Trade

Special Report

Highlights So what? The U.S.-China deal is not shaping up as well as the consensus holds. Why? The odds of reaching a deal by June are rising, but no higher than 50%. Unemployment is a constraint on the Chinese side but stimulus reduces urgency. Structural concessions on currency and foreign investment are limited in scope. Strategic concessions are limited to North Korea; Taiwan risks are rising. Stay overweight U.S. and Chinese equities on a relative basis at least until the deal is signed.   Feature Once again investors are faced with a stream of headlines suggesting that a U.S.-China trade deal is all but finished, only to find critical caveats buried on page six. For instance, President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping have not yet scheduled a summit to sign a trade agreement, though Trump insists a summit is necessary. Chief U.S. negotiator Robert Lighthizer says that he is “hoping but not necessarily hopeful.”1 There is still room for U.S. and Chinese bourses to outperform on a relative basis while negotiations continue. Still, the news flow is encouraging. Trump has said “we’ve agreed to far more than we have left to agree to,” while Xi Jinping has called for an “early conclusion of negotiations.” The other negotiators are also making positive sounds, with Vice Premier Liu He saying that a “new consensus” has been reached on a text of the trade agreement. National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow says that key structural issues are on the table and that negotiations are continuing by videoconference after two successful rounds of direct talks in Beijing and Washington. Even the notorious China hawk, Peter Navarro, Director of the U.S. National Trade Council, has begrudgingly admitted that the two sides are in the final stage of the talks, saying, “the last mile of the marathon is actually the longest and the hardest.”2 Readers know that we take a pessimistic view of U.S.-China relations over the long run. We were skeptical about the possibility of a tariff truce on December 1. However, the signs are stacking up in favor of a deal. While we would not be surprised if talks extended to the June 28-29 G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, President Trump has suggested that a summit could come as early as May 5-19. Chart 1Still Some Room To Run Judging by the performance of U.S. and Chinese equities relative to the rest of the world since the first tariffs were imposed on June 14, 2018, there is still room for these two bourses to outperform on a relative basis while negotiations continue. Relative to global equities excluding China and U.S., Chinese stocks have retraced 78% of the ground they lost, while U.S. stocks have not surpassed the high points reached at the peak of the global economic divergence in 2018 (Chart 1). Once a deal is reached, will investors that bought equities on the rumor sell the news? We would buy, though equity leadership should rotate away from the U.S. and China depending on the timing and external conditions discussed below. As a House we are overweight global equities on a 12-month horizon. Xi Is Not Mao China’s economic stimulus is a key swing factor for global growth and the corporate earnings outlook this year. Our China Investment Strategy has highlighted that the BCA Activity Indicator has now fully registered the negative impact of trade tariffs as well as the broader slowdown (Chart 2). Chart 2Slowdown Fully Priced In Previously it was more buoyant than our leading indicator suggested it should be, largely because companies placed orders throughout the second half of 2018 to front-run Trump’s tariffs and this artificially boosted China’s exports and manufacturing activity. Now that this front-running is over, any improvement or deterioration in underlying monetary conditions, money supply, and lending should be reflected in the BCA Activity Indicator itself. Hence a stout credit number for March will cause an uptick that will confirm that China’s economy is recovering. We expect this to occur because, to be blunt, President Xi Jinping is not truly a modern-day Chairman Mao Zedong. While he has revived aspects of Maoism, he has responded pragmatically, rather than ideologically, to the Communist Party’s Number one political constraint: the tradeoff between productivity and employment. When Xi consolidated power in 2017, he launched a deleveraging campaign and doubled down on various structural reforms in order to make progress in rebalancing China’s economy. The result was renewed weakness in the labor market as the stimulus measures of 2015-16 wore off (Chart 3). Labor “incidents,” or protests, particularly those sparked by the relocation of workers from closed factories, began to rise again (Chart 4). Significantly, the number of bankruptcies also increased, demonstrating that the government was willing to tolerate some economic pain in order to make the allocation of capital more efficient (Chart 5). Chart 3A Key Constraint On Xi Jinping Chart 4Labor Incidents On The Rise China’s policymakers pursued these reforms while believing that President Trump’s threat of a trade war was largely bluster. But when Trump proceeded to impose tariffs, confidence collapsed and China’s private sector found itself sandwiched between stricter government at home and an impending squeeze of demand abroad. The labor and business indicators in Charts 3-5 suffered further deterioration in 2018 as animal spirits evaporated across the economy. President Xi’s response could have been to close China’s doors to trade and to the West and undertake an even more aggressive purge of “capitalist roaders.” The possibility is inherent in his cult of personality, aggressive anti-corruption campaign, and cyber-security state apparatus. This would have meant a dramatic reckoning with the country's economic and financial imbalances, but it would have given the hardliners in the Communist Party an opportunity to establish absolute control and national “self-sufficiency.” Instead, Xi entered into talks with Trump and launched supply-side, tax-and-tape-cutting measures to stimulate private economic activity, and boosted fiscal spending. He chose reflation rather than revolution. Chinese stimulus does not make a trade deal more likely in itself, as it gives President Xi more leverage in negotiations. But without a trade deal, private sector sentiment and animal spirits will remain depressed and stimulus measures will eventually falter. So it makes sense that Xi wants a deal. China will be the center of two market-positive outcomes in the near term: more domestic reflation and less conflict with the United States. To put this into context: if China’s credit impulse turns positive it will push the overall fiscal-and-credit impulse higher than 2% of GDP (Chart 6), foreshadowing a rebound in Chinese imports and global growth and enabling China’s own corporate earnings to recover. Our China Investment Strategy estimates that if the past three months’ rate of credit growth continues, while manufacturing sentiment improves on a trade deal and the renminbi remains flat, then the probability of an earnings recession on the MSCI China Index falls from 92% to 21%, as shown in Chart 7. From a policy perspective this looks conservative, as the actual rate of credit growth will probably be faster than that of the past three months. Chart 6Credit Will Add To Fiscal Boost Chart 7Earnings Unlikely To Contract Of course, President Trump has even more acute political constraints than President Xi urging him toward a deal. A deterioration in the U.S. manufacturing sector is a serious liability, especially in the Midwestern battleground states (Chart 8), and Trump has apparently calculated that a tailored infusion of Chinese cash and promises is a better reelection strategy than a continuation of trade war amid a slowdown.   Chart 8A Key Constraint On Donald Trump The implication of all of the above is that China will be the center of two market-positive outcomes in the near term: more domestic reflation and less conflict with the United States. The former is not yet consensus, while the latter is lacking in specifics. Yet both are beneficial for Chinese equities on an absolute and relative basis. And once there is a concluded trade deal and clarity over stimulus, emerging markets can also outperform their developed market counterparts. Note that we do not expect China to launch a massive 2008-09-style stimulus unless the tariff war reignites. Such an outcome would only be bullish for some EMs, since beneath the initial surge in Chinese imports would lie the disruption of the global supply chain and broader de-globalization. Bottom Line: Unemployment is a key political constraint suggesting both that China’s stimulus will surprise to the upside and that a trade deal is forthcoming. We are reducing the odds of an extension of trade talks beyond June from 35% to 20%, leaving a 50% chance for some kind of trade deal to emerge by the end of that month (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities (April 2019) Trump Is Not Nixon If Xi is not Mao, then Trump is not Nixon. Despite a likely trade deal, we are not on the verge of a historic 1972-esque “grand compromise” that will usher in a new era of U.S.-China engagement. This should temper enthusiasm regarding the long-term durability of the trade truce, highlighting that China’s credit data is the more important factor for the 12-month horizon, though the trade issue is an impediment that needs to be removed for a sustainable rally. China may be increasingly willing to embrace structural concessions, but the depth of the structural change should be doubted until the details of the trade deal prove otherwise. For example, at the moment there is still no agreement on tariff levels. And there can be no “enforcement mechanism” to satisfy the U.S. side other than the perpetual threat of tariffs, which erodes trust and discourages Chinese implementation of structural changes. Two structural issues highlight the conundrum: currency and foreign investment. First, while the details of the currency agreement are unknown, the U.S. will definitely not get anything comparable to what it got from Japan after the Plaza Accord in 1985. The Japanese were a subordinate ally to the U.S. in the midst of the Cold War; they did not negotiate with the suspicion that the U.S. secretly wanted to destroy their economy. China has neither the security guarantee nor the economic trust. The implication is that the CNY-USD may rise by about 10% or so from current levels (Chart 9), as opposed to the 54% that the JPY-USD witnessed from 1985-88. The upside for the U.S. is that Trump may get some yuan appreciation, while the upside for China is that limited appreciation means no excessively deflationary impact. Chart 9Currency Agreement: Far From A Plaza Accord Second, China’s new foreign investment law, which received a rubber stamp from the legislature in March, is not an unqualified success for American negotiators. We have illustrated this in Table 2 by denoting white flags for aspects of the law that are genuine concessions and red flags for aspects that will raise new suspicions about China’s foreign investment framework. It is a mixed bag. Moreover, the law itself has no power and will depend entirely on the central government’s dedication to imposing strict adherence down through the local layers of government, where forced technology transfer actually takes place. Table 2New Foreign Investment Law: A Mixed Bag American negotiators will also want bilateral agreements on tech transfer and intellectual property protection since otherwise they will not receive any particular benefit from a law that applies equally to all foreign investors (e.g. Europeans). But it is not yet clear that they will get anything more concrete. The upside for the U.S. is that it will have some means of redress for forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft, while the upside for China is that foreign direct investment should improve. The strategic conflicts between the U.S. and China are even less likely to be dealt with than the economic issues. How can we be sure? Peer Competition: The U.S.-China détente under Nixon occurred at a time when a vast asymmetry between U.S. and Chinese national power existed, whereas today China’s power increasingly rivals that of the U.S., making it easier for China to write its own rules for global interactions and to resist U.S. pressure (Chart 10). Unilateralism: Trump did not leverage American alliances and partnerships across the world to create a “coalition of the willing” to confront China over its mercantilist trade and investment practices. There is some cooperation but it has been inconsistent and tentative, even on deep national security concerns like Huawei’s involvement in 5G networks and the Internet of Things. Had the U.S. created such a coalition and then set out to prosecute its claims, the threat to China’s economy would have been so immense that much greater structural changes could be expected than is the case today (Chart 11). Chart 10The Era Of U.S.-China Detente Is Over Chart 11Trump Eschewed A Coalition Of The Willing Core Interests: The trade talks only nominally address dangerous conflicts in China’s near abroad. China’s enforcement of sanctions on North Korea has produced limited results so far but we ultimately expect diplomacy to bear fruit (Chart 12). However, Taiwan is more rather than less likely to be the site of conflict. This is not because of pro-independence sentiment, which is actually on decline in public opinion relative to pro-unification sentiment (Chart 12, second panel). It is because the lame duck Tsai Ing-wen administration may attempt to secure last-minute benefits from the U.S., while an unexpected primary election challenge could lead to the nomination of Lai Ching-te (William Lai), a more outspoken pro-independence candidate, on April 24. Either could provoke Beijing. There is zero chance that any trade deal in the coming months will reduce the threat of reunification of Taiwan by force. Underlying distrust will remain. Chart 12Geopolitical Risk Down In Korea But Up In Taiwan Furthermore, the South China Sea is not a “red herring” but a potential “black swan,” as it is connected to Taiwan’s security and more broadly to U.S. alliance security. After all, 96%-97% of Taiwan’s, South Korea’s, and Japan’s oil imports flow through these sea lanes. Critical supplies become vulnerable if China expands its military’s capabilities there (Diagram 1). The U.S. and China will likely be just as provocative as before in this area after they sign a deal. Technology: The tech conflict is more likely to limit the trade deal than vice versa. The sanctions and embargoes on Chinese companies like ZTE, Fujian Jinghua, and Huawei have operated on a separate track from the trade talks, and it is not at all clear that the U.S. will embrace Huawei as part of any final deal. The initial actions of the newly beefed-up Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) send warning signals. CFIUS is largely a vehicle for U.S. oversight of China (Table 3) and, if anything, that country-specific focus is intensifying. For instance, the U.S. has deemed Chinese ownership of a gay and lesbian hook-up app, Grindr, to pose an excessive national security risk.3 This is not a high bar for intervention and it suggests that any trade deal will fail to improve China’s investment options in the U.S. tech sector. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Table 3CFIUS Is Mostly About China The takeaway is that while both sides want a deal over the short term, it will not mark the end of the trade war. It is more likely the end of the beginning of a cold war. As long as China’s economy and industrial capabilities continue to grow relative to the United States, its geographic periphery remains a cauldron of geopolitical risks, and its technological advancement remains rapid, the competition will continue. Bottom Line: There is no substantial evidence from the current trade talks that underlying strategic conflicts will be resolved. This implies that the U.S. and China will shift their focus to these conflicts in the weeks and months after any trade deal. That process will be a nuisance to global equity markets expecting a clean deal; Chinese and American tech stocks in particular will remain exposed to tail risks. The status of Chinese tech companies is a critical risk, as a deal for the U.S. to admit Huawei would be a game-changer. Investment Conclusions Ironically, an early resolution of the trade war – in April or May – offers less of a benefit for Chinese equities and other risk assets than a later resolution in June or thereafter. While we expect to have greater clarity on China’s stimulus magnitude from the March data, it is still possible that stimulus will remain mixed or disappointing. Stimulus measures may also be toned down after a deal is approved, which means that an earlier deal would reduce the total stimulus by the end of 2019. The Trump administration will use the new flexibility gained from a China deal to toughen its policies in other areas, potentially with negative market consequences. The decision to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization is an important example. This decision is squarely within the Trump administration’s policy of pressuring Iran, which is a high-risk policy with substantial market-relevance. Trump may have made the decision in order to save face while planning to renew waivers on Iranian oil sanctions on May 4 – we would be extremely surprised if he did not renew. Sanctioning the IRGC involves a string of consequences but it is not a direct attack on oil supply that could produce an oil shock dangerous to Trump’s re-election prospects in 2020 (Chart 13). Of course, Iran will retaliate to the IRGC blacklisting – and one way it could do so would be through oil production in various places, including Iraq. The result would be oil volatility and higher prices. Further, an early deal could encourage Trump to instigate a trade war with Europe. Trump’s four-to-six week time frame for the conclusion of talks with China is conspicuously close to the tentative May 18 deadline by which he is required to determine whether to impose tariffs on foreign auto and auto part imports (Chart 14). Such tariffs would be pursuant to the Section 232 investigation that likely found such imports a threat to national security. We have argued that a U.S.-China deal raises the risk of tariffs on European cars to 35%, with Japanese and Korean cars less at risk, progressively. The EU is ready to retaliate so this would be a drawn-out trade conflict.   By contrast, we are less concerned about the market impact of Trump’s recent threats to close the border with Mexico or include Mexico in car tariffs (Chart 15). True, Trump could close the border and generate a temporary drag on trade and the border economy. However, the Republicans have limited patience for the economic blowback of an extended border closure, and Trump cannot afford to jeopardize passage of his USMCA trade deal as long as he has alternative ways of looking tough on the border. Geopolitical Strategy would view the U.S. and China as good overweights relative to global equities and within their respective developed and emerging market contexts. What about a later resolution of the trade deal, in June or later in the summer? This would remove some risks. By that time, the Iran decision and possibly the car tariff decision will be past and there will be greater clarity on the magnitude of China’s stimulus. More extensive negotiations could also suggest that the ensuing trade deal will resolve deeper disagreements – unless the talks drag on without consequence amid signs of declining trust. Given the risk of trade war with Europe, oil volatility, and uncertainties about China’s stimulus, Geopolitical Strategy would view the U.S. and China as good overweights relative to global equities and within their respective developed and emerging market contexts. When and if the above political hurdles are cleared, the emphasis can shift to other bourses. Geopolitical Strategy’s preferred emerging market plays are EM energy producers and EM Asian states like Thailand and Indonesia.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Ailsa Chang, “U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer Discusses Ongoing Trade Talks With China,” National Public Radio, March 25, 2019, www.npr.org. 2 For the above quotations see Andrew Mayeda, Xiaoqing Pi, and Margaret Talev, “Kudlow Sees No Letup in China Talks as Both Sides Cite Progress,” Bloomberg, April 4, 2019, www.bloomberg.com. 3 See David E. Sanger, “Grindr Is Owned by a Chinese Firm, and the U.S. Is Trying to Force It to Sell,” March 28, 2019, www.nytimes.com.

Special Report

Dear Client, Instead of our regular Weekly Report, this week we are sending you a Special Report written on February 20 by our Geopolitical Strategy service colleagues that discusses China’s recent stimulating efforts. We have only made a few minor revisions to account for the past month’s events. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist   Highlights So What? China’s January-February credit data suggest that stimulus is here. Why? China’s early-year credit and fiscal policies suggest that stimulus risks are to the upside. January-February credit was a blowout number and fiscal spending is up. Equity bourses in South Korea and Russia are the most likely to benefit from Chinese stimulus. Industrial metals such as copper will also benefit – with a delay. Feature New credit data for China in January-February improves the chances that Beijing’s stimulus measures will overshoot this year, causing China’s economy to bottom in 2019 and jumpstart global growth. In our annual outlook for this year we argued that while China was stimulating the economy, the magnitude of stimulus would be the decisive factor for the global macro environment in 2019. We argued that the type of stimulus would remain primarily fiscal – tax cuts for households and small and medium-sized enterprises – and hence that it would be modest as fiscal easing would merely offset relatively weak credit growth. This view stemmed from our assessment of the Xi Jinping administration, highlighted in April 2017, as an “elitist” (not populist) administration. Its policy priorities are to discipline the Chinese economy, and in particular to contain systemic financial risk, which President Xi has cited as a national security threat. This view is not wrong, but the latest data clearly show that Xi has decided to pause these painful efforts at limiting leverage and rebalancing China’s economy. Witness January-February’s decisive uptick in both total social financing (total private credit) and local government bond issuance (Chart 1). Chart 1Higher Risk Of An Overshoot A massive spike in new credit is the single most important criterion in our “Checklist For A Stimulus Overshoot.” Thus, from a policy perspective, we are now at higher risk of an overshoot (Table 1). Not only credit as a whole but also informal lending saw a surge in January-February, implying that the government is relenting in its crackdown on the shadow banks. The approval of local government bond issuance for early in the year – and the People’s Bank of China’s announcement of a “Central Bank Bills Swap” program – reinforce this policy shift.1 Table 1Checklist For A Chinese Stimulus Overshoot In 2019   A stimulus overshoot is positive for Chinese demand in the short run but negative for potential GDP in the long run. A “traditional” credit surge of this nature cannot be surgically targeted at SMEs or households. It will go to state-owned enterprises, privileged corporations, property developers, and the like, which have always had the advantage in China’s financial system. SOEs have taken a much larger share of new loans than private companies in recent years,2 and the only silver lining of this trend was the possibility that tighter credit controls would discipline the SOEs. That silver lining is now fading, barring some new and surprising development on the reform front. China needs to create 26 trillion renminbi in new credit over the course of the year to avoid a corporate earnings contraction. These January-February numbers put China on track to do just that (Chart 2), assuming that President Xi and U.S. President Donald Trump agree to a short-term, framework trade deal this year. Chart 2On Track To Avoid An Earnings Contraction Of course, a few caveats are in order. First, January-February’s credit number is only one data point and credit growth is always abnormally strong in the first month of the year. Early in the year, banks seek to expand their assets rapidly in a bid to get as much market share as possible before administrative credit quotas kick in. Because of Chinese New Year, it is best to combine January and February data to get a sense of the rate of credit expansion in the first part of the year. This year’s January-February numbers are very strong relative to previous years (Chart 3) and the context is more accommodative than the 2017 January-February credit surge, when authorities were beginning to tighten rather than ease macroprudential policy. Still a rapid rate of credit expansion will have to be sustained in the coming months in order to meet the 26 trillion RMB requirement highlighted above. Second, there is some risk that China’s households and private businesses will not respond as positively today as in the past. The intensification of Communist Party control over the society and economy, President Xi’s cancellation of term limits, and the strategic confrontation with the United States have created a bearish sentiment in the private sector. Our Emerging Markets Strategy would point out that if the propensity to consume, and money velocity,3 do not accelerate, then a surge in new credit may fail to ignite a reacceleration in China (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Are Holding On To Their Money Still, what we now know is that Xi Jinping and his top economic adviser, Vice Premier Liu He, are not initiating the “assault phase of reform” that their predecessors initiated in the late 1990s in order to cleanse China’s economy of bad loans and zombie companies. Instead, they are likely reestablishing the “Socialist Put” in order to reverse the current deceleration, demonstrate China’s continued economic might and face down the United States’ threat of tariffs. Bottom Line: China’s stimulus measures are increasingly likely to overshoot, with positive implications for both Chinese and global growth. China is still facing a corporate earnings recession, but the odds of averting it are increasing. Trade Deadline More Likely To Be Extended What of the trade war? First, we would warn clients that China’s annual credit origination is a much bigger factor for the global economy than China’s exports to the United States (Chart 5). The trade war can escalate from here and yet, if China’s stimulus works as it has in the past, the results will be manageable for China’s economy save for Chinese companies expressly exposed to the U.S. economy through exports. In reality, both the U.S. and China are now effectively stimulating their economies and in this sense global trade as a whole will benefit regardless of bilateral tariffs. Chart 5Watch China Credit, Not So Much The Trade War But it is possible that just as global equity markets ignored China’s economic slowdown and only sold off when the tariffs were levied (Chart 6), they may not continue to rally much on China’s credit data. Given the already considerable rally in global risk assets since October, markets may not be satisfied merely with one or two months of solid credit data out of China without a clear resolution to the trade conflict. After all, if a collapse in U.S.-China trade talks portends a new Cold War, then institutional investors may be justified in taking a wait-and-see approach despite China’s credit cycle upswing. Chart 6Will Equities Ignore China Data (Again)? In the past, we have highlighted that the U.S. and China are not economically prohibited from engaging in a trade war – the export exposure is too small – and China’s new stimulus reinforces this point. However, President Trump is concerned about causing a sell-off in the tech sector and hence the broad equity market which could translate into a bear market and raise the probability of a recession occurring prior to November 2020. Meanwhile, in China, given Beijing’s reported trade concessions, there is apparently a desire to pacify the relationship and discourage U.S. unilateral tariffs and sanctions that could become seriously destabilizing for the Chinese economy and society. The need to have a happy 2021 centenary celebration for the Communist Party may factor into policymakers’ thinking. The latest news flow is mildly positive for the odds of getting a framework deal sometime this year. President Trump visited the Chinese negotiators in Washington, D.C. while President Xi reciprocated with the American negotiators in Beijing. A new round of two-week shuttle diplomacy is beginning. Trump has extended the tariff ceasefire and the two sides reportedly have arrived at an agreement on currency and are drafting written agreements on other areas of dispute. China’s National People’s Congress has passed a new Foreign Investment Law that ostensibly guarantees many of the American demands on forced tech transfer, intellectual property theft, and discriminatory treatment of U.S. companies (Table 2). Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations However, Presidents Trump and Xi have yet to schedule a new summit, which is probably necessary for a final deal. And there are murmurs from the press suggesting that China’s new law and other concessions are not going to satisfy the U.S. negotiators on the critical point of “structural changes” and a verification process. This leaves us inclined to change our trade war probabilities to increase the odds of an extension (Table 3). The improvement in U.S. financial conditions and China’s stimulus, if anything, make it more likely that negotiations will be extended, as both sides feel their economic and financial constraints less acutely. Table 3Updated Trade War Probabilities Bottom Line: Global and Chinese risk assets should rally on China’s credit uptick, but the lack of resolution of the trade war could continue to inhibit animal spirits – and the odds of a March 1 resolution are declining. Who Are The Equity Winners Of China’s Stimulus? China’s strong January-February credit number is supportive of global equity markets. That much is obvious. But which equity markets will benefit the most? In what follows we examine the relationship between Chinese credit and MSCI equity returns of various countries. We find that Malaysian, Australian, South Korean, and Indonesian equities are the most highly correlated with Chinese credit growth and are thus most likely to benefit from the recent upturn (Chart 7). On the other hand, France and Italy stand out as countries whose bourses are more insulated. Out of the markets that are positively correlated, South Korea and Russia stand out as relatively cheap (Chart 8). Thus we expect these equities to do especially well. By contrast, while Indonesia and the Philippines are highly leveraged to China, these markets are currently relatively expensive. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy is currently overweight Korean and Russian equities within the EM space, neutral Turkey (although recently upgraded from underweight), and underweight Indonesia and the Philippines. In addition to credit stimulus, we expect Chinese household consumption to also gain support going forward. This will likely be driven by policy stimulus targeting the consumer specifically and is best exemplified by the recently announced tax cuts (Chart 9), which we expect to trickle down to greater consumer demand and growth in retail sales. Our base case calls for 8%-10% growth in household consumption over the coming 12 months, up from the current 3.5%. However, consumer sentiment in China is weak. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy’s proxy for household marginal propensity to spend ticked up recently, after falling since early last year (see Chart 4 above). A resumption in the decline would highlight that households are increasingly unwilling to spend, which would translate into weaker retail sales despite policy efforts to boost consumption. Such a scenario – in which credit growth accelerates without a substantial uptick in consumer spending – is plausible, given that it occurred between mid-2015 and mid-2016 (Chart 10). In any case, whether Chinese stimulus comes in the form of the traditional credit channel, or instead in the form of fiscal stimulus to household consumption, the same equity markets will generally benefit the most (Chart 11). Chart 10...But Flattish Retail Sales Are Also A Possibility Indeed, global equity markets react the same way regardless of the type of stimulus implemented. For instance, MSCI returns for the Philippines, Sweden, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey are more closely correlated to both Chinese credit growth and retail sales growth compared to Italy, Japan, and France. The same conclusion is reached when we look at the correlations between Chinese credit growth or consumption growth and individual MSCI sectors such as industrials and consumer discretionary (Chart 12). The relatively stronger correlation between Chinese credit growth and equity returns – as opposed to Chinese retail sales and equity returns – can be put down to the nature of Chinese imports. While industrial goods account for the bulk of China’s purchases of foreign goods, consumer goods excluding autos make up only 15% of China’s imports (Table 4). However, as Chart 12 illustrates, the relationship between China’s retail sales growth and global equities is much tighter in the case of the consumer discretionary sector, whether the latter is compared to global industrials sectors or the overall MSCI index. Table 4Import Composition Of Chinese Imports Equity market exposure to China is not always in line with the extent of each country’s trade exposure to China (Chart 13). There are some clear exceptions – most notably Mexico, which has the highest correlation coefficient with Chinese credit and consumption variables since 2010. However, this is likely due to idiosyncratic factors.4 Correlation does not imply causation, and we cannot conclude with certainty that Mexican equities will outperform amid China’s new round of stimulus. Nevertheless, given that Mexico is a very deeply liquid market that benefits amid EM bull markets, this may not be entirely coincidental. The correlations between global equity markets and Chinese credit peak two months after the stimulus measures are first implemented (Chart 14). This is more or less in line with adjusted total social financing’s correlation versus industrial metals. However, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy has shown that copper’s correlations versus other measures of Chinese money and credit peak after roughly three quarters (Chart 15).5 This is evident in both the 2012 and 2015-16 stimulus episodes in which the bottom in copper prices lagged the bottom in China’s credit growth. Thus we may witness a rebound in equity markets on the back of China’s credit splurge before we see an improvement in annual returns on copper prices. Chart 15Copper Rallies Lag China Credit Stimulus Bottom Line: South Korean and Russian equities are best positioned to benefit from the positive surprise in China’s credit data. France and Italy are the worst positioned. Copper prices will rebound with a delay.  Investment Implications BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors stay long Chinese equities ex-tech relative to the emerging market benchmark. This is a tactical call initiated in August 2018 that is now becoming a cyclical call on the basis of the credit upswing. We also remain long the “China Play Index,” a basket of China-sensitive assets. A rebound in China’s credit data and stronger global growth will support copper demand. Prices are still 15% below the mid-2018 peak and are poised to benefit in this environment, especially given that global inventories are already falling. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors go long copper. Meanwhile, BCA’s China Investment Strategy recommends (for now) staying only tactically overweight Chinese equities relative to the global benchmark, pending higher conviction that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overwhelm the negative ramifications of a continued deceleration in actual activity over the coming few months on sentiment and 12-month forward earnings expectations. Over the long run, Geopolitical Strategy would look to underweight Chinese equities, as we are not optimistic about China’s productivity and potential GDP. This is because of the negative structural consequences of continuing the Socialist Put (i.e., bad loans, zombie companies, trade protectionism). We would expect CNY/USD to remain relatively buoyant in the context of both trade negotiations with the U.S. and fiscal-and-credit stimulus. The trade talks can hardly succeed if CNY/USD is falling. Depending on whether and how soon China’s stimulus results in a durable economic bottom, global growth could stabilize and the USD could see a substantial countertrend selloff.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled “China: Prepping A Bazooka?” dated February 14, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Nicholas Lardy, “The State Strikes Back: The End Of Economic Reform In China?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, January 29, 2019, available at piie.com. 3          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “Dissecting China’s Stimulus,” dated January 17, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4       The 2012 election of President Enrique Peña Nieto caused Mexican equities to outperform their EM counterparts. Similarly in 2015-16, U.S. outperformance relative to EM also supported Mexico relative to EM because Mexico’s economy is highly leveraged to its northern neighbor. In both periods Mexico’s outperformance was not caused by – but instead coincided with – Chinese credit stimulus. These idiosyncratic events biased the correlation between Mexico’s equity markets and Chinese credit growth to the upside. 5      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets,” dated June 21, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.                  

Highlights Just when it looked like the agricultural complex was starting to perk up, it was slapped down again. After crawling its way back from a mid-2018 crash – retracing more than half of its decline – the CCI Grains and Oilseeds index plummeted in February, declining by nearly 9% (Chart Of The Week). The decline was broad-based, but was led by wheat, which was dragged down by muted demand and accounted for most of the index’s decline. Looking forward, we expect U.S. financial conditions and developments on the trade-war front to remain the main forces driving ag prices. Ample inventories will provide the cushion necessary to moderate the impact of potential supply-side shocks. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Venezuela suffered another power outage earlier this week, indicating the deterioration of its infrastructure is accelerating. While officials claim to have restored power, we expect more such outages going forward, which will severely reduce the country’s production and export capacity. Separately, Aramco announced it will buy 70% of Sabic, a Saudi state-owned petchem producer, for $69 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s MMG Ltd was set to declare force majeure following protests at its Las Bambas mine in Peru earlier this week. The mine produces ~ 385k MT p.a., most of which goes to China. Precious Metals: Neutral. The inversion of the U.S. yield curve put a bid into the gold market this week, as investors sought a safe-haven refuge. Continued weakness in bond yields, and accommodative central banks responding to low inflation expectations globally will continue to support gold. Agriculture: Underweight. A more patient Fed will be supportive of ag prices in 2H19, as we discuss below. Feature Chart of the WeekWheat Had A Rough Start To 2019 A Patient Fed Will Support Ags In 2H19 While differences across ag markets will arise due to idiosyncratic supply shocks and targeted trade policies, a common determinant of ag price movements more generally is U.S. financial conditions. Since our last assessment of global ag markets, Fed policymakers have adopted a much more patient approach to monetary policy.1 In line with the pause in the Fed’s rates-normalization policy, financial conditions have eased considerably (Chart 2). We believe this will, ceteris paribus, bring relief to commodity markets in general, ags in particular, in the second half of this year. Chart 2Easier Financial Conditions Bode Well For Ags The bulk of this relief will be transmitted through the impact of a weaker dollar. Since the dollar is a countercyclical currency, its weakness implies an improvement in global growth. This more solid economic backdrop is associated with greater aggregate demand, particularly in EM economies, as well as demand for agricultural products. The lagged effects of financial tightening, weak Chinese credit growth and the trade war will persist in 2Q19. Furthermore, when the USD weakens against the currencies of ag exporting countries, farmers there are incentivized to hoard or cut exports – thus reducing supply – awaiting periods when a stronger greenback will raise their profits. At the same time, ags priced in USD become relatively more affordable for importing nations, incentivizing them to raise consumption. The net impact of this contraction in supply amid greater demand will pull up prices – illustrated by the relatively tight inverse relationship between ag prices and the dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3A Weaker USD Will Be A Tailwind In 2H19 Going into mid-2019, we expect global economic indicators to continue to be uninspiring. The lagged effects of financial tightening, weak Chinese credit growth and the trade war will persist in 2Q19. However, as these factors fade and give way to an improvement in global economic conditions and easier financial conditions, we expect the dollar to peak around mid-year. As such, a resurgence in global growth in the second half of the year will be reflected in an improvement in the value of the currencies of major ag exporters ex-U.S. (Chart 4). Ceteris paribus, this also benefits ag prices. Chart 4Weak Local Currencies Supporting Farm Profits, Incentivizing Production China’s Economy Remains Central Our outlook hinges on developments in the Chinese economy. Peter Berezin – our Chief Global Investment Strategist – expects Chinese authorities to not only stabilize credit growth, but also increase it, creating room for improvement in the world’s second largest economy.2 This combination of supportive global growth and a softer dollar bodes well for ag prices in 2H19. The Fed pause and associated easing in U.S. financial conditions will support global growth, causing the U.S. dollar to weaken – a bullish force for ag markets. Apart from the currency impact, easy financial conditions are supportive of global growth. A rise in income levels of emerging economies will support demand for goods and services generally, and agricultural commodities specifically.3 The market now expects 36 and 51 basis points of rate cuts over the coming 12 and 24 months, respectively. Similarly, following last week’s FOMC meeting, the median Fed dot indicates no rate hikes this year from the U.S. central bank, and only one in 2020. While our Global Investment Strategists would not be surprised to see a hike this year, the noticeably less hawkish tone in the Fed’s forward guidance and dot plots are positive for ag markets.4 Looking beyond that into late-2020 or early 2021, a potential pick-up in inflation will force the Fed to take a more hawkish stance, and once again support the U.S. dollar. This will weigh down on ag prices over the strategic time horizon. Bottom Line: The Fed pause and associated easing in U.S. financial conditions will support global growth, causing the U.S. dollar to weaken – a bullish force for ag markets. However, this is unlikely to occur before mid-year. In the meantime, a stronger dollar on the back of the lagged effects of growth dampening events in 2018, will remain a headwind. Ample Inventories Will Cushion Against Supply Shocks Putting aside the more or less uniform impact of U.S. financial conditions, individual supply-demand fundamentals will manifest as idiosyncratic risks and opportunities. The USDA has been revising its projections for ending stocks higher in its monthly World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) across the board since it released the first projections for the 2018/2019 crop year last May. However, we find that solely on the back of fundamentals, soybeans are more likely to resist upward pressure from easier U.S. financial conditions in 2H19 vs. wheat and corn. The USDA’s latest projections for the current crop year indicate that global bean markets are well supplied. Expectations of a global surplus this crop year – for the seventh consecutive year – will add to the growing cushion (Chart 5). Chart 5Beans Surplus Will Add To the Glut Since May, global ending bean stocks have been revised higher by a total of 20.47mm MT. The change in projections comes on the back of upward revisions to production and beginning stocks, compounded by downward revisions to consumption. The latter will likely contract further if the U.S. and China do not reach an agreement on the trade front (see below). Consequently, unless a weather disruption weakens supply, we expect soybean inventories to stand at record highs relative to consumption at the end of the current crop year. In the case of wheat, the impact on prices will likely be marginal. The global balance is expected to shift to a deficit in the current marketing year, following five years of surplus (Chart 6). While this is a positive for wheat prices, given that global inventory levels are relatively elevated – capable of supporting 37% of consumption – and the current deficit is relatively small, we do not expect the deficit to pressure prices in the near term. Chart 6Elevated Wheat Inventories Will Cushion Against Minor Deficit Despite continued downward revisions to the USDA’s wheat production projections, expectations of ending stocks have actually risen on the back of downward revisions to consumption. Similarly, corn fundamentals are also unlikely to sway prices much. The grain is expected to remain in deficit for the second consecutive year, which will pull inventories down off their 2016/17 peak to be capable of covering ~27% of global consumption (Chart 7). Despite this contraction in availability, global supplies remain relatively elevated, especially compared to the 2003 to 2012 period. Thus unless there is a significant supply shock, we don’t expect much support from fundamentals. Chart 7A Global Corn Deficit ... Unlike wheat demand, which has been downgraded, the USDA has revised corn consumption up relative to the first projections for the crop year released last May. Nevertheless, stronger expectations of consumption have been overwhelmed by upward revisions to production and beginning inventory levels. Given that world inventories already are bloated, we do not expect the likely deficit in wheat and corn supplies this crop year to pressure prices much to the upside. Since the mid-1990s, U.S. farmers had been planting more corn and wheat at the expense of soybean acreage (Chart 8). On a global level, while wheat remains more popular in terms of acreage, it is generally trending downwards, while corn and soybean plantings are trending up. However, over the longer term, U.S. farmers are expected to dedicate more land to corn relative to soybeans. Chart 8... Will Be Met By Rising U.S. Acreage Bottom Line: Given that world inventories already are bloated, we do not expect the likely deficit in wheat and corn supplies this crop year to pressure prices much to the upside. Similarly, a global glut in soybean supplies will only add to swelling inventories. The Trade War And Soybeans: It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over Aside from U.S. financial conditions and supply-demand balances, U.S. trade policy has also been roiling ag markets since China slapped U.S. soybeans with 25% tariffs in mid-2018. In fact, since the escalation of the trade dispute, soybean prices have been moving largely in response to developments on the trade front (Chart 9). As developments since the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires last December have been more favorable, soybean markets are on the path to recovery. Chart 9Markets Optimistic Of A Trade War Resolution So far, even though U.S. soybean exports to China picked up over the past two months, total U.S. exports still lag levels typical for this time of year (Chart 10). This comes despite U.S. efforts to raise shipments to other trading partners. Furthermore, U.S. exports will now be in direct competition with the Brazilian crop, which usually dominates trade flows at this time of year (Chart 11). While the U.S. tariff hike from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese goods has been postponed, a resolution to the trade war has yet to occur. The path to a resolution is fraught with risks. While the U.S. tariff hike from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese goods has been postponed, a resolution to the trade war has yet to occur. The path to a resolution is fraught with risks. The Trump-Xi meeting that was expected to occur in late-March was postponed; the next most likely date for a meeting is at the G20 summit in end-June. This leaves another 3 months of trade uncertainty. Nevertheless, our models indicate that soybeans are now priced at fair value, based on U.S. financial variables – absent a trade war (Chart 12). Furthermore, the premium priced into Brazilian beans above those traded on the CBOT has returned to its historical average (Chart 13). Thus, we do not expect a further reduction in the premium in the event Sino-U.S. trade negotiations are successful. Chart 13Premium For Brazilian Beans Has Normalized Rather, markets will be disappointed if the U.S. and China are unable to conclude a deal. This would put CBOT prices at risk and support the premium on those traded in Brazil. Given that our geopolitical strategists assign a non-negligible 30% probability that the trade war escalates further, we believe markets are overly optimistic that a deal will be concluded.5 If the trade war drags on and turns into a multi-year conflict, soybean markets will likely take a more meaningful hit. According to the USDA’s latest long-term projections released earlier this month, China’s soybean imports were projected to rise 32.1mm MT during the 2018-28 period – a massive downward revision from the 46mm MT expected for the 2017-2027 period contained in the previous long-run projections. Furthermore, outbreaks of African swine fever in China may put demand there at risk. Over 100 cases have so far been reported in China, with several cases already reported in Vietnam as well. This threatens to depress China’s need for soybean as animal feed, regardless of what happens on the trade front. Bottom Line: A positive outcome from the U.S.-China trade negotiations is not a given. Nevertheless, soybean markets are treating it as such. Our geopolitical strategists assign 30% odds that a final deal falls through. This non-negligible probability threatens to cause soybean prices to relapse anew, should Sino-U.S. trade negotiations break down.   Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy December 13, 2018.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “What’s Next For The Dollar,” dated March 15, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Global Financial Conditions Will Drive Grain Prices In 2018,” dated November 30, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “Questions From The Road,” dated March 22, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled “China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal?,” dated March 6, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades  

Highlights The odds of a continued earnings contraction have not yet fallen to the point that would warrant an overweight stance towards Chinese versus global stocks over the coming 6-12 months. While we maintain Chinese stocks on upgrade watch and may recommend increasing exposure soon, the bottom line for investors is that it is still too early for us to confidently project a sustained uptrend. While most investors attribute the chronic discount of Chinese stocks relative to the global average as being due to a sizeable equity risk premium, our analysis suggests that China’s low payout ratio and mediocre earnings growth are the true causes. This implies that China’s re-rating potential is capped barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth. Investors should pay close attention to the details of a U.S./China currency stability pact that will reportedly be included in any trade deal between the two countries. Such a pact may set up an important natural experiment for CNY/USD, and could be a revelatory event for China’s exchange rate regime. Feature Last week’s FOMC meeting dominated the headlines of the financial press, and for good reason. The Fed surprised investors with a material downgrade to their expected path of the federal funds rate over the next three years, a shift that largely reflected concerns about global growth. The subsequent inversion of the U.S. 10-year / 3-month yield curve in response to the very disappointing euro area flash manufacturing PMI for March confirms that many investors remain convinced that Fed policy is too tight and that easing is likely over the coming year.1 On the positive side, investor concerns that reflationary policy is needed in the U.S. and euro area are likely overblown: the plunge in the euro area PMI at least in part reflects the near-term uncertainty over the possibility of a hard Brexit (which will probably be avoided), whereas the Fed is pausing at a level of real interest rates that is well below real GDP growth, which means that monetary policy is still stimulative for the U.S. economy (Chart 1). Chart 1U.S. Monetary Policy Is Still Stimulative But Chart 2 highlights that a generalized slowdown in global growth is responsible for at least part of the sharp weakness in Chinese export growth over the past few months, which we had been mostly attributing to a catch-up phase following a (perversely and ironically) beneficial tariff front-running effect that had temporarily boosted trade growth last year. Chart 2Global Weakness At Least Partly Responsible For A Sharp Export Slowdown Ongoing weakness in the global economy, were it to persist, would imply that China’s external demand outlook is even less encouraging than we had previously assumed. This would raise the stakes for a trade deal with the U.S. to be agreed upon soon, as well as a continued uptrend in the pace of Chinese credit growth. Investors should closely watch the new export orders component of the March NBS manufacturing PMI later this week for signs that exporter sentiment is improving, as well as the overall Caixin PMI to confirm that smaller firms continue to benefit from the PBOC’s targeted easing efforts. When Should Investors Upgrade Chinese Stocks On A Cyclical Basis? In our view, most global investors have been focused on the wrong risk factor for Chinese stocks for the better part of the past year. In the wake of the near-vertical February rise in Chinese domestic stocks, the most common question we have received from clients is whether they should be increasing their cyclical exposure to Chinese stocks in general, and A-shares in particular. In response to the January surge in credit we placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in our February 27 Weekly Report,2 but we are not yet ready to recommend an outright cyclical overweight. Investors should be at the ready and aiming, but should not yet fire. In our view, most global investors have been focused on the wrong risk factor for Chinese stocks for the better part of the past year. We have noted in several previous reports that investors have focused nearly exclusively on the U.S.-China trade war since the beginning of 2018, and have largely ignored a slowing domestic economy (Chart 3). Given this, it is not surprising that a sharp improvement in the odds of a deal (which occurred at the beginning of November) has led to a material rally over the past few months versus global stocks. Chart 3The Prospect Of A Trade Deal Has Been The Primary Driver Of China-Related Assets In fact, we predicted in our December 5 Weekly Report that positive sentiment about a deal would boost the relative performance of Chinese stocks over the coming few months, and recommended a tactical overweight stance at that time.3 A cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) overweight, however, is a different story. Sentiment alone rarely drives financial markets over a 1-year time horizon, meaning that investors need to have some degree of confidence that domestic demand will meaningfully improve over the next 12 months to justify a cyclical upgrade. Certainly, we acknowledge that there have been several positive developments pointing to such an outcome. Chinese monetary conditions have become extremely easy, credit is no longer contracting and surged in January, the Caixin PMI rose notably in February, and some form of a trade deal remains the most likely outcome of the ongoing talks. In addition, Chinese stocks still remain significantly below their 2018 peak (Chart 4), meaning that there is still material potential upside if Chinese earnings do not contract. Chart 4Chinese Stocks Still Have Room To Rise If The Earnings Outlook Stabilizes A moderate credit expansion appears to be underway, but coincident activity continues to weaken and earnings appear to have more downside. However, there are also several reasons to be cautious cyclically: Chart 5The Past Three Months Imply A Moderate Credit Uptrend Chart 6Chinese Coincident Economic Activity Continues To Weaken Chinese and U.S. policymakers have not only failed to set a date for an agreement to be signed by President’s Xi and Trump, but recent new reports suggest that momentum may be slowing and that a meeting may be postponed until June or later.4 Even if the deal does not fall through, material further delays could cause investors to get anxious and vote with their feet. Such a selloff could be violent, given the extremely sharp rise in domestic stock prices over the past six weeks. The evidence so far points to a moderate expansion in credit (Chart 5), reflecting the fact that policymakers are still somewhat concerned about financial stability and the need to prevent significant further leveraging of the private sector. This means that the odds are not yet in favor of a credit “overshoot” like what occurred in 2015/2016, implying that the pickup in growth is likely to be comparatively weaker this time around. Since 2010, monetary conditions and money & credit growth appear to be the best predictors of investment-relevant Chinese economic activity.5 While a moderate credit expansion appears to be underway, there has been no discernable pickup in money growth.6 This discrepancy likely means that the recent improvement in credit has occurred due to non-bank financial institutions, further suggesting that this economic recovery will probably be less powerful and less broad-based than during past cycles. While a moderate expansion in credit does suggest that China’s economy will bottom at some point in the coming months, coincident economic activity continues to decelerate (Chart 6). A continuation of this trend, particularly if coupled with an investor “crisis of faith” in the trade talks, could lead to a very significant retracement in Chinese equity prices before durably bottoming for the year. Trailing EPS growth is decelerating, but it has yet to contract on a year-over-year basis as would be implied by the net earnings revisions ratio (Chart 7) and the coincident activity indicators shown in Chart 6. Chinese investable EPS fell 30% during the 2015/2016 episode (20% for domestic stocks), implying meaningful further downside even if economic activity does not weaken as significantly over the coming months. Chart 7Net Earnings Revisions Point To More Downside For Earnings Chart 8 presents a helpful way for investors to make a net assessment of all of the factors highlighted above. The chart shows our earnings recession model for the MSCI China Index, and shows what is likely to occur if a trade deal causes a full recovery in Chinese exporter sentiment, China’s export-weighted RMB stays roughly at current levels, and the very recent pace of credit growth (Dec-Feb) continues along its trend. Chart 8A Trade Deal And A Moderate Credit Expansion Will Likely Stabilize The Earnings Outlook This scenario, were it to occur, would reduce the odds of a continued earnings contraction to the point that we would be comfortable recommending an overweight stance towards Chinese versus global stocks over the coming 6-12 months. While such a recommendation could come as soon as mid-April, the bottom line for investors is that it is still too early for us to confidently project this outcome. Should Chinese Stocks Be Priced At A Premium Or A Discount To Global Stocks? Most investors attribute the discount applied to Chinese stocks to a high equity risk premium (ERP), but our work paints a different picture. Besides questions about the appropriate cyclical allocation to Chinese stocks, the recent spike in interest among global investors towards A-shares has also led to a renewed focus about the degree to which Chinese stocks are cheap versus the global average. In a world where many financial assets are chronically expensive and Chinese policymakers appear to be responding to weaker economic activity, some investors question whether Chinese stocks deserve to be priced at a discount (Chart 9). Our sense is that most investors attribute the discount to a high equity risk premium (ERP) stemming from the enormous rise in Chinese non-financial corporate debt over the past decade, but our research paints a different picture. Chart 9The Chinese Equity Discount: A High ERP, Or Something More Sinister? One way of analyzing the risk premium of an equity market is to use the well-known constant Gordon growth model. Equation 1 below presents the theoretically justified 12-month trailing P/E ratio as a function of the payout ratio, the risk-free rate, the ERP, and the long-term dividend growth rate (which is equal to the long-term earnings growth rate given a constant payout ratio). Equations 2 and 3 re-arrange equation 1 to express the ERP and long-term growth rate, respectively, on the left-hand side of the equation. Equation 1: P0/E0 = (D1/E0)/(rf + ERP – g) Equation 2: ERP = [(D1/E0)/(P0/E0)] + g - rf Equation 3: g = rf + ERP-[(D1/E0)/(P0/E0)] To illustrate the approach, Chart 10 applies equation 2 to the U.S. equity market and compares it with the annual dividend discount model equity risk premium published by Professor Aswath Damodaran from New York University’s Stern School of Business,7 a well-known expert in the theory and practice of asset valuation. While there are some differences in the level of the series owing to slightly different methodologies, the overall profile of the two series is generally similar. Chart 10Our DDM Methodology For The U.S. Generates Results Similar To Other Important Estimates Proxying the market’s long-term growth expectations in a large, mature economy such as the U.S. is materially easier than is the case in an emerging market such as China. As such, instead of solving for the equity risk premium directly when judging whether China’s discount is “deserved”, we use equation 3 to solve for the implied long-term growth rate given an assumed (and very conservative) ERP range of 2-3%, using the global P/E ratio. In other words, we ask the following question: what kind of earnings growth do Chinese stocks need to achieve over the long run in order to justify the same earnings multiple as the global average, given an equity risk premium of 2-3%? Chart 11 presents the answer to this question, for both the domestic and the investable market. We use domestic 10-year bond yields as the risk-free rate in the case of the A-share market, and U.S. 10-year bond yields in the case of the MSCI China index as a proxy for the global risk-free rate. Finally, in each panel, the dashed horizontal lines denote the actual compound annual growth rate in earnings per share for each market, since the year noted next to each line. Chart 11A Low But Still Difficult L/T Earnings Hurdle Rate To Be Priced In Line With Global Stocks Two important points are apparent from the chart: The required growth rate for both markets to be priced in line with global stocks are quite low, well below Chinese nominal GDP growth. At first blush, this might suggest that the valuation discount applied to China reflects a sizeable equity risk premium that could shrink over the coming 6-12 months (i.e. a beneficial re-rating of Chinese stocks). Since 2010 or 2011, actual growth rates in EPS are materially above the required growth range in both markets. However, over more recent time horizons, particularly 2013 and later, actual earnings growth has not only been below the range but has also been extremely poor in absolute terms. This is particularly true for the investable market, which has actually recorded negative growth in 12-month trailing EPS since 2014 or 2015. A dividend discount model approach suggests that the Chinese equity market discount is justified, barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth. Chart 12 highlights the problem with China’s stock market in a nutshell. For both the investable and domestic equity markets, the dividend payout ratio is well below the global average. This is a normal circumstance for small companies with high growth potential; firms re-invest a high portion of their earnings back into the company in order to build out their asset base and deliver even higher earnings in the future. Chart 12The Chinese Discount Visualized: A Low Payout Ratio, And Mediocre Earnings Growth But panel 2 of Chart 12 shows that relative earnings for Chinese stocks versus the global average have not trended higher over the past decade, meaning that a higher earnings retention ratio among Chinese stocks has not led to a superior earnings profile. In response, global investors have rightly discounted Chinese stocks versus their global peers, a circumstance that is likely to continue unless Chinese earnings growth materially and sustainably improves. Our analysis implies that there is a natural limit to how far Chinese equities can ultimately be re-rated barring a major structural improvement in the economy, a factor that we may eventually have to contend with were we to recommend a cyclical overweight stance. Capped re-rating potential is unlikely to prevent Chinese stocks from trending higher in relative terms if economic fundamentals warrant an uptrend, but it may suggest that the duration or magnitude of the rise may be shorter than many investors hope. A Sino-U.S. Trade Deal: A Natural Currency Experiment In The Making? What explains the link between CNY-USD and the interest rate differential between the two countries? Finally, a brief note on the RMB. Since June 2018, changes in CNY-USD appear to have been closely aligned with the magnitude of proposed tariffs as a share of Chinese exports to the U.S., as would be implied in a simple open economy model with flexible exchange rates. Chart 13shows the levels implied by this framework in a variety of tariff scenarios, calculated based on the percent decline from the peak in the exchange rate in 1H 2018. As noted in our March 13 Weekly Report,8 CNY-USD today is consistent with the current tariff regime, implying potential upside if a trade deal with the U.S. rolls back some of the tariffs that have been imposed. Chart 13A Simple Equilibrium Framework Suggests CNY-USD May Rise Materially Further If Tariffs Are Rolled Back However, Chart 14 shows that CNY-USD has been closely correlated with the interest rate differential between the two countries for several years, with the relationship having recently become a leading one. Chart 14 highlights that CNY-USD has moved higher than the rate differential would imply (painting the opposite picture as that shown in Chart 13), suggesting that the currency is more likely to depreciate than appreciate over the coming 6-12 months barring tighter monetary policy in China or outright rate cuts in the U.S. Chart 14Will Policymakers Or Rate Differentials Drive CNY-USD Over The Coming Year? The relationship shown in Chart 14 is surprising, and we have struggled to understand the exact dynamics at play. As we highlighted in a September report,9 many global investors take the relationship for granted, given the strong historical link between interest rate differentials and exchange rates in developed countries. However, a major problem that arises in explaining Chart 14 is the fact that uncovered interest rate arbitrage (or the “carry trade”) cannot easily occur or cannot occur at all when one or both countries involved maintains capital controls. It is an important conundrum, and one that we have not been able to solve. From our perspective, there are only two scenarios that explain the close relationship between the exchange rate and interest rate differentials between the two countries: The relationship is causal, implying that capital flows in and out of the country are sufficiently large to enable a carry trade. The two series are correlated because of a third factor related in some way to the other two. In our view, scenario 1 is not likely. Capital is flowing out of China, but at a much slower rate than before,10 and the relationship shown in Chart 14 did not break down following China’s capital crackdown in 2015/2016. Ruling out scenario 1 necessarily implies that scenario 2 is correct. Our best guess concerning the missing third factor is that Chinese policymakers are looking to the rate differential as a guide to set the exchange rate, in order to mimic a market-based exchange rate in support of China’s goals to progressively liberalize (and internationalize) the currency. If true, this implies that China has full control of their exchange rate regardless of the prevailing interest rate differential, but that they are often choosing to follow what the differential implies. This is significant, because if Chinese and U.S. negotiators do agree to a “yuan stability pact” as has been reported in the press, a trade deal may set up an important natural experiment for the currency. In our view, a major upward move in the rate differential is unlikely over the coming year, implying that CNY-USD will persistently deviate from the relationship shown in Chart 14 if President Trump is not inclined to tolerate any real weakness in the RMB over the coming year. While the details of the currency agreement and the trade agreement more generally could allow for some decline in CNY-USD if coupled with an offsetting benefit for the U.S. (such as materially higher U.S. exports to China for some period), our bias is to believe that President Trump does not want to see a stronger dollar over the coming year in the lead-up to the 2020 election. If true, investors should pay close attention to the behavior of CNY-USD, as it is stands to be a revelatory event for China’s exchange rate regime.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Reports “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy” and “Forward Guidance On Steroids”, dated March 26, 2019, for a detailed update on our view for Fed rate hikes and how investors should interpret the recent inversion in the yield curve. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative”, dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year”, dated December 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see “Some U.S. Officials Said To See China Walking Back Trade Pledges”, Bloomberg News, dated March 19, 2019, and “Donald Trump-Xi Jinping meeting to end US-China trade war may be pushed back to June, sources say”, South China Morning Post. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: A Sustainable Rally Or A False Start?”, dated March 7, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Professor Damodoran’s website for more information on his estimates of the equity risk premium. 8 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China Macro And Market Review”, dated March 13, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Moderate Releveraging And Currency Stability: An Impossible Dream?”, dated September 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights So What? A major antitrust suit could happen within the next couple of years, paradoxically ushering in a rewarding investment opportunity.  Why? The current environment of corporate overreach, protectionism and popular discontent has often preceded large antitrust suits. An outcome other than a breakup would likely be benign for the stock price, while the announcement of a breakup would be negative. However, the completion of the breakup could present a great buying opportunity. Feature “No wonder that Wall Street’s prayer now is ‘Oh Merciful Providence, give us another dissolution’” - Former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912   The investment community has been increasingly worried about the possibility of regulatory action against America’s biggest technology companies (the so-called “FAANG” stocks). We addressed the mounting probability of such action in a mid-2018 report. In this report, we focus on the market reaction post-dissolution, by examining some of the biggest antitrust cases in the history of the U.S. Specifically, this report complements our work on the U.S. antitrust framework (please see Appendix A) by looking for potential signs indicating that a monopolization suit could be likely. Moreover, we analyze the stock prices of the companies alleged to have committed antitrust violations to understand the implications for investors’ portfolios. To build our sample of U.S. monopolization cases, we set the following criteria: 1.  Non-merger cases: Antitrust cases blocking mergers between two or more companies are common, and most investors are familiar with them. However, we choose to examine the much rarer cases involving a single firm. 2.  Large-cap companies: A large number of anti-monopoly suits are directed towards small or private companies. We select only companies that had a large market capitalization at the time of the suit, in order to closely match the profile of FAANG stocks. 3.  The Department of Justice sought dissolution: We decided against considering monetary fines, as they are generally not big enough to meaningfully affect the stock price of large companies.1 By focusing on cases where dissolution was sought, we narrow our scope to the most severe cases in antitrust history. Table 1 shows the seven companies that we selected, as well as the final verdict, the timeline of the process, and other details. While our sample may seem small, it is important to remember that since the passing of the Sherman Act in 1890, non-merger anti-monopoly cases against large public companies have been incredibly rare in the U.S., even in the periods with the strictest regulatory enforcement.2  The increasing economic and political power of corporations acted as a catalyst for antitrust enforcement. Our sample includes a variety of outcomes: from cases where the accused won the suit or where the suit was dropped (U.S. Steel and IBM), to cases where there was ultimately no dissolution but a different remedy was imposed (Alcoa and Microsoft), to cases where the accused was broken up (Standard Oil, American Tobacco and AT&T). Power, Protectionism, And Discontent: The Causes Of Anti-Monopoly Suits The economic and political context surrounding the cases in our sample share some common features. 1.  Corporate overreach The issue of power was central to the original intent of the Sherman Act,3 with the U.S. Congress understanding that the concentration of economic power will ultimately result in concentration of political power, “breeding antidemocratic political pressures.”4 The data confirms that the increasing economic and political power of corporations acted as a catalyst for enforcement. With the exception of AT&T, every single one of our examined cases occurred following a period where the earnings of the biggest corporations in the U.S. were increasing at a rate faster than worker compensation (Chart 1, top panel). This dynamic likely increased the feeling of distrust towards big business, as corporations were perceived to be getting a disproportionate amount of the national wealth. The prices in the industries of the accused companies were generally decreasing relative to inflation in the period prior to the beginning of their case. Concern regarding corporate power also arose for different reasons. In 1965, Ralph Nader published the book “Unsafe at Any Speed,” accusing the large American automakers of hiding their safety record. Nader’s work coincided with the origin of the modern anti-tobacco movement. The two would mark the beginning of the consumer movement and would increase scrutiny on the power that companies yielded (Chart 1, bottom panel), providing the political impetus behind the antitrust movement.5  Chart 1Antitrust Action Seeks To Curb Corporate Power 2.  Domestic protectionism Traditional economic theory would suggest that monopoly firms can charge “monopoly prices,” i.e. prices much higher than what would exist in a competitive market. However, the data tells a different story, as the prices in the industries of the accused companies were generally decreasing relative to inflation in the period prior to the beginning of their case (Chart 2). Chart 2AAccused Monopolies Were Cutting Prices (I) Chart 2BAccused Monopolies Were Cutting Prices (II) How to explain this? In contrast to the stereotypical monopoly, most of the accused companies were ruthlessly efficient and competitive, having the ability to substantially lower costs relative to their competitors. Some did this through genuine innovation. The Standard Oil corporation, for example, invented the oil tanker, dramatically reducing loading time and associated risk. As a result, it was able to secure lower transportation costs from the railway companies.6 Others did it through economies of scale. An example is Alcoa, which vertically integrated all four stages of aluminum production.7 Moreover, while being responsible for 90% of the supply of U.S. primary aluminum, it produced it all in a single plant, minimizing overhead costs.8  Due to their ability to charge drastically lower prices, the corporations in our sample were accused of using predatory prices in six out of the seven cases.9 This was despite the fact that these claims often fell flat in court, largely because distinguishing between predatory pricing and price competition is extremely difficult in practice.10 But if these companies were lowering prices through innovation and economies of scale, why were they charged in the first place? At its core, regulation of monopolies has broader policy objectives.11 This ranges from protectionism against foreign competition to protectionism against large domestic corporations. This protectionist streak dates all the way back to John Sherman himself, an advocate of tariffs during his entire political career.12 Thus, the efficiency of major companies accused of forming trusts was often their downfall, as struggling domestic rivals applied political pressure to bring the suit forward.13 The timing of antitrust suits suggests that the government was looking to deflect the blame of the bust phase. 3.  Late cycle, recessions, inflation Finally, