imposing the 10% tariff on a series of consumer goods imported from China — including laptops and cell phones — until December.1 Stocks in the U.S. surged on the news. Today’s rally in the equity market highlights our view, that short-term market performance can be dominated and distorted by news on the trade front. However, market rallies based on headline news will not sustain without the support of economic fundamentals. Reason #1: Chinese Economic Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed In a previous China Investment Strategy report,2  we presented some simple arithmetic to help investors formulate their outlook on the Chinese economy. We argued that in a full-tariff scenario, investors should focus on the likely outcome of one of the two following possibilities: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock ≤ 0 In scenario 1, the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand from the sharp decline in exports to the U.S. Scenario 2 denotes an outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock. For now, we remain in scenario 2 due to Chinese policymakers’ continual reluctance to allow the economy to re-leverage. The magnitude of the credit impulse so far has been “half measured” relative to previous cycles.3  More than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom. As a result, more than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom, with the main pillars supporting China’s “old economy” still in the doldrums (Chart 2 and Chart 3). Chart 2No Clear Bottom, Yet Chart 3Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher   In addition to a weakening domestic economy, China’s external sector has been weighed down by U.S. import tariffs as well as slowing global demand. (Chart 4).  The possibility of adding a 10% tariff by year end on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese goods exports to the U.S. may trigger another tariff “front-running” episode in the 3rd quarter. However, Chart 5 and Chart 6 highlight that any front-running would be against the backdrop of sluggish global demand. Therefore, not only the upside in Chinese export growth will be very limited in the subsequent months following the front-running, but export growth is also likely to fall deeper into contraction. Chart 4Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Chart 5Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Chart 6Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Reason # 2: A-Shares Are Not Yet Signaling A Sizeable Policy Response In previous China Investment Strategy reports, we have written at length about how Chinese policymakers are reluctant to undo their financial deleveraging efforts and push for more stimulus. After incorporating July credit data, our credit impulse, at a very subdued 26% of nominal GDP, was in fact a pullback from June’s credit growth number (Chart 7). This confirms our view that the current stimulus is clearly falling short compared to the 2015-2016 credit expansionary cycle. It underscores Chinese policymakers’ commitment to keep their foot off the stimulus pedal. What’s more, the recent performance of China’s domestic financial markets has been consistent with a half-measured credit response, and is not yet signaling a meaningful change in China’s policy stance. The A-share market since last summer has been trading off of the likely policy response to the trade war. Chart 8Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Chart 8 (top panel) shows that the A-share market has closely tracked China’s domestic credit growth over the past year. Given this, we believe that the A-share market is reacting more to the likely policy response to the trade war, in contrast to the investable market which rises and falls in near-lockstep with trade-related news (middle panel). The fact that A-share stocks have been trending sideways underscores that China’s domestic equity market continues to expect “half measured” stimulus. This week’s sharp decline in China’s 10-year government bond yield is in part related to escalating political unrest in Hong Kong (bottom panel), and in our view does not yet signal any major change in the PBOC’s stance. Finally, our corporate earnings recession probability model provides another perspective on the equity market implications of the current path of stimulus. If the current size of stimulus holds through the end of 2019, our model suggests that the probability of an outright contraction in corporate earnings lasting through year end remains quite elevated, at close to 50% (first X in Chart 9). The July Politburo statement signaled a greater willingness to stimulate the economy; as a result, we are penciling in a slightly more optimistic scenario on forthcoming credit growth through the remainder of the year, by adding 300 billion yuan of debt-to-bond swaps4 and 800 billion yuan of extra infrastructure spending5 to our baseline estimate for the rest of 2019. However, this would only add a credit impulse equivalent of 1 percentage point of nominal GDP and would only marginally reduce the probability of an earnings recession to 40% (second X in Chart 9). A 40% chance of an earnings recession is well above “normal” levels that would be consistent with a durable uptrend in stock prices, and in previous cycles, Chinese stock prices picked up only after business cycles and corporate earnings had bottomed (Chart 10). In sum, the current pace of credit growth, signals from the domestic equity market, and our earnings recession model all suggest that it is too early to bottom fish Chinese stocks. Chart 9A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer Chart 10Too Early To Bottom Fish Reason #3: The Trade War Is Far From Over Our Geopolitical Strategy team maintains that the U.S. and China have only a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020, and that any trade truce is likely to be shallow.6 We agree with this assessment, which has clear negative near-term implications for Chinese investable stocks, even if temporary rallies such as what took place yesterday periodically occur. Since the onset of the trade war, Chinese investable stocks appear to have traded nearly entirely in reaction to trade-related events. Hence, until global investors are given proof that much stronger stimulus can and will offset the impact of the trade war on corporate earnings, Chinese stocks are likely to continue to underperform their global peers. Reason #4: The Hong Kong Crisis Is A Near-Term Risk Another near-term catalyst for financial market turbulence in China is the worsening situation in Hong Kong. For now, we hold the view that a full-blown crisis (i.e. China intervening with military force) can be avoided, but we are not ruling out the possibility of a severe escalation or its potential impact on market sentiment towards Chinese assets.  On the surface, China investable stocks (the MSCI China Index, the predominantly investable index that now includes some mainland A-shares) are not directly linked to businesses in Hong Kong: Out of the top 10 constituents of the MSCI China Index, which account for roughly 50% of the index’s market capitalization, seven are headquartered in mainland China and do not appear to have significant revenue exposure to Hong Kong. By contrast, at least 30% of Hang Seng Index-listed companies have business operations in Hong Kong. The remaining three companies in the top 10 MSCI China Index are Tencent (the largest component of the index, with a weight of approximately 15%), Ping An Insurance (4% weight), and China Mobile (3% weight) – all of which registered large losses in the past week. Both Tencent and Ping An Insurance are headquartered in Shenzhen, a southeastern China metropolis that links Hong Kong to mainland China. China Mobile appears to have the most revenue exposure to Hong Kong of any top constituent through its CMHK subsidiary, which is the largest telecommunications provider in Hong Kong. It is true that there has been little evidence so far that Chinese investable stocks have been more impacted by the escalation in political unrest in Hong Kong than by the escalation in the trade war. Indeed, the fact that the two escalations were overlapping this past week makes it difficult to isolate their effects. But if unrest in Hong Kong spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China intervening. According to an analysis done by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team,6 the deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries. The 1989 Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions. Should this to occur, the near-term idiosyncratic risk to Chinese stocks in both onshore and offshore markets will be significant. Reason #5: Further RMB Depreciation May Weigh On Stock Prices Whether due to manipulation or market forces, last week’s depreciation in the Chinese currency (RMB) was economically justified and long overdue. Chart 11RMB Depreciation Long Overdue Chart 11 shows the close relationship between the U.S.-China one-year swap rate differential and the USD/CNY exchange rate. The true source of the correlation shown in the chart remains somewhat of a mystery, given that Chinese capital controls, particularly following the 2015 devaluation episode, prevent the arbitrage activities that link rate differentials and exchange rates in economies with fully open capital accounts. However, Chart 11 clearly shows that China’s currency would have already weakened by now if it was fully market-driven, and we do not believe that the People’s Bank of China will be inclined to tighten monetary policy in order to reverse the recent devaluation. Hence, the path of least resistance for the CNY is further depreciation.  If the threatened 10% tariff on all remaining U.S. imports from China is imposed this year, our back-of-the-envelope calculation based on Chart 12 suggests that a market-driven “equilibrium” USD/CNY exchange rate should be at around 7.6. We have high conviction, based on previous RMB devaluation episodes, that China’s central bank will not allow its currency to depreciate in a manner that invites speculation of meaningful further weakness – meaning we are not likely to see a straight-lined or rapid depreciation down to the 7.6 mark. Chart 12Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the Chinese economy. At the same time, aggressive market intervention via the PBoC burning through its foreign exchange reserves is also unlikely: A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the economy. It improves Chinese export goods’ price competitiveness and helps mitigate some of the pain caused by increased tariffs. Therefore it is in the PBoC’s every interest to allow such depreciation. However, no matter how “orderly” RMB depreciation may be, the fact that the PBoC has signaled it is no longer defending a “line in the sand” exchange-rate mark is likely to trigger another round of “race to the bottom” currency devaluation from other regional, export-dependent economies.7 A weaker RMB and emerging market currencies will also contribute to USD strength. A strong dollar has been negatively correlated with global risky assets, implying that for a time, a weaker RMB will be a risk-off event for risky assets and thus presumably for Chinese and EM equity relative performance. Investment Implications Our analysis above highlights that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is fraught with risk, and it is for this reason that we recommended an underweight tactical position in Chinese stocks for the remainder of the year in our July 24 Weekly Report.8 However, by next summer (the tail-end of our cyclical investment horizon), it is our judgement that one of two things will have likely occurred: The trade war with the U.S. will have abated or been called off, and investors will have determined that a “half-strength” credit cycle is likely enough to stabilize Chinese domestic demand and the earnings outlook. In this scenario, Chinese stocks are likely to rise US$ terms over the coming year, relative to global stocks. The trade war with the U.S. will have continued, and Chinese policymakers will have acted on the need to stimulate aggressively further in order to stabilize domestic demand. In combination with an ultimately stimulative (although near-term negative) decline in the RMB, the relative performance of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark will likely be higher in hedged currency terms. Because of the near-term risks to the outlook, we agree that investors who are not yet invested should remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. But investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long, and should bet on the latter scenario: rising relative Chinese equity performance in local currency terms, alongside a falling CNY-USD / appreciating USD-CNY exchange rate.   Jing Sima  China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “US to delay some tariffs on Chinese goods”, Financial Times, August 13, 2019. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC”, dated July 10, 2019, and “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4      The remaining of 14 trillion debt-to-bond swap program rounds up to 315 billion yuan. 5      The relaxed financing requirement for infrastructure projects can add 800 billion yuan. 6      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch. 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “The RMB: Depreciation Time?”, dated May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Hawkish trade policy will continue to weigh on bond yields for at least the next few months, but a rebound in global economic growth should take hold before the end of the year. Ultimately, a growth rebound will lead to higher bond yields on a 12-month horizon, but the timing is difficult and investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being. High-Yield: The Fed’s accommodative policy stance and the likelihood of a global growth recovery argue for maintaining an overweight allocation to corporate credit. Within that allocation, junk bonds should outperform investment grade due to much more attractive valuations. 10-Year Treasury Yield: The current shock to global economic growth is of a similar magnitude to the one that occurred in 2015/16. However, wage and inflationary pressures are higher now than they were back then. This means that the 10-year Treasury yield will not re-visit the 2016 trough of 1.37%, and is probably already close to its floor. Feature Regular readers will be aware of our Fed Policy Loop framework for analyzing the wiggles in financial markets. The Loop works as follows: Step 1: A dovish shift in Fed policy leads to a favorable market reaction, easing financial conditions. Step 2: Easier financial conditions suggest to the Fed that economic growth will strengthen in the future. The Fed can therefore respond by adopting a more hawkish policy stance. Step 3: The Fed’s hawkish policy shift leads to a negative market reaction, tightening financial conditions. Step 4: Tighter financial conditions suggest to the Fed that economic growth will weaken in the future. The Fed is forced to ease monetary policy at the margin. Return to Step 1 But it appears that BCA readers aren’t the only ones aware of the Fed Policy Loop. President Trump has also been exploiting the two-way relationship between Fed policy and financial conditions as he escalates his trade war with China. Chart 1 illustrates how this has been working. Step 1 of the Fed policy loop continues to function exactly as described above. However, the last few times that financial conditions have eased, the President has seized the opportunity to ratchet up trade tensions. Much like the Fed, the President reasons that periods of easier financial conditions are when the economy and financial markets can best handle a negative shock. The fall-out is that financial conditions tighten in response to the hawkish trade announcement, and the Fed is forced to respond to tighter financial conditions by turning even more dovish. The end result is that the part of the Fed Policy Loop labeled “Hawkish Fed” is by-passed. Without that step it is impossible for bond yields to rise (Chart 2). Chart 2The Back-Drop Of The Interrupted Fed Policy Loop Our Geopolitical Strategy service provided a comprehensive breakdown of U.S./China trade negotiations in last week’s report.1 The overall message is that the 2020 election is the President’s main constraint. He views hawkish trade policy as a winning issue, but only insofar as it can be accomplished without a significant decline in the stock market or economic activity. Faced with that constraint, the President will continue to interrupt the Fed Policy Loop, and the Fed will continue to do its job by adopting a more dovish monetary policy to offset possible trade shocks. At present, this means that another rate cut is likely in September. Against the back-drop of the “interrupted” Fed Policy Loop, Treasury yields can only move higher if global economic growth strengthens. In that case, the policy loop will remain operative, but at an overall higher level of yields. With that in mind, while hawkish trade policy will continue to weigh on bond yields for at least the next few months, a rebound in global economic growth should take hold before the end of the year. This will lead to higher bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Still Tracking The 2015/16 Roadmap In our research, we have repeatedly pointed out the similarities between the 2015/16 episode of flagging global growth and the current period. Specifically, we continue to witness weak manufacturing data – both in the U.S. and abroad – but a resilient service sector and strong labor market. Much like in 2015/16, we expect that the shifts toward easier monetary policy in the U.S. and more accommodative credit conditions in China will eventually put a floor under the global manufacturing cycle. The Fed will continue to do its job by adopting a more dovish monetary policy to offset possible trade shocks. At present, this means that another rate cut is likely in September. Case in point, even as President Trump has tightened global financial conditions at the margin through his hawkish trade policy, overall global financial conditions have eased since the beginning of the year (Chart 3). In 2016, easier financial conditions eventually led to upturns in crucial measures of global growth such as the Goldman Sachs Current Activity Indicator (Chart 3, top panel), the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 3, panel 2), and the CRB Raw Industrials index (Chart 3, bottom panel). The same dynamic should play out this time around. It’s likely that the main reason why global growth has not responded as quickly as it did in 2016 is that Chinese policy easing has not been as rapid (Chart 4). Our China Investment Strategy service’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite measure of money and credit indicators designed to lead Chinese economic activity – has clearly bottomed, but has not yet surged as it did in 2015/16. However, Chinese policy easing continues to ramp up, a process that will continue in the months ahead. The most recent indication of this trend was China’s decision to de-value its currency versus the U.S. dollar, causing the exchange rate to jump above the important psychological threshold of 7 yuan per dollar (Chart 4, bottom panel). China took similar measures to de-value its currency in August 2015, a move that initially roiled markets but eventually helped usher in a rebound in global growth. Chart 3The 2015/2016 Scenario Has Yet To Play Out... Chart 4...As Long As China Does Not Stimulate More When it comes to strategy, we remain confident that global growth is close to a trough, but admit that timing the rebound is difficult. One indicator that should help with timing is the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold (Chart 5). This ratio is tightly correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield, and will only rise when the perceived improvement in global growth – proxied by the CRB index – starts to outpace the perceived dovish tilt to Fed policy – proxied by the rising gold price. Chart 5Keep Tracking The CRB / Gold Ratio In light of these difficulties with timing, we recommend that investors keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but position for a rebound in global growth by maintaining an overweight allocation to credit risk and by running a heavily barbelled Treasury portfolio, overweighting the long and short ends of the curve while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year maturities. The barbell strategy increases average portfolio yield, and also avoids the part of the yield curve that will suffer the most when yields rise. Take Credit Risk In Junk As mentioned above, we recommend that investors maintain an overweight allocation to corporate credit versus Treasuries, despite our recent shift to benchmark duration.2 This is particularly true for high-yield bonds, where spreads are very attractive. Charts 6A and 6B show one of our favorite ways of looking at corporate bond spreads. The charts show the 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier as a percentile rank relative to history.3 We show each credit tier individually to control for the time-varying average credit rating of the overall indexes. Similarly, we show breakeven spreads instead of the average option-adjusted spreads to control for the time-varying average duration of the bond indexes. Chart 6A shows the following valuation for investment grade credit tiers: Throughout history, Aaa credits have been more expensive than they are today only 13% of the time. Aa credits have been more expensive than they are today 19% of the time. A-rated credits have been more expensive 20% of the time. Baa credits have been more expensive 33% of the time. Chart 6B shows that the corresponding valuation for high-yield is much more compelling: Ba credits have been more expensive than today 55% of the time. B credits have been more expensive 81% of the time. Caa credits have been more expensive 84% of the time. Chart 6AInvestment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 6BHigh-Yield Breakeven Spreads In general, this way of looking at spreads shows that investment grade credits are quite expensive, while high-yield credits are either fairly valued or cheap. However, there is one more adjustment we can make to get an even better picture of corporate bond value. Adjusting For The Phase Of The Cycle A useful tool for cyclical portfolio allocation is to split the cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve (Chart 7). We define the three phases as: Chart 7The Three Phases Of The Cycle Phase 1: From the end of the last recession until the 3/10 Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2: When the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps. Phase 3: From when the 3/10 slope inverts until the start of the next recession. We have previously discussed the implications of the different phases for bond portfolio allocation in more depth.4 This week, we simply want to point out that credit spreads tend to be tighter during Phase 2 of the cycle, when monetary policy has tightened, but not by enough to cause a surge in corporate defaults. The recent surge in investment grade net debt-to-EBITDA likely reflects the shift toward a greater concentration of Baa-rated issuers. With this cyclical decomposition in mind, we can calculate the median breakeven spread for each credit tier in past Phase 2 periods and use that as a spread target for this cycle. We then convert our breakeven spread targets into average option-adjusted spread targets using current index duration. Charts 8A and 8B show how far each credit tier’s spreads are from target. The message is quite clear. Outside of Aaa, investment grade credits are more or less fairly valued, while high-yield credits appear very cheap. Chart 8AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 8BHigh-Yield Spread Targets One might reasonably challenge this approach to corporate bond valuation by noting that, outside of looking at credit tiers individually, we have not taken fundamental credit quality trends into account. That is, we have made no adjustment for the fact that the credit quality of a Ba-rated issuer might be worse today than in prior cycles. We are skeptical that fundamental credit metrics matter more than the phase of the monetary policy cycle when it comes to corporate bond spread forecasting.5 However, this point of view is still worth exploring, especially considering that net debt-to-EBITDA for the median corporate bond issuer is quite elevated compared to history (Chart 9). Note that we have not attempted to maintain consistent weightings between the different credit tiers in the bottom-up samples shown in Chart 9. This means that the recent surge in investment grade net debt-to-EBITDA likely reflects the shift toward a greater concentration of Baa-rated issuers. Nonetheless, the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio of the median junk issuer is clearly worse than during the past two recoveries. But even if we take this into account by looking at the ratio between the junk index 12-month breakeven spread and the median net debt-to-EBITDA, we see that the ratio is still close to its historical median (Chart 10). In other words, at current spread levels junk investors appear reasonably compensated for the elevated median net debt-to-EBITDA ratio Chart 9Elevated Corporate Leverage Chart 10Favor Junk Bonds Bottom Line: The Fed’s accommodative policy stance and the likelihood of a global growth recovery argue for maintaining an overweight allocation to corporate credit. Within that allocation, junk bonds should outperform investment grade due to much more attractive valuations. Close To The Floor Chart 11Now Vs. Mid-2016 In a prior report we walked through the process of creating a macroeconomic fair value model for the 10-year Treasury yield, with a focus on describing the different independent variables that might be included in such a model, and the rationale for each one.6 This week, we focus on two vital macroeconomic variables and use them to demonstrate why the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to re-visit its mid-2016 trough of 1.37%. The two main variables we focus on are (i) the pace of economic growth, and (ii) the size of the output gap. All else equal, a stronger pace of economic growth leads to expectations for a higher policy rate in the future and a higher 10-year Treasury yield today. However, it is not just the pace of growth that matters. The same rate of economic growth generates more inflationary pressure when the output gap is small than when it is large. This means that bond yields should be higher when the output gap is smaller (or more specifically, less negative). We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI is probably the indicator of economic growth that correlates best with the 10-year Treasury yield. Similarly, measures of wage growth – and to a lesser extent core inflation – tend to give the best read on the output gap. With that in mind, we can see how these factors look today relative to when the 10-year yield troughed at 1.37% in mid-2016 (Chart 11). Global economic growth looks slightly worse, but not dramatically so. The Global Manufacturing PMI is at 49.3 today. It troughed at 49.9 in 2016. If this were the only variable that mattered, we might reason that the 10-year yield should be below 1.37% already. But we also need to consider that wage growth and inflation are both much higher than in 2016. Average hourly earnings are growing at a year-over-year rate of 3.2%, compared to a rate of 2.8% when the 10-year troughed in 2016. Similarly, the Atlanta Fed’s measure of median wage growth is up to 3.7% for the un-weighted sample and 3.9% for the sample that is weighted to more closely match the demographic characteristics of the overall population (Chart 11, panel 3). It’s true that core PCE inflation is running below where it was in mid-2016, but the trimmed mean measure is much higher (Chart 11, bottom panel). The core PCE inflation measure also has a strong track record of converging toward the trimmed mean, a process we expect is playing out again. The core PCE inflation measure also has a strong track record of converging toward the trimmed mean, a process we expect is playing out again. Bottom Line: The current shock to global economic growth is of a similar magnitude to the one that occurred in 2015/16. However, wage and inflationary pressures are higher now than they were back then. This means that the 10-year Treasury yield will not re-visit the 2016 trough of 1.37%, and is probably already close to its floor.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Underinsured”, dated August 6, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The 12-month breakeven spread is the basis point widening required on a 12-month horizon for each credit tier to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasuries. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Dear Client, Instead of our regular report, this week we are sending you a Special Report penned by Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist of our sister Geopolitical Strategy service, titled “The Polybius Solution.” In this report Matt argues that a full-fledged cold war with China would put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist Highlights So What? U.S.-Iran risk is front-loaded, but U.S.-China is the greater risk overall. A full-fledged cold war with China will put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. War with Iran or trade war escalation with China are both ultimately dollar bullish – even though tactically the dollar may fall.  Feature The idea of the “Thucydides Trap” has gone viral in recent years – for good reason. The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant nation that presides over a particular world order (e.g. Sparta, the U.S.) faces a young and ambitious rival that seeks fundamental change to that order (e.g. Athens, China).1 This conflict between an “established” and “revisionist” power was highlighted by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his translation of Thucydides in the seventeenth century; every student of international relations knows it. Allison’s contribution is the comparative analysis of various Thucydides-esque episodes in the modern era to show how today’s U.S.-China rivalry fits the pattern. The implication is that war (not merely trade war) is a major risk. We have long held a similar assessment of the U.S.-China conflict. It is substantiated by hard data showing that China is gaining on America in various dimensions of power (Chart 1). Assuming that the U.S. does not want to be replaced, the current trade conflict will metastasize to other areas. If the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. There is an important but overlooked corollary to the Thucydides Trap: if the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. Polarization fell dramatically during the Great Depression and World War II and remained subdued throughout the Cold War. It only began to rise again when the Soviet threat faded and income inequality spiked circa 1980. Americans were less divided when they shared a common enemy that posed an existential threat; they grew more divided when their triumph proved to benefit some disproportionately to others (Chart 2). Chart 1China Is Gaining On The U.S. Chart 2U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis   If the U.S. and China continue down the path of confrontation, a similar pattern is likely to emerge in the coming years – polarization is likely to decline. China possesses the raw ability to rival or even supplant the United States as the premier superpower over the very long run. Its mixed economy is more sustainable than the Soviet command economy was, and it is highly integrated into the global system, unlike the isolated Soviet bloc. As long as China’s domestic demand holds up and Beijing does not suppress its own country’s technological and military ambitions, Trump and the next president will face a persistent need to respond with measures to limit or restrict China’s capabilities. Eventually this will involve mobilizing public opinion more actively. Further, if the U.S.-China conflict escalates, it will clarify U.S. relations with the rest of the world. For instance, Trump’s handling of trade suggests that he could refrain from trade wars with American allies to concentrate attention on China, particularly sanctions on its technology companies. Meanwhile a future Democratic president would preserve some of these technological tactics while reinstituting the multilateral approach of the Barack Obama administration, which launched the “Pivot to Asia,” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and intensive freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. These are all aspects of a containment strategy that would reinforce China’s rejection of the western order. Bottom Line: If the White House, any White House, were to pursue a consistent strategy to contain China, the result would be a major escalation of the trade conflict that would bring Americans together in the face of a common enemy. It would also encourage the U.S. to form alliances in pursuit of this objective. So far these things have not occurred, but they are logical corollaries of the Thucydides Trap and they will occur if the Thucydides thesis is validated. How Would China Fare In The Thucydides Trap? China would be in trouble in this scenario. The United States, if the public unifies, would have a greater geopolitical impact than it currently does in its divided state. And a western alliance would command still greater coercive power than the United States acting alone (Chart 3). External pressure would also exacerbate China’s internal imbalances – excessive leverage, pollution, inefficient state involvement in the economy, poor quality of life, and poor governance (Chart 4). China has managed to stave off these problems so far because it has operated under relative American and western toleration of its violations of global norms (e.g. a closed financial system, state backing of national champions, arbitrary law, censorship). This would change under concerted American, European, and Japanese efforts. Chart 3China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' Chart 4China's Domestic Risks Underrated Concerted external pressure would make it harder for China to manage its internal imbalances. How would the Communist Party respond? First, it could launch long-delayed and badly needed structural reforms and parlay these as concessions to the West. The ramifications would be negative for Chinese growth on a cyclical basis but positive on a structural basis since the reforms would lift productivity over the long run – a dynamic that our Emerging Markets Strategy has illustrated, in a macroeconomic context, in Diagram 1. This is already an option in the current trade war, but China has not yet clearly chosen it – likely because of the danger that the U.S. would exploit the slowdown. Diagram 1Foreign Pressure And Structural Reform = Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain Alternatively the Communist Party could double down on confrontation with the West, as Russia has done. This would strengthen the party’s grip but would be negative for growth on both a cyclical and structural basis. The effectiveness of China’s fiscal-and-credit stimulus would likely decline because of a drop in private sector activity and sentiment – already a nascent tendency – while the lack of “reform and opening up” would reduce long-term growth potential. This option makes structural reforms look more palatable – but again, China has not yet been forced to make this choice. None of the above is to say that the West is destined to win a cold war with China, but rather that the burden of revolutionizing the global order necessarily falls on the country attempting to revolutionize it. Bottom Line: If the Thucydides Trap fully takes effect, western pressure on China’s economy will force China into a destabilizing economic transition. China could lie low and avoid conflict in order to undertake reforms, or it could amplify its aggressive foreign policy. This is where the risk of armed conflict rises. Introducing … The Polybius Solution The problem with the above is that there is no sign of polarization abating anytime soon in the United States. Extreme partisanship makes this plain (Chart 5). Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. A lesser known Greek historian – who was arguably more influential than Thucydides – helps to illustrate this alternative vision for the future. This is Polybius (208-125 BC), a Greek who wrote under Roman rule. He described the rise of the Roman Empire as a result of Rome’s superior constitutional system. Polybius explains domestic polarization whereas Thucydides explains international conflict. Polybius took the traditional view that there were three primary virtues or powers governing human society: the One (the king), the Few (the nobles), and the Many (the commons). These powers normally ran the country one at a time: a dictator would die; a group of elites would take over; this oligarchy would devolve into democracy or mob-rule; and from the chaos would spring a new dictator. His singular insight – his “solution” to political decay – was that if a mixture or balance of the three powers could be maintained, as in the Roman republic, then the natural cycle of growth and decay could be short-circuited, enabling a regime to live much longer than its peers (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Polybius: A Balanced Political System Breaks The Natural Cycle Of Tyranny And Chaos In short, just as post-WWII economic institutions have enabled countries to reduce the frequency and intensity of recessions (Chart 6), so Polybius believed that political institutions could reduce the frequency and intensity of revolutions. Eventually all governments would decay and collapse, but a domestic system of checks and balances could delay the inevitable. Needless to say, Polybius was hugely influential on English and French constitutional thinkers and the founders of the American republic. Chart 6Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute What is the cause of constitutional decay, according to Polybius? Wealth, inequality, and corruption, which always follow from stable and prosperous times. “Avarice and unscrupulous money-making” drive the masses to encroach upon the elite and demand a greater share of the wealth. The result is a vicious cycle of conflict between the commons and the nobles until either the constitutional system is restored or a democratic revolution occurs. Compared to Thucydides, Polybius had less to say about the international balance of power. Domestic balance was his “solution” to unpredictable outside events. However, states with decaying political systems were off-balance and more likely to be conquered, or to overreach in trying to conquer others. Bottom Line: The “Polybius solution” equates with domestic political balance. Balanced states do not allow the nation’s leader, the elite, or the general population to become excessively powerful. But even the most balanced states will eventually decline. As they accumulate wealth, inequality and corruption emerge and cause conflict among the three powers. Why Polybius Matters Today It does not take a stretch of the imagination to apply the Polybius model to the United States today. Just as Rome grew fat with its winnings from the Punic Wars and decayed from a virtuous republic into a luxurious empire, as Polybius foresaw, so the United States lurched from victory over the Soviet Union to internal division and unforced errors. For instance, the budget surplus of 2% of GDP in the year 2000 became a budget deficit of 9% of GDP after a decade of gratuitous wars, profligate social spending and tax cuts, and financial excesses. It is on track to balloon again when the next recession hits – and this is true even without any historic crisis event to justify it. U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. The rise in polarization has coincided with a rise in wealth inequality, much as Polybius would expect (Chart 7). In all likelihood the Trump tax cuts will exacerbate both of these trends (Chart 8). Even worse, any attempts by “the people” to take more wealth from the “nobles” will worsen polarization first, long before any improvements in equality translate to a drop in polarization. Chart 7Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Chart 8Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Most importantly, from a global point of view, U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. Just as the George W. Bush administration launched a preemptive war in Iraq, destabilizing the region, so the Obama administration precipitously withdrew from Iraq, destabilizing the region. And just as the Obama administration initiated a hurried détente with Iran in order to leave Iraq, the Trump administration precipitously withdrew from this détente, provoking a new conflict with Iran and potentially destabilizing Iraq. Major foreign policy initiatives have been conducted, and revoked, on a partisan basis under three administrations. And a Democratic victory in 2020 would result in a reversal of Trump’s initiatives. In the meantime Trump’s policy could easily entangle him in armed conflict with Iran – as nearly occurred on June 21. Iranian domestic politics make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the 2015 setting. Despite Trump’s recent backpedaling, his administration runs a high risk of getting sucked into another Middle Eastern quagmire as long as it enforces the sanctions on Iranian oil stringently. China would be the big winner if such a war occurred, just as it was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the long American distraction in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would benefit from another 5-10 years of American losses of blood and treasure. It would be able to pursue regional interests with less Interference and could trade limited cooperation with the U.S. on Iran for larger concessions elsewhere. And a nuclear-armed Iran – which is a long-term concern for the U.S. – is not in China’s national interest anyway. Bottom Line: The U.S. is missing the “Polybius solution” of balanced government; polarization is on the rise. As a result, the grand strategy of “pivoting to Asia” could go into reverse (Chart 9). If that occurs, the conflict with China will be postponed or ineffective. Chart 9Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Iran Is The Wild Card If the U.S. gets bogged down in the Middle East yet again, the “Pivot To Asia” will go into reverse and the “Thucydides Trap” with China will be delayed. A war with Iran manifestly runs afoul of the Trump administration’s and America’s national interests, whereas a trade war with China does not. First, although an Iranian or Iranian-backed attack on American troops would give Trump initial support in conducting air strikes, the consequences of war would likely be an oil price shock that would sink his approval rating over time and reduce his chances of reelection (Chart 10). We have shown that such a shock could come from sabotage in Iraq as well as from attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could be driven to attack if it believes the U.S. is about to attack. Second, not only would Democrats oppose a war with Iran, but Americans in general are war-weary, especially with regard to the Middle East (Chart 11). President Trump capitalized on this sentiment during his election campaign, especially in relation to Secretary Hillary Clinton who supported the war in Iraq. Over the past two weeks, he has downplayed the Iranian-backed tanker attacks, emphasized that he does not want war, and has ruled out “boots on the ground.” Chart 10Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Third, it follows from the above that, in the event of war, the United States would lack the political will necessary to achieve its core strategic objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s nuclear program or its power projection capabilities. And these are nearly impossible to accomplish from the air alone. And U.S. strategic planners are well aware that conflict with Iran will exact an opportunity cost by helping Russia and China consolidate spheres of influence. The wild card is Iran. President Hassan Rouhani has an incentive to look tough and push the limits, given that he was betrayed on the 2015 deal. And the regime itself is probably confident that it can survive American air strikes. American military strikes are still a serious constraint, but until the U.S. demonstrates that it is willing to go that far, Iran can test the boundaries. In doing so it also sends a message to its regional rivals – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab monarchies, and Israel – that the U.S. is all bark, no bite, and thus unable to protect them from Iran. This may lead to a miscalculation that forces Trump to respond despite his inclinations. The China trade war, by contrast, is less difficult for the Trump administration to pursue. There is not a clear path from tariffs to economic recession, as with an oil shock: the U.S. economy has repeatedly shrugged off counter-tariffs and the Fed has been cowed. While Americans generally oppose the trade war, Trump’s base does not, and the health of the overall economy is far more important for most voters. And a majority of voters do believe that China’s trade practices are unfair. Strategic planners also favor confronting China – unlike Trump they are not concerned with reelection, but they recognize that China’s advantages grow over time, including in critical technologies. Bottom Line: While the media and market focus on China and Iran risks can alternate in the short run, the Trump administration is likely to continue downgrading the conflict with Iran and upgrading the conflict with China over the next six-to-18 months. Neither politics nor grand strategy support a war with Iran, whereas politics might support a trade war with China and grand strategy almost certainly does. China Could Learn From Polybius Too China also lacks the Polybius solution. It suffers from severe inequality and social immobility, just like the Latin American states and the U.S., U.K., and Italy (Chart 12). But unlike the developed markets, it lacks a robust constitutional system. Political risks are understated given the emergence of the middle class, systemic economic weaknesses, and poor governance. Over the long run, Xi Jinping will need to step down, but having removed the formal system for power transition, a succession crisis is likely. China’s imbalances could cause domestic instability even if the U.S. becomes distracted by conflict in the Middle East. But China has unique tools for alleviating crises and smoothing out its economic slowdown, so the absence of outside pressure will probably determine its ability to avoid a painful economic slump. China also lacks the “Polybius solution” of balanced government – and it even lacks a robust constitutional system. This helps to explain China’s interest in dealing with the U.S. on North Korea. President Xi Jinping’s first trip to Pyongyang late last month helped pave the way for President Trump to resume negotiations with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the first-ever visit of an American president north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). China does not want an unbridled nuclear North Korea or an American preventative war on the peninsula. If Beijing could do a short-term deal with the U.S. on the basis of assistance in reining in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, it could divert U.S. animus away from itself and encourage the U.S. to turn its attention toward the next rogue nuclear aspirant, Iran. It would also avoid structural economic concessions. Of course, a smooth transition today means short-term gain but long-term pain for Chinese and global growth. Productivity and potential GDP will decline if China does not reform (Diagram 3). But this kind of transition is the regime’s preferred option since Beijing seeks to minimize immediate threats and maintain overall stability. Diagram 3Stimulus And Delayed Reforms = Socialist Put = Stagflation If Chinese internal divisions do flare up, China’s leaders will take a more aggressive posture toward its neighbors and the United States in order to divert public attention and stir up patriotic support. Bottom Line: China suffers from understated internal political risk. While U.S. political divisions could lead to a lack of coherent strategy toward China, a rift in China could lead to Chinese aggression in its neighborhood, accelerating the Thucydides Trap. Investment Conclusions If the U.S. reverses the pivot to Asia, attacks Iran, antagonizes European allies, and exhausts its resources in policy vacillation, its budget deficit will balloon (Chart 13), oil prices will rise, and China will be left to manage its economic transition without a western coalition against it. The implication is a weakening dollar, at least initially. But the U.S. is nearing the end of its longest-ever business expansion and an oil price spike would bring forward the next recession, both of which will push up the greenback. Much will depend on the extent of any oil shock – whether and how long the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Beyond the next recession, the dollar could suffer severe consequences for the U.S.’s wild policies. Chart 13An Iran War Will Bust The Budget Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, U.S.-China conflict will be the dominant marketmover. If the U.S. continues the pivot to Asia, and the U.S. and China proceed with tariffs, tech sanctions, saber-rattling, diplomatic crises, and possibly even military skirmishes, China will be forced into an abrupt and destabilizing economic transition. The U.S. dollar will strengthen as global growth decelerates. Developed market equities will outperform emerging market equities, but equities as a whole will underperform sovereign bonds and other safe-haven assets. Our highest conviction call on this matter is that any trade deal before the U.S. 2020 election will be limited in scope. It will fall far short of a “Grand Compromise” that ushers in a new era of U.S.-China engagement – and hence it will be a disappointment to global equities. Our trade war probabilities, updated on July 26, can be found in Diagram 4. The combined risk of further escalation is 60% -- meaning that the U.S. will either implement the final batch of tariffs or refuse to renew Huawei’s trade license, or both. We are maintaining our risk-off trades: long JPY/USD, long gold, long Swiss bonds, and long USD/CNY. Diagram 4U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019)   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, and Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).

Highlights A unified push among central banks to drop their currencies inevitably leads to lower interest rates, which eventually sows the seeds of a recovery. However, with prospects of a full-blown trade war in front view, fundamentals could be put to the wayside for longer, as markets keep the switch on risk aversion. The new round of tariffs could pin USD/CNY at about 7.3-7.4, given the impact from negative feedback loops. The breakdown in the AUD/JPY cross is precarious. Stay short USD/JPY, but focus on the crosses rather than on outright bets versus the dollar. The RBNZ’s dovish surprise was a positive catalyst for our AUD/NZD and SEK/NZD positions. Remain long. Feature Chart I-1Summer Blues Just as summer trading volumes are falling close to new lows, central banks appear to be weaponizing their exchange rates in a renewed currency war salvo. Both the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) surprised market participants this week by slashing rates by more than expected. In retrospect, the European Central Bank probably fired the first shot at its forum in Sintra, Portugal this June. ECB President Mario Draghi highlighted back then that if the inflation outlook failed to improve, the central bank had considerable headroom to launch a fresh expansion of its balance sheet. What has followed is a renewed wave of dovishness by global central banks, which should intensify, given the latest flare-up in the trade war. For currency strategy, this means fundamentals could be temporarily put to the wayside, as markets keep the switch on risk aversion (Chart I-1). This is because there is little visibility on either the political or the economic front. Our strategy remains three-fold: First, maintain tight stops on tactical positions. Second, we prefer trades at the crosses rather than versus the dollar, for now. Finally, maintain portfolio insurance by being short the USD/JPY. USD/CNY And The Economics Of Tariffs Chart I-2Sino-U.S. Trade Is Small Relative To Domestic Demand Standard theory suggests that exchange rates should move to equalize prices across any two countries. The question that naturally follows is by how much? The answer is that the exchange rate should move by exactly the same percentage point as the price change, everything else equal. If both countries produce homogeneous goods, then it is easy to see why, since there is perfect substitution. All demand will flow to one country, until its currency rises by enough to equalize prices across borders again. However, assume countries ‘A’ and ‘B’ produce heterogeneous goods (‘A’ being the U.S. in this case, and ‘B’ China). Then the loss of purchasing power in Country ‘A’ will lead to less demand for Country ‘B’’s goods. The former loses purchasing power because prices of imports have increased by the amount of the tariff. This means the latter’s currency will have to adjust downwards for the markets to clear. The decrease has to match the magnitude of the price increase, if there are no other outlets to liquidate Country ‘B’’s goods. This is obviously a very simplified version of the real world economy, but it highlights an important point that is central to the discussion: The currency move necessary to realign competitiveness will always be equal to, or less than, in percentage point terms, to the price increase. In the case where the entire production base is tradeable, it will be the former. But with a rise in the number of trading partners, a more complex export basket, import substitution, shipping costs, and many other factors that influence tradeable prices, the currency adjustment needed should be smaller. Since the onset of 2018, the U.S. has slapped various tariffs on China, the latest of which is 10% on $300 billion worth of Chinese goods. The U.S. currently imports $509 billion worth of goods from China, about 16% of its total imports. However, as a percentage of overall U.S. demand, this only represents 2.4% (Chart I-2). This suggests that at best, a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports will only lift import prices by 4% and consumer prices by much less. On the Chinese side of the equation, exports to the U.S. account for 18.4% of total exports, a ratio that has been falling since 2018. Therefore, a tariff of 25% should only lift export prices by 4.5%. The conclusion is that the yuan and the dollar only need to adjust by 4-5% to negate the impact of a 25% tariff. Part of the rise in the dollar and fall in the RMB has been due to tariffs, but it has mostly been due to the fact that global trade has been slowing. This brings us to an important point: Part of the rise in the dollar and fall in the RMB has been due to tariffs, but it has mostly been due to the fact that global trade has been slowing (Table I-1). The DXY index is up 10% since its 2018 trough, while the USD/CNY has risen by 12%. This is much more than economic theory would suggest. In quantity terms, the IMF estimated that a 20% import tariff from East Asia would lift the U.S. dollar’s REER by 5% over five years, while dropping output by 0.6% over the same timeframe.1 But if past is prologue, the new round of tariffs will pin USD/CNY at about 7.3-7.4, given the impact from negative feedback loops – mainly a slowing global economy and a slowing Chinese economy. With no corresponding export subsidy for U.S. goods, however, the rise in the dollar makes exporters worse off. And with over 40% of S&P 500 sales coming from outside the U.S., this will make a meaningful dent in corporate profits. This is an important political impediment. Historically, trade wars are usually synonymous with recessions. As such, there are acute political constraints inching both sides towards an agreement. A Disorderly Breakdown Or Steady Depreciation? The RMB has been trading like a pro-cyclical currency, meaning it is becoming an important signaling mechanism for the evolution of the cycle. The USD/CNY has been moving tick-for-tick with emerging market equities, Asian currencies, and even some commodity prices (Chart I-3). It has also closely mirrored the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-4). This has implications for developed market currencies, especially those tied to Chinese demand. Therefore, it will be important to see if the RMB has a disorderly breakdown towards 7.4 or if it stabilizes at higher levels. A few barometers will be key to watch: Chart I-3The Yuan Is Pro-cyclical Chart I-4Is The Dollar Headed Higher? In a world of rapidly falling yields, Chinese rates remain attractive. Historically, USD/CNY has moved in line with interest rate differentials between the U.S. and China. The current divergence is unsustainable (Chart I-5). Typically, offshore markets have had a good track record of anticipating depreciation in the yuan. Back in 2014, offshore markets started pricing in a rising USD/CNY rate, and maintained that view all the way through to 2018, when the yuan eventually bottomed. Right now, not much depreciation is being priced in (Chart I-6). The reason offshore markets in Hong Kong and elsewhere can be prescient is because more often than not, they are the destination for illicit flows out of China. Chart I-5The Chinese Bond Market Is Attractive Chart I-6Forward Markets Not Concerned As In 2015 Chinese money and credit growth, especially forward-looking liquidity indicators such as M2 relative to GDP, have bottomed. Historically, this led the cycle by a few months. The drop in Chinese bond yields is also reflationary, and should soon stimulate imports, especially if the improvement in exports continues (Chart I-7). Chinese government expenditures are likely to inflect higher, especially given acute weakness in the July manufacturing data. Again, this suggests stimulus this time around may be more fiscal than monetary (Chart I-8). In addition, the recent VAT cuts for manufacturing firms, a cut to social security contributions, and a pickup in infrastructure spending are all net positives. Chart I-7Trade War Extends Traditional Lags Chart I-8Government Spending Set To Increase The housing market remains healthy. A revival in the property market will support construction activity and investment. House prices have been rising to the tune of 10% year-on-year, and real estate stocks in China remain firm relative to the overall index. If house prices roll over, this will be a negative development (Chart I-9). The housing market remains healthy. A revival in the property market will support construction activity and investment. If house prices roll over, this will be a negative development. In terms of market dynamics, the AUD/JPY cross breached the important technical level of 72 cents, but has since recovered. This is important, since the cross failed to break below this level both during the euro area debt crisis in 2011-2012 and the China slowdown of 2015-2016. It will be especially important to see a clear breach to signal we are entering a deflationary bust (Chart I-10). Chart I-9China Housing Is Fine Chart I-10AUD/JPY Breakdown Is Precarious Bottom Line: We are watching a few key reflationary indicators to gauge whether it pays to be contrarian. The message is that it is not time yet, given the ramp-up in the trade war rhetoric.  Notes On The RBNZ Chart I-11AUD/NZD Is Cheap This week, the RBNZ surprised markets by cutting interest rates by 50 basis points to parity (expectations were for a 25-basis-point cut). From an external standpoint, this makes sense. Australia and China are New Zealand’s biggest trading partners, and have been easing policy much earlier. The RBNZ’s bet was that demand was probably going to recover by now. The latest salvo in the trade war probably dashed those hopes. Meanwhile, over the last 35 years, the AUD/NZD cross has spent more than 95% of the time over 1.06. With the AUD/NZD near record lows, the cross is cheap on a real effective exchange rate basis (meaning NZD is expensive) (Chart I-11).  This suggests that even though interest rates are aligning in both Australia and New Zealand, the Aussie should be 11% higher relative to the Kiwi because of the valuation starting point (Chart I-12). The market remains more dovish on Australia relative to New Zealand, in part due to a more accelerated downturn in house prices and a significant slowdown in China. The reality is that the downturn in Australia has allowed some cleansing of sorts, and brought it far along the adjustment path relative to New Zealand. Economic data in New Zealand are now converging to the downside relative to Australia (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Interest Rates Could Move In Favor Of AUD Chart I-13New Zealand Has More Economic Downside The RBNZ began a new mandate on April 1st to include full employment in addition to inflation targeting. But given that the RBNZ has been unable to fulfill its price stability mandate over the last several years, it is hard to argue it will find a dual mandate any easier. Business confidence is rapidly falling, and employment will soon follow suit (Chart I-14). Meanwhile, for an economy driven by agricultural exports, productivity gains will be hard to come by. Economic data in New Zealand are now converging to the downside relative to Australia. The final catalyst for the AUD/NZD cross will be a terms-of-trade shock which, at the moment, is turning in favor of the Aussie (Chart I-15). Iron ore prices may face further downside, given that supply from Brazil is back online, but China’s clear environmental push has lifted the share of liquefied natural gas in Australia’s export mix. Since eliminating pollution is a strategic goal in China, this will be a multi-year tailwind. As the market becomes more liberalized and long-term contracts are revised to reflect higher spot prices, the Aussie will get a boost. Chart I-14Employment Growth Could Collapse In New Zealand Chart I-15Terms Of Trade Favors##br## Aussie Bottom Line: Remain long AUD/NZD as a strategic position and SEK/NZD as a tactical position. Housekeeping The stop on our short XAU/JPY position was triggered at 158,000 with a loss of -3.27%. This was a mean-reversion trade between two safe-havens, likely to work even if volatility remains elevated. Put it back on. Finally, lift the limit sell on EUR/GBP to 0.95.   Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Maurice Obstfeld, “Tariffs Do More Harm Than Good At Home,” IMFBlog, September 8, 2016. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. have been mostly positive: Labor market remains tight: Unemployment rate was steady at 3.7%; Participation rate increased to 63%; Average hourly earnings increased by 3.2% year-on-year; Nonfarm payrolls increased by 164 thousand. Initial jobless claims fell to 209 thousand last week. Trade balance narrowed slightly to $55.2 billion in June. Michigan sentiment index was unchanged at 98.4 in July. Markit composite and services PMI both increased to 52.6 and 53 respectively in July, while ISM non-manufacturing PMI fell to 53.7 in July. DXY index fell by 1% this week, erasing the gains following the Fed’s hawkish surprise last week. Weakness in the dollar given a ramp-up in trade war rhetoric suggest that dollar tailwinds are facing diminishing marginal returns. A few of our favorite dollar indicators, including the bond-to-gold ratio, are sending a warning signal. Report Links: Focusing On the Trees But Missing The Forest - August 2, 2019 Global Growth And The Dollar - July 19, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have continued to deteriorate: Producer price inflation fell to 0.7% year-on-year in June. Retail sales increased by 2.6% year-on-year in June, surprising to the upside. Markit composite PMI was unchanged at 51.5 in July, while services PMI fell slightly to 53.2. Sentix investor confidence fell further to -13.7 in August, the lowest since 2014. EUR/USD increased by 1% this week. In the most recent Economic Bulletin, the ECB highlighted the risk of a weaker Q2 global services PMI which might lead to a more broad-based deterioration in global growth. With negative interest rates and diminishing marginal returns to monetary policy, the euro area will be ever dependent on fiscal stimulus. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mixed: Composite PMI was unchanged at 51.2 in July, while services PMI fell to 51.8. Household spending yearly growth fell to 2.7% in June. That said, previous growth of 4% was too high relative to Japan’s potential. Wages increased by 0.4% year-on-year in June. Leading economic index and coincident index both fell to 93.3 and 100.4 respectively in June. The trade balance increased to ¥759.3 billion in June. Current account balance narrowed to ¥1,211 billion in June. USD/JPY fell by 0.9% this week. In the Summary of Opinions released this week, the BoJ concluded that the Japanese economy has been moderately expanding, a trend that is likely to continue in the second half. However, this may be too ambitious. As we go to press, Q2 GDP growth is still pending, and a marked slowdown could be a harbinger for a much softer second half, especially given renewed trade tensions. That said, the path to easier monetary policy will be lined by a stronger yen. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 Short USD/JPY: Heads I Win, Tails I Don’t Lose Too Much - May 31, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been mostly positive: Markit composite PMI increased to 50.7 in July. Services and construction components also increased to 51.4 and 45.3 respectively. Retail sales increased by 0.1% year-on-year in July. Halifax house prices contracted by 0.2% month-on-month in July. GBP/USD has been very volatile but returned flat this week. All eyes are on the new PM Boris Johnson and new Brexit developments. Our Geopolitical strategist is assigning 21% risk of a no-deal Brexit, and the probability would rise to 30% if negotiations with the EU fail. We believe that the pound could easily drop to 1.10-1.15 if there is no deal. That being said, we are looking to sell EUR/GBP at 0.94, given Europe will also absorb some collateral damage from a hard Brexit. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mostly positive: Producer price inflation increased to 2% year-on-year in Q2. Retail sales grew by 0.4% month-on-month in June. Both composite and services PMI increased to 52.1 and 52.3 respectively in July. Australian Industry Group (AiG) construction index fell to 39.1 in July. Exports grew by 1% month-on-month in June, while imports contracted by 4% month-on-month. This nudged the trade surplus to A$8 billion in June, a record. AUD/USD fell by 1.8% initially, then rebounded, returning flat this week. The RBA held interest rates unchanged at 1% on Tuesday, after cutting by 25 bps both in June and July. Long-term government bond yields declined to record-lows. Currency markets are currently focused on interest rate differentials. Once the focus shifts to other fundamentals as global interest rates converge, the Aussie dollar will get a boost. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns- April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been positive: Consumer confidence decreased by 5.1% month-on-month in July. On the labor market front, the participation rate was steady at 70.4% in Q2; Unemployment rate fell to 3.9%; Wages increased by 2.2% year-on-year in Q2. NZD/USD fell by 0.8% this week. RBNZ shocked the market with the half-percentage point rate cut this Wednesday, stating that a larger initial move would be best to meet the inflation and employment objectives in New Zealand. The RBNZ also lowered 2-year inflation expectations from 2.01% to 1.86% in Q3. Relative terms-of-trade favors our long AUD/NZD position. Stay with it. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mostly positive: Imports and exports both fell to C$50.2 billion and C$50.3 billion in June. The trade balance thus narrowed to C$0.14 billion. Bloomberg Nanos confidence index increased to 58.6 last week. Ivey PMI increased to 54.2 in July. New housing price index contracted by 0.2% year-on-year in June. USD/CAD increased by 0.2% this week. The sudden oil prices drop has dragged down the Canadian dollar. WTI crude oil prices plunged by more than 10% during the past week, and Western Canadian Select crude oil spot prices fell by 14.5%. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been mostly negative: Headline and core consumer price inflation dropped to 0.3% and 0.4% year-on-year respectively in July. Manufacturing PMI fell to 44.7 in July. Consumer confidence fell to -8 in July. Real retail sales increased by 0.7% year-on-year in June. USD/CHF fell by 1.2% this week. The concerns over the global growth, an escalating trade war, a potential hard-Brexit, political tensions in the Middle East and East Asia continue to weigh on investors’ sentiment. VIX once again touched 24 following Trump’s tweet to threaten to impose 10% tariffs over $300 billion Chinese goods last Thursday. We continue to favor the safe-haven Swiss franc as a tactical portfolio hedge. Report Links: What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There is little data from Norway this week: Manufacturing production yearly growth fell from 5% in May to 3% in June. USD/NOK has been flat this week.  Next week, the Norges Bank is likely to reverse its well-telegraphed forward guidance of rate hikes, following global developments. With oil prices down, and a new trade war, they will stand pat in line with market expectations, but an interest rate cut cannot be ruled out. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mixed: Industrial production contracted by 0.7% year-on-year in June. Services production yearly growth also fell to 1.3% in June. However, industrial orders increased by 7.5% year-on-year in June, the strongest since July 2018.  Budget balance widened to SEK 28.2 billion in July. USD/SEK fell by 0.9% this week. The upside surprise in industrial orders is mainly led by transport equipment. Mining and quarrying also rebounded to 9.3% compared with -7.8% in May. Our SEK/NZD position is now 0.4% in the money. The negative carry has been narrowed following RBNZ’s 50 bps rate cut. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights So What? Tariffs and currency depreciation will likely lead to military saber-rattling in Asia Pacific. Why? President Trump is not immune to the market’s reaction to his trade war escalation. Yet China’s currency depreciation is a major escalation and the near-term remains fraught with danger for investors. Military shows of force and provocations could crop up across Asia Pacific, further battering sentiment or delaying trade talks. Remain short CNY-USD, short the Hang Seng index, long JPY-USD, and long gold. Overweight the U.S. defense sector relative to global stocks. Feature The Osaka G20 tariff ceasefire has collapsed; U.S. President Donald Trump is threatening tariffs on all Chinese imports; the People’s Bank of China has allowed the renminbi to depreciate beneath the important 7.0 exchange rate to the dollar; and the United States has formally labeled China a “currency manipulator.” What a week! The spike in volatility is likely to be accompanied by a rise in credit risk, as measured by the TED spread (Chart 1). Safe havens like gold, treasuries, and the Japanese yen are rallying in a classic risk-off episode, while messengers of global growth like copper, the Australian dollar, and the CRB raw industrials index are stumbling (Chart 2). Only green shoots in Chinese trade and German manufacturing have kept the selloff in check this week by improving the cyclical outlook despite elevated near-term risks. Chart 1So Much For The Osaka G20 Tariff Ceasefire! Chart 2Key Risk-On/Risk-Off Indicators Breaking Down While we anticipated the re-escalation of U.S.-China tensions, now is the time to take stock and reassess. President Trump is a political animal. While he has demonstrated a voracious risk appetite throughout the year, he is ultimately focused on reelection in November 2020. The United States will survive without a trade deal by then, but Trump may not. Presumably, Trump’s reason for increasing pressure on China throughout 2019 is to secure a deal by the end of the year. This would be to see China’s concessions translate into trade perks for the U.S. markets and economy in 2020 by the time he hits the campaign trail. The experience of Q4 2018 suggests that Trump changed his negotiating tack after U.S. equities fell by only 4% from their peak – but we consider an equity correction a clear pain threshold (Chart 3). Trump is closely associated with the economic fortunes of the country, even more so than the average president. Bear markets tend to coincide with recessions. Trump – beset by controversy and scandal at home – must assume that a recession will be the coup de grâce. Chart 3Where Is President Trump's Pain Threshold? Chart 4Will Huawei Ban Hit The Tech Sectors? Investors will get some clarity next week when the Commerce Department decides whether to renew the general temporary license for American companies to trade with Chinese telecoms giant Huawei. A full denial of the license would signal that Trump is unconcerned with recession and reelection probabilities and focusing exclusively on the national security threat from China. It would send technology sectors and the broader equity market into a plunge on both sides of the Pacific (Chart 4) and could significantly increase the risk that the global economy begins a downturn. Positive signals are scarce as we go to press: New tariff is on track: The U.S. Trade Representative is preparing a final list of $300 billion in goods to fall under a new 10% tariff, despite reports that Trump overrode USTR Robert Lighthizer in announcing the new tariff. This does not guarantee that the tariff will go into effect on September 1 but it does make it more likely than not. Huawei is under pressure: Office of Management and Budget has disqualified Huawei from any U.S. government contracts as of August 13 – a ban to be extended to any third parties contracting Huawei as of the same date next year. This is not encouraging for Huawei but it is a separate and more limited determination from that of the Commerce Department. Still, we expect the Trump administration to take some moves to offset the ongoing trade escalation. While we are inclined to think the new tariff will take effect, Huawei will likely get a reprieve in the meantime. This will help to ensure that the September trade talks in Washington, DC go forward. The administration has an interest in keeping the trade negotiations alive. Furthermore, there is some evidence that President Trump is recognizing the need to calm other “trade wars” to mitigate the impact of the central China trade war. In September the administration will attempt ratification of the USMCA in Congress – we still think this is slightly favored to go through. We also expect a U.S.-Japan trade agreement to materialize rapidly – likely at the UN General Assembly from September 17-30. Another positive sign is that the European Union has agreed to expand beef imports from the United States. Real movement on agriculture, while China cancels U.S. ag imports, implies that President Trump is less likely to impose car tariffs on Europe for national security reasons on November 13-14.1 The problem is that the fallout from China’s currency depreciation and the new tariffs will hit the market before anything else, which means we remain tactically bearish. Heightened trade tensions are also likely to spill into the strategic sphere in the near term. Saber-rattling – military shows of force and provocations – will increase the geopolitical risk premium across the globe, especially in East Asia. A frightening U.S.-China clash may ultimately encourage real compromises in the trade negotiations, but the market would get the negative news first. If Washington does not make any reassuring moves but expands the current policy assault on China – including through a Huawei ban – then we will consider shifting to a defensive posture cyclically as well as tactically. Bottom Line: We recognize that President Trump may be forced by the risk of a recession to relax the trade pressure and accept some kind of China deal – we may upgrade this 40% chance if and when the U.S. veers toward an equity bear market. In the meantime we expect further negative fallout from the past week’s aggressive maneuvers by both sides. Currency War Assuming that an equity correction is inevitable at some point and that Trump goes crawling back to the Chinese for trade talks: How will they respond? Will Xi Jinping, the strongman general secretary of a resurgent Communist Party, return to talks and reassure global markets at Trump’s beck and call? Or will he refuse, let the market do what it will, and let Trump hang? By letting the currency drop … Beijing is expressing open defiance. The renminbi’s depreciation – through PBoC inaction on August 5, then through action on August 8 – is a warning that Trump is approaching the point of no return. His initial grievance has always been Chinese “currency manipulation” but until now he has refrained from formally leveling this accusation (only using it on Twitter). By letting the currency drop well beneath the level at which Trump was inaugurated (6.8 CNY-USD), and beyond the global psychological threshold, Beijing is expressing open defiance and threatening essentially to break off negotiations. Chart 5China Sends Warning Via Currency Depreciation The effect of continued depreciation would be to offset the effect of tariffs and ease financial conditions in China. This is fully in keeping with our view that China has opted for stimulus over reform this year. China is likely to follow up with further cuts to banks’ reserve requirement ratios and a cut to the benchmark policy interest rate (Chart 5). The July Politburo statement showed a greater willingness to stimulate the economy and it occurred prior to Trump’s new volley of tariffs. Currency appreciation is the surest way to rebalance China’s economy toward household consumption and obviate a strategic conflict with the United States. By contrast, yuan depreciation will exacerbate the U.S. trade deficit and give Trump’s Democratic rivals convenient evidence that the “Art of the Deal” is counterfeit. How far will the renminbi fall? Chart 6 updates our back-of-the-envelope calculation of the implication from different tariff scenarios assuming that the equilibrium bilateral exchange rate depreciation will equal the tariffs collected as a share of total exports to the United States. (10% tariff on $259 billion = $25.9 billion, which is 5% of $509 billion total.) The yuan is now approaching Scenario D, 25% tariffs on the first half of imports and 10% on the second half, which points toward 7.6 CNY-USD. There are reasons to believe that this simple framework won’t apply, at least in terms of the magnitude of the impact, but it gives an indication of considerable downward pressure. Chart 6The Yuan Will Fall, But Not Freely Chester Ntonifor of our Foreign Exchange Strategy sees the yuan falling to around 7.3-7.4 if the new tariffs are applied based on the fact that the 25% tariff on $250 billion worth of goods produced a roughly 10% decline in the bilateral exchange rate. Our Emerging Markets Strategy also expects about a 5% drop in the CNY-USD. Having tightened capital controls during the last bout of depreciation in 2015-16, China is probably capable of controlling the pace of depreciation, preventing capital outflows from becoming a torrent, by selling foreign exchange reserves, further tightening capital controls, or utilizing foreign currency forward swaps. But Asian currencies, global trade revenues in dollars, and EM currencies and risk assets will suffer – and they have more room to break down from current levels.2 Meanwhile even a modest drop in the renminbi – amid a return to dovish monetary policy in global central banks – has revived concerns about a global currency war. A rising dollar is anathema to President Trump, who aims to reduce the trade deficit, encourage the on-shoring of manufacturing, and maintain easy financial conditions for the U.S. economy. Table 1U.S. Demands On China In Trade Talks Chart 7U.S. Allies' Share Of Treasuries Rises Trump’s decision to slap a sweeping new tariff on China – reportedly at the objection of all of his trade advisers except the ultra-hawkish Peter Navarro (Table 1) – was at least partly driven by his desire to see the Fed cut rates beyond the 25 basis point cut on July 31 and weaken the dollar. Yet the escalation of the trade war weighs on global trade and growth, which will push the dollar up. This reinforces the above argument that Trump will probably seek to offset the recent trade war escalation with some mitigating moves. Beyond inducing the Fed to cut further, it is difficult for President Trump to drive the dollar down. The Treasury Department can intervene in foreign exchange markets, but direct intervention does not have a successful track record. Interventions usually have to be sterilized (expansion of the money supply externally must be addressed at home by mopping up the new liquidity), which in the context of free-moving global capital means that any depreciation will be short-lived. An unsterilized intervention would be extremely unorthodox and is unlikely short of a major crisis and breakdown in institutional independence. The U.S. could attempt to engineer an internationally coordinated currency intervention, as we have highlighted in the past. But it is highly unlikely to succeed this time around. The U.S. is less dominant of a military and economic power than it was when it orchestrated the Smithsonian Agreement of 1971 and the Plaza Accord of 1985. Neither the European nor the Japanese economies are in a position to tighten monetary policy or financial conditions through currency appreciation. While China weans itself off treasuries, U.S. allies and others fill the void. Indeed, after a long period in which American allies declined as a share total holders of treasuries – as China and emerging markets increased their forex reserves and treasury holdings momentously – allies are now taking a greater share (Chart 7). Chart 8China Diversifies While It Depreciates China is driving down the yuan not by buying more treasuries but by buying other things – diversifying away from the USD into alternative reserve currencies and hard assets, such as gold and resources tied to the Belt and Road Initiative (Chart 8). As trade, globalization, and global growth have slowed down, and as China’s growth model and the U.S.-China special relationship expire, global dollar liquidity is shrinking. Dollar liquidity is the lifeblood of the global financial system and the consequence is to tighten financial conditions, including via equity markets (Chart 9). The solution would be a trade deal in which China agrees to reforms to pacify the U.S., including an appreciation renminbi, while the U.S. abandons tariffs, enabling global trade, growth, commodity prices, and dollar liquidity to recover. Yet China was never likely to agree to a new Plaza Accord because it is delaying reform to its economy in order to maintain overall political stability – and the financial turmoil of 2015-16 only hardened this position. Chart 9Dollar Liquidity A Risk To Global Equities Moreover Japan in 1985 was already a subordinate ally and had a security guarantee from the United States that was not in question. By contrast, China today is asserting its “equality” as a nation with the U.S., and has no guarantee that Americans are not demanding economic reforms so as to debilitate China’s political stability and strategic capability. After tariffs and currency war comes saber-rattling. Comparing China to Japan in the decades leading up to the Plaza Accord shows how remote of a possibility this solution is: China’s currency has been moving in precisely the opposite direction (Chart 10). Chart 10So Much For Plaza Accord 2.0 The Plaza Accord is a useful analogy for another reason: it marked the peak in Japanese market share in the U.S. economy. In Japan’s case, currency appreciation was the primary mover, while Japan also relocated production to the United States. Chart 11The Real Analogy With The Plaza Accord In China’s case, if currency appreciation is ruled out and production is not relocated due to a failure to secure a trade agreement, then U.S. protectionism will remain the primary means of capping China’s share of the market (Chart 11). The dollar will remain strong and this will continue to weigh on global markets. Bottom Line: China’s recent currency depreciation is a warning signal to the U.S. that the trade negotiations could be broken off. There is further downside if the U.S. implements the new tariffs or hikes tariff rates further. The renminbi is unlikely to enter a freefall, however, because China maintains tight capital controls and is stimulating its economy. It is doubtful that the Trump administration can engineer a depreciation of the dollar through a multilateral agreement. It lacks the geopolitical heft of the 1970s-80s, and it does not have a strategic understanding with China that would enable Beijing to make the same degree of concessions that Tokyo made in 1985. Saber-Rattling After tariffs and currency depreciation, the next likeliest manifestation of strategic tensions lies in the military sphere. While the U.S. threatens to cut off Chinese tech companies like Huawei, Beijing has signaled that countermeasures would include an embargo on U.S. imports of rare earth elements and products.3 When China implemented a partial rare earth export ban on Japan (Chart 12), the context was a maritime-territorial dispute in the East China Sea in which military and strategic tensions were also escalating. The threat to industry only amplified these tensions. There are several locations in East Asia where conditions are ripe for clashes and incidents that could add to negative global sentiment. Indeed, saber-rattling has already begun in Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Koreas, and the East and South China Seas. The following areas are the most likely to darken the outlook for U.S.-China negotiations: Direct U.S.-China tensions: The U.S. and China have experienced several minor clashes since the beginning of the Trump administration. The near-collision of a Chinese warship with the USS Decatur occurred in October 2018, after the implementation of the first sweeping tariff on $200 billion worth of goods – a period of tensions very similar to that of today.4 October 1 marks the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, an event that will be marked by outpourings of nationalism and a flamboyant military parade displaying advanced new weapons. The government in Beijing will be extremely sensitive in the lead-up to this anniversary, leading to tight domestic controls of news and media, hawkish rhetoric, and the potential for provocations on the high seas. Hong Kong and Taiwan: Chinese officials, including the People’s Liberation Army garrison commander in Hong Kong, the director of the Office of Hong Kong and Macao Affairs, and the city’s embattled Chief Executive Carrie Lam have warned in various ways that if unrest spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China’s intervention. A large-scale police exercise in Shenzhen, Guangdong, just across the water, has highlighted Beijing’s willingness to take forceful action. The deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries that would have common cause on this issue. The Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions (Chart 13). Hong Kong is obviously a much smaller share of total exports to China these days, but when combined with Taiwan – where there could also be a hit to sentiment from Hong Kong unrest and possibly separate economic sanctions – the impact could be substantial (Chart 14). Chart 13Mainland Intervention In Hong Kong Could Prompt Sanctions Chart 14HK/Taiwan A Significant Share Of Greater China Trade Why would Taiwan get worse as a result of Hong Kong? Unrest in Hong Kong has already galvanized opposition to the mainland’s policies in Taiwan, where the presidential election polling has shifted in incumbent President Tsai Ing-wen’s favor (Chart 15). Beijing has imposed new travel restrictions and held a number of intimidating military exercises, while the U.S. has increased freedom of navigation operations in the Taiwan Strait. These trends could worsen over the next year. Japan and the East China Sea: Japan’s top military official – General Koji Yamazaki – recently warned that Chinese military intrusions are increasing around the disputed Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands in the East China Sea. He called particular attention to China’s change of the Coast Guard from civilian to military control, which he said posed new risks of escalation in disputed waters. Japan itself may have an interest in a more confrontational stance over the coming year. The Japanese government has seen a rise in public opposition to its plan to revise the constitution to enshrine the Self-Defense Forces and thus move toward a more “normal” Japanese military and security posture (Chart 16). A revival of trouble in the South China Sea: China has not reduced its assertive foreign policy in order to win regional allies amid its conflict with the United States. On the contrary, it has continued asserting itself to the point of alienating governments that have largely sought to warm up to the Xi administration, including both Vietnam and the Philippines. The Vietnamese have engaged in a month-long standoff over alleged Chinese encroachments in its Exclusive Economic Zone. And a clash near Sandy Cay in the Spratly Islands is forcing Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has otherwise avoided confrontation with China, to address President Xi over the international court decision in 2016 that ruled out China’s claims of sovereignty over the disputed islands. The South China Sea is important because it is a vital supply line for all of the countries in the region. Even if the United States washed its hands of Beijing’s efforts to control the sea lanes, U.S. allies would still face a security threat that would drive tensions in these waters. This is a formidable group of Asian nations that China fears will seek to undermine it (Chart 17). And of course the Americans are not washing their hands of the region but actually reasserting their interest in maintaining a western Pacific defense perimeter. The Korean peninsula: North Korea has resumed testing short-range missiles, causing another hiccup in U.S. attempts at diplomacy (Chart 18). These tensions have the potential to flare as the U.S.-China trade talks deteriorate, since Beijing has offered cooperation on North Korea’s missile and nuclear program as a concession. Chart 17U.S. Asian Allies Formidable Chart 18North Korean Provocations Still Low-Level Ultimately North Korea needs to be part of the U.S.-China solution, so as long as tensions rise it sends a negative signal regarding the status of talks. And vice versa. South Korea is another case in which China is not reducing its foreign policy aggressiveness in order to win friends. On July 23, a combined Russo-Chinese bomber exercise over the disputed Dokdo (Takeshima) islands in the Sea of Japan led to interception by both Korean and Japanese fighter jets and the firing of hundreds of warning shots. The incident reveals that South Korean President Moon Jae-in is not seeing an improvement in relations with these countries despite his more pro-China orientation and his attempt to engage with North Korea. It also shows that while South Korea’s trade spat with Japan can persist for some time, it may take a back seat to these rising security challenges. As long as North Korean tensions rise it sends a negative signal regarding U.S.-China talks. Chart 19Russia May Need To Distract From Domestic Unrest Russia, like China, is feeling immense domestic political pressure, including large protests, that may result in greater foreign policy aggression (Chart 19). And as China and Russia tighten their informal alliance in the face of a more aggressive U.S., American allies face new operational pressures and the potential for geopolitical crises will rise. Bottom Line: The whole panoply of East Asian geopolitical risks is heating up as U.S.-China tensions escalate. While the U.S. and China may engage in direct provocations or miscalculations, their East Asian neighbors are implicated in the breakdown of the regional strategic order. A crisis in any of these hotspots could jeopardize the already unfavorable context for any U.S.-China trade deal over the next year, especially during rough patches like the very near term. Investment Implications Chart 20A Strategic Investment The potential for saber-rattling in the near term – on top of a series of critical U.S. decisions that could mitigate or exacerbate the increase in tensions surrounding the new tariff hike – argues strongly against altering our tactically defensive positioning at the moment. In this environment we advise clients to stick with our two strategic defense plays – long the BCA global defense basket in absolute terms, and long S&P500 Aerospace and Defense equities relative to global equities. The U.S. Congress’s newly agreed bipartisan budget deal provides a substantially improved fiscal backdrop for American defense stocks, which are already breaking out amid positive fundamentals. A host of non-negligible geopolitical risks speaks to the long-term nature of this trade (Chart 20). Our U.S. Equity Strategy recently reaffirmed its bullish position on this sector. We maintain that the U.S. and China have a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020. Note, however, that even a “no deal” scenario does not entail endless escalation. Presidents Trump and Xi could agree to another tariff ceasefire; negotiations could even lead to some tariff rollback in 2020. That would be, after all, Trump’s easiest way to “ease” trade policy amid recession risks. Nevertheless, our highest conviction call is not about whether there will be a deal, but that any trade truce that is reached will be shallow – an attempt to mitigate the trade war’s damage, save face, and bide time for the next round in U.S.-China conflict. We give only a 5% chance of a “Grand Compromise” by November 2020 that greatly expands the U.S.-China economic and corporate earnings outlook over the long haul. In this sense the ultimate trade deal will be a disappointment for markets.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 At the signing ceremony President Trump reminded his European interlocutors that the risk of car tariffs is not yet off the table. He concluded the celebration saying, “Congratulations. And we’re working on deal where the European Union will agree to pay a 25 percent tariff on all Mercedes-Benz’s, BMWs, coming into our nation. So, we appreciate that. I’m only kidding. (Laughter.) They started to get a little bit worried. They started — thank you. Congratulations. Best beef in the world. Thank you very much.” 2 See Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: Into A Liquidation Phase?” August 8, 2019, ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 The national rare earth association holding a special working meeting and pledging to support any countermeasures China should take against U.S. tariffs. See Tom Daly, “China Rare Earths Group Supports Counter-Measures Against U.S. ‘Bullying,’” Reuters, August 7, 2019. 4 Military tensions are already heating up as Beijing criticizes the U.S. over the new Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s claim during his Senate confirmation hearings that new missile defense may be installed in the region in the coming years. This comes in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, partly due to China’s not being a signatory of the agreement. Missile defense is a long-term issue but these developments feed into the current negative atmosphere.

Dear Client, In addition to this week’s Global Investment Strategy report, I am sending you a Special Report on Japan written by Amr Hanafy, Research Associate of BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The trade war is likely to get worse before it gets better, implying some near-term downside risks to global equities and corporate credit. Nevertheless, both sides have a strong incentive to keep the conflict from spiraling out of control.  Unlike in the earlier rounds, consumer goods represent the bulk of the imports subject to tariffs in the latest round. Many of these Chinese imports also do not have readily-available foreign or domestic alternatives. If U.S. retail prices start rising, voter attitudes – which are not that supportive of the trade war to begin with – will sour further, hurting President Trump’s re-election prospects. Investors should overweight global equities over a 12-month horizon. We intend to upgrade EM and European stocks. However, we are waiting for the trade war to simmer down and global growth to revive before we do so. Feature Tariffied Last week, we wrote that “Risk assets are likely to struggle over the next few weeks as investors grapple with both renewed trade war anxiety and the realization that the Fed’s “insurance cuts” may not be as generous as they had anticipated.”1 Stocks have been on a rollercoaster ride since then. S&P 500 futures were down almost 8% on Monday evening compared to last Thursday’s intraday highs before recovering much of their losses over the subsequent days (Chart 1). Needless to say, the brewing trade war between China and the U.S. remains foremost in investors’ minds. In what has become a familiar pattern of events, China moved quickly to retaliate against President Trump’s decision to raise tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese imports. The Chinese government announced that state-owned enterprises would suspend purchases of U.S. agricultural goods. The People’s Bank of China also allowed the USD/CNY exchange rate to move above 7, long regarded as a key psychological level. This prompted the U.S. Treasury to officially label China a “currency manipulator.” In and of itself, the decision to label China a currency manipulator means little. The designation was applied to China based on the loose criteria for manipulation used in the 1988 Omnibus Trade And Competitiveness Act, rather than under the more stringent criteria that the U.S. Treasury has employed since 2015 (the latest Treasury report issued in May, using this more stringent criteria, did not find China guilty of currency manipulation). The Treasury statement self-servingly said that Secretary Mnuchin “will engage with the International Monetary Fund to eliminate the unfair competitive advantage created by China’s latest actions.” Given that the IMF indicated as late as three weeks ago that China’s “current account is broadly in line with fundamentals,” we doubt that much will come of this.2 Nevertheless, the designation further sours the atmosphere surrounding the trade talks, suggesting that the conflict will probably get worse before it gets better. Tough Luck, I Am Hitting Send The Chinese were apparently blindsided by President Trump’s decision to raise tariffs. According to media reports, Trump brushed off suggestions from his advisors during a tense Oval Office meeting last Thursday to notify the Chinese, as a courtesy, of the pending tariff announcement, choosing instead to send his tweet while everyone was still present in the room. (With Trump’s permission, Robert Lighthizer did try to place a phone call to Liu He, China’s Vice Premier and lead trade negotiator. The call went unanswered).3  Trump has reportedly become incensed that the Chinese, in his view, are stalling, secretly hoping that they will have a more conciliatory counterparty to deal with following next year’s presidential elections. From Trump’s perspective, a key goal of the tariffs is to make a strategy of running out the clock less appealing. Having successfully used the threat of tariffs to prompt Mexico to take stronger steps to curtail the flow of migrants to the U.S., Trump now feels emboldened to use strong-arm tactics to extract concessions from China. It’s a risky gambit. The Chinese will resist locking in any structural reforms that could weaken Beijing’s authority. The protests in Hong Kong have only added urgency for China’s leaders to look and act tough in the presence of what they describe as “foreign meddling.” All this means that a deal to prevent the latest tranche of tariffs from taking effect on September 1st is unlikely to be hatched. Mutually Assured Destruction? How bad could things get? The good news is that both sides have a strong incentive to keep the conflict from spiraling out of control. For the Chinese, it is not just a matter of losing access to the vast U.S. market. It’s also about losing access to vital technologies that China needs to further its ambitions in everything from robotics, to AI, to genomics. Chart 2Voters Are Not That Supportive Of Protectionism From Trump’s perspective, a severe trade war could hurt his re-election chances. Unlike late last year, the stock market’s recent plunge can be squarely attributed to the intensification of the trade war. If stocks keep falling, many voters with sagging 401(k) accounts will blame Trump. The initial rounds of U.S. tariffs focused on capital goods. In contrast, consumer goods represent the bulk of the imports subject to the latest tranche of duties. If retail prices start rising, voter attitudes – which are not that supportive of the trade war to begin with (Chart 2) – may sour further. It is also worth noting that Chinese goods account for a large fraction of overall imports in many of the categories subject to the latest round of tariffs. This will limit the ability of U.S. companies to source imports from other countries, thus putting further upward pressure on U.S. consumer prices. A Headwind, Not A Game Changer Neither the U.S. nor China would gain from a prolonged trade war. This does not mean that a “World War I” scenario, where all parties end up severely worse off from their actions, can be completely excluded. However, it does mean that powerful forces will probably kick in before the trade war gets out of hand. While global equities may struggle over the coming weeks as investors try to navigate every twist and turn in the trade war saga, they will be higher 12 months from now. In such a “moderate” trade war scenario, where tariffs rise but the global supply chain continues to function, the asset market consequences are likely to be smaller than many observers believe. There are two reasons for this: First, there is the issue of magnitude. In value-added terms, U.S. exports of goods to China account for 0.5% of U.S. GDP, while Chinese exports to the U.S. represent 2.7% of Chinese GDP. These are not infinitesimal numbers, but even in the latter case, they are not particularly large either. Second, both the U.S. and China have some ability to offset the impact of a moderate trade war with stimulus. In the case of the U.S., the stimulus would come mainly in the form of more accommodative monetary policy. Indeed, since Jay Powell’s “hawkish” press conference last week, the 2-year yield has fallen by 24 basis points, while the 10-year yield has dipped by 29 basis points, largely because the market has priced in more rate cuts (Chart 3). In China’s case, the stimulus will continue to consist of credit-driven investment spending, with some tax cuts for consumers thrown in for good measure. Yes, China can stimulate its economy by further weakening its currency. However, such a strategy risks backfiring. As we saw in 2015-16, when China lost almost $1 trillion in reserves, even a small devaluation can foster expectations of a bigger one, leading to large-scale capital outflows (Chart 4). The fact that dollar-denominated debt has risen among China corporates further reduces the incentive to allow the yuan to weaken significantly. As such, we do not expect the Chinese to weaponize the yuan as a tool in the trade war. Chart 3U.S. Yields Are Lower As Markets Are Pricing In More Rate Cuts Chart 4China: A Devaluation Could Exacerbate Capital Outflows   Investment Conclusions As we discussed last week, the global manufacturing cycle tends to follow regular three-year periods – 18 months up, 18 months down (Chart 5). Given that the last downleg began in early 2018, we are due for another upturn in growth. The recent trade turbulence could delay the recovery for a bit, but ultimately, the manufacturing cycle will turn for the better. Central banks tend to be backward-looking. The weakness in both economic growth and inflation has prompted them to ease monetary policy. Just this week, central banks in Thailand, India, and New Zealand cut rates. The RBNZ shaved rates by 50 basis points, double what analysts were expecting. This brings to 16 the number of central banks which have lowered interest rates so far this year. Monetary policy affects the economy with a lag. Global growth is likely to start picking up just as the monetary stimulus is making its way through the system. Stocks will thrive in this environment. Thus, while global equities may struggle over the coming weeks as investors try to navigate every twist and turn in the trade war saga, they will be higher 12 months from now. As global growth recovers, bond yields will rise. Investors should favor stocks over bonds. We do not have a strong view on regional equity allocation for now, but intend to upgrade EM and European stocks once the trade war simmers down and leading indicators for global growth start to march higher. Chart 5The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy  peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A One-Two Punch,” dated August 2, 2019. 2      Please see Gita Gopinath, “Rebalancing the Global Economy: Some Progress but Challenges Ahead,” IMF Blogs, July 17, 2019; and “2019 External Sector Report: The Dynamics of External Adjustment,” IMF External Sector Reports, July 2019. 3      Vivian Salama and Josh Zumbrun, “Trump Ordered New Chinese Tariffs Over Objections of Advisers,” The Wall Street Journal, August 7, 2019.  Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores   Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Analysis on India is available below. Highlights Moderate RMB depreciation is consistent with the economic as well as political objectives of Chinese authorities. Yet, this is bad news for EM currencies and risk assets. As EM currencies depreciate, driven by a weaker RMB and lower commodities prices, foreign investors will head for the exit and EM risk assets will plummet. Meanwhile, there are tell-tale signs of an incipient EM breakdown. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. We also remain structurally short the RMB. Feature In our May 23 report titled The RMB: Depreciation Time? , we argued that the odds of an RMB depreciation were rising and that the currency would likely depreciate by some 6-8% versus the dollar. We contended that this would be bad news not only for EM currencies but also for all EM risk assets. EM fundamentals have been poor – both exports and cyclical domestic sectors have been contracting for some time. We illustrated the weak domestic demand conditions experienced by the majority of developing economies in our recent report, Domestic Demand In Individual EM Countries. Nevertheless, many investors have been ignoring the growing evidence of deteriorating growth conditions. The recent breakdown in the CNY/USD cross has reminded investors of the 2015 episode, when global risk assets – particularly in EM – tumbled following the yuan’s depreciation. We expect the RMB to depreciate by another 5-6% or so. We expect the RMB to depreciate by another 5-6% or so (Chart I-1). This will likely trigger a full-scale breakdown in EM risk assets. With respect to investor positioning, sentiment on EM was buoyant up until last week. Chart I-2 shows that asset managers’ and leveraged funds’ net long positions in EM equity index futures and high-beta liquid currencies futures was elevated as of Friday August 2. Chart I-1More Downside In RMB Chart I-2Investor Sentiment On EM Was Positive As Of Last Week With negative news proliferating on many fronts – the U.S.-China confrontation, slumping global trade, shrinking EM profits, tumbling commodities prices and RMB depreciation – the risk of a portfolio capital exodus from EM is rising, and a liquidation phase is highly probable. Implications Of RMB Depreciation It is impossible to know whether the recent RMB depreciation was market-driven or engineered by the PBoC. Our best guess is that the latest RMB depreciation was driven by both market pressures as well as the authorities’ increased tolerance of a weaker RMB.  The mainland economy requires a weaker currency to counteract accumulating deflationary pressures from deteriorating domestic and foreign demand, as well as to offset rising U.S. import tariffs. The Chinese leadership likely regards RMB depreciation as an economic and political response to U.S. import tariffs. That said, the Chinese authorities have significant latitude to control the exchange rate, not only via selling the central bank’s foreign currency reserves and tightening capital controls but also by utilizing foreign currency forward swaps. Therefore, the RMB depreciation will run further but will unlikely spiral out of control. Regardless of the cause of the depreciation, a weaker RMB will affect the rest of the world in general and EM in particular. Regardless of the cause of the depreciation, a weaker RMB will affect the rest of the world in general and EM in particular via the following two channels: Escalating competitive devaluation: The RMB is causing a breakdown in other Asian currencies, especially those exposed to manufacturing exports (Chart I-3). Critically, falling export prices herald currency depreciation not only in China but also in other Asian economies such as Korea, Singapore and Taiwan (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Breakdown In Emerging Asian Currencies Chart I-4Lower Export Prices Warrant Currency Depreciation Less Chinese imports = a drag on global trade: An RMB devaluation reduces Chinese importers’ purchasing power in U.S. dollar terms. The same amount of credit and fiscal stimulus in yuan when converted into U.S. dollars can be used to procure less goods and commodities. In brief, the gap between mainland imports in yuan and in dollars will widen (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Chinese Imports In Dollars Will Continue Shrinking Chinese imports in dollar terms will continue contracting. Many EM and some DM currencies will be negatively affected, since China is a major source of demand for these economies. Bottom Line: Moderate RMB depreciation is consistent with the economic as well as political objectives of Chinese authorities. Yet, this is bad news for EM currencies and risk assets. An EM Breakdown Is In The Making There are a number of financial markets and individual share prices that have been forewarning of potential breakdowns in EM/China plays and global pro-cyclical assets. In particular: Having failed to break above its 200-day moving average, the Risk-On vs. Safe-Haven currency ratio1 has dropped below its three-year moving average (Chart I-6, top panel). This indicator has had a very high correlation with EM stocks and global materials equities. Hence, its breakdown heralds a gap down in EM share prices as well as global materials stocks (Chart I-6, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-6Beware Of Breakdowns The rationale for using the 400-day (18-month), 800-day (three-year) and other long-term moving averages is similar to why investors utilize the 200-day (nine-month) moving average. When a market fails to punch below or above any of its long-term moving averages, odds are that it will make a new high or low, respectively. We discussed these technical indicators and have offered empirical examples of how these signals have historically worked in principal markets such as the S&P 500 and U.S. bond yields in our past reports.   Base metals (including copper) and oil prices as well as global steel stocks have broken below their three-year moving averages (Chart I-7). Commodities prices have been exhibiting a very bearish chart formation, and will likely plunge further. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team remains bearish on commodities prices, even though BCA’s house view is bullish. The primary basis for this divergence in view has been and remains the Chinese growth outlook. Chart I-7Commodities Are In A Trouble Spot Chart I-8Canary In A Coal Mine For Commodities Share price of Glencore – a major player in the commodities space – has plunged below its three-year moving average, which has served as a support a couple of times in recent years2 (Chart I-8). Crucially, this stock has exhibited a head-and-shoulders formation, and has nose-dived below its neckline. Kennametal (KMT) – a high-beta U.S. industrial stock – leads the U.S. manufacturing cycles and has formed a similar configuration as Glencore’s (Chart I-9). This raises the odds that the U.S. manufacturing PMI will drop below the 50 line. Finally, the relative performance of S&P 500 global cyclical stocks versus global defensives3 has resumed its downtrend after failing to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-10). This foreshadows a poor global growth outlook and serves as a downbeat signal for global cyclical plays. Chart I-9Canary In A Coal Mine For U.S. Industrials Chart I-10A Message From S&P 500 Industry Groups Does all of the above imply that the global growth slowdown is already priced into global financial markets? Not necessarily. These breakdowns have occurred on the fringes of markets. As the average investor heeds to these signals and as these breakdowns move from the periphery to the center, there will be more damage to global risk assets in general and EM in particular. Importantly, there are cyclical segments of global and EM financial markets that have not adjusted and remain vulnerable. For example, global semiconductor stocks and global industrial share prices remain elevated despite the enduring global manufacturing recession (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Mind The Gaps The wide gap between share prices and revenues of these cyclical sectors implies that investors have been pricing an imminent business cycle recovery. Odds are that the current global manufacturing downturn will last longer or that a bottoming-out phase will be more extended than in 2012 and 2015. We have elaborated on the rationale for a more extended downturn in our past reports, and our conclusions still stand: A lack of aggressive stimulus in China, a lower propensity to spend among Chinese households and companies, as well as the ongoing trade war will continue to dampen business sentiment worldwide. Consequently, the current gap between share prices of these cyclical sectors and their underlying revenues will likely be closed via lower stock prices. As to non-cyclical equity sectors, they are less vulnerable to a profit downturn but their valuations are very expensive, and investor positioning is heavy. Further, EM local currency bonds as well as EM sovereign and corporate credit markets have been buoyant because of falling U.S. interest rates. Yet EM currencies are at risk from both RMB devaluation and falling commodities prices. EM currency depreciation will in turn undermine returns on EM local currency bonds and spur an investor exodus from high-yielding domestic bonds. Chart I-12Which Way These Gaps Will Close? Excess returns on EM sovereign and corporate credit have historically correlated with EM currencies and commodities prices as well as with equity returns (Chart I-12). Commodities prices, EM currencies and share prices are all poised to weaken further. It will be very surprising if sovereign and corporate spreads do not widen from their current tight levels. Bottom Line: There are a number of tell-tale signs of an incipient EM breakdown. As EM currencies depreciate driven by a weaker RMB and lower commodities prices, foreign investors will head for the exit and all EM risk assets will plummet. Investment Recommendations We are reiterating our negative stance on EM currencies and risk assets both in absolute terms and relative to their DM counterparts. Our recommended country overweights and underweights for EM equity, sovereign credit and local currency bond portfolios are always available at the end of our reports (please refer to pages 18 and 19 ). As to exchange rates, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. We also remain structurally short the RMB. In a nutshell, EM currency depreciation will -- for now -- overwhelm the positive impact of lower domestic interest rates on EM equities and in some cases will prevent developing nations’ central banks from reducing rates further. Finally, we recommended a long gold / short oil and copper trade on July 11 and this has panned out nicely (Chart I-13). Gold has made a structural breakout versus the rest of commodities complex and investors should hold into this position. We recommended a long gold / short oil and copper trade on July 11 and this has panned out nicely. Chart I-13A Structural Breakout In Gold Versus Oil And Copper Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Indian Stocks: Poor Profit Outlook Amid Rich Valuation Indian stocks have failed to break out above their highs, in both local currency and U.S. dollar terms, and have rolled over decisively (Chart 1, top panel). Chart II-1Indian Stocks Failed To Break Major Resistance Levels Relative to the EM equity benchmark, Indian share prices have recently been underperforming despite collapsing oil prices and plunging U.S. interest rates. Furthermore, this bourse’s relative performance against the global equity index in common currency terms has bounced lower from a major structural technical resistance (Chart II-1, bottom panel). India’s recent underwhelming equity dynamics have transpired despite ongoing monetary policy easing by the country's central bank. In a nutshell, the roots of this poor equity performance trace back to lackluster profitability, rich equity valuations and overcrowded positioning. We recommend investors continue avoiding Indian equities for now as more downside is likely. Domestic Growth/Corporate Earnings Slump Indian domestic demand growth has been nosediving with no clear end in sight: Sales of passenger cars, two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors as well as medium & heavy commercial trucks are all contracting at double-digit rates (Chart II-2). Similarly, real gross fixed capital formation growth has decelerated, the number of capex projects underway are falling, capital goods imports and production are contracting and cement production growth has plummeted (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Domestic Demand Is Very Weak Chart II-3Capex And Infrastructure Are Heading South Some cracks are also appearing in India’s real estate sector. Chart II-4 shows nationwide housing price growth is decelerating in nominal terms and deflating in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Chart II-4House Prices Are Contracting In Real Terms Typically, share prices become extremely sensitive to business cycles slowdowns when valuations are elevated. This is currently the case for the Indian bourse. In fact, India’s latest corporate earnings season was lackluster and many companies across various sectors have warned about slowing growth. More visibility on an ameliorating profit outlook as well as lower valuation multiples are needed for share prices to reach a sustainable bottom. India Is Joining The “Kick The Can Down Road” Club Banks have been the star performers within the Indian bourse with non-financials generating underwhelming returns. This warrants particular attention to bank stocks’ fundamentals and valuations. Recent media reports have been highlighting that India’s NPL cycle has finally turned for the better – marking an end to the country’s bad asset cycle that started in 2013. Chart II-5Poor Debt Servicing Ability Among Indian Corporate Borrowers However, scratching below the surface, the recent reduction in India’s NPLs ratio has not occurred due to organic improvement in India’s corporate borrowers’ ability to service debt. For instance, the EBITDA-to-interest expense ratio for the country’s non-financial publically-listed companies has not improved at all (Chart II-5). Rather, what seems to be driving the NPLs ratio lower is a regulatory forbearance: The new Governor of the RBI – Shaktikanta Das – issued a new circular on NPL recognition in June. It essentially provides commercial banks with much more flexibility in the way they can deal with their bad assets and permits them to delay their NPL recognition. The central bank also allowed India’s manufacturing and infrastructure corporates in default to borrow via the External Commercial Borrowing route in order to pay down their domestic loans under a one-off settlement. Furthermore, the RBI permitted commercial banks to restructure loans of micro-, small-, and medium-sized businesses before they turn bad - allowing banks to delay the proper recognition of such types of loans as well. Finally, the RBI reduced the risk weight of consumer credit from 125% to 100% in its monetary policy meeting yesterday. The objective of this measure is to accelerate consumer credit growth even though the latter has been booming in the past ten years. All in all, these regulatory measures reverse banks and corporate sector restructuring efforts and thereby are negative from a structural perspective. In the past, we were positive on the Indian banking system structurally because the central bank was promoting critical reforms.   Under the new leadership of the RBI, India is now joining the “kick the can down the road” club. This warrants somewhat lower equity multiples for banks than before. Financials Stocks Are Still Expensive Despite the selloff, Indian bank stocks are not yet cheap. For Indian public banks we focused our analysis on the State Bank of India (SBI) as it is the largest and only public bank that has performed reasonably well. This bank presently trades at a price-to-book value (PBV) ratio of 1.15.  Our analysis shows that at a more realistic 12% NPL ratio4 and assuming a 30% recovery ratio, 25% of its equity would be impaired. This would move its adjusted PBV ratio to 1.5. Assuming a fair-value PBV ratio of 1.3, the SBI appears to be overvalued by 15-17%. As to private banks,5 they are also expensive. For instance, if their NPLs rise to 6% from around 3% currently, they would seem overvalued by at least 12% (Table II-1). The analysis assumes a generous recovery ratio of 50% and a very high fair-value PBV ratio of 3.3.  Finally, a comment on non-bank financial companies (NBFCs) is warranted. Their liquidity situation is extremely grim. Chart II-6 shows that our proxy for liquidity, measured as short-term investments (including cash) minus short-term borrowing for the 11 large NBFCs we assessed,6 is in a deep negative territory. In other words, these companies have a substantial maturity mismatch. Chart II-6Major Asset-Liability Mismatches In Non-Bank Finance Sector Remarkably, these non-bank organizations grew their assets at a 20% annual compounded growth rate since 2009. Odds are they have misallocated capital to a large extent and their NPL ratio is probably in the double-digits. According to the RBI, non-bank financials’ gross NPLs ratio stood at 6.6% as of March 2019. By comparison the NPLs ratio of Indian banks peaked at 11.2%. Meanwhile, their valuations are not cheap at all. For instance, the NBFCs included in the MSCI India equity index carry a PBV ratio of 3.5 for consumer finance focused companies and a PBV ratio of 3 for thrift & mortgage finance focused companies. Bottom Line: Share prices of banks and non-bank financials are far from being cheap and remain at risk of further decline. Investment Recommendations In absolute U.S. dollar terms, Indian stocks have meaningful downside. This is confirmed by some precarious technical signals: the equal-weighted stocks index has dropped by 28% from its top in January 2018 and small-cap stocks are breaking down (Chart II-7). Finally, while the RBI cut rates yesterday, share prices still closed lower. Chart II-7Ominous Signals From The Indian Broader Equity Market In terms of our relative strategy, we continue to recommend that dedicated EM equity investors keep underweighting Indian stocks for now, but our conviction level is lower than it was in May. The basis is that ongoing fiscal and monetary easing, coupled with very low U.S. bonds yields and oil prices, might help Indian equities to outpace their EM peers at some point. For now, we will wait for a better entry point to upgrade. Our strongest conviction is that Indian stocks will underperform the global equity index in common currency terms (please see Chart II-1 on page 11). As for the currency, lingering problems in the NBFC sector will force the RBI to keep liquidity in the banking system abundant. Excessive liquidity expansion amid the ongoing selloff in EM currencies will hurt the rupee. Fixed-income investors should play a yield curve steepening trade as lower short rates and rupee deprecation could generate a yield curve steepening. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return (including carry) indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns. 2      The drop occurred well before the latest negative profit report. 3      These indexes are based on U.S. S&P 500 industry groups and published by Goldman Sachs. The Bloomberg tickers for S&P 500's global cyclicals and global defensives indexes are GSSBGCYC and GSSBGDEF, respectively. 4      Instead of the 7.5% ratio it reported last week. 5      We analyzed the six largest private banks: HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, IDFC First Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank 6      Six of which are listed in the MSCI India equity index and account for 12% of MSCI total market cap. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations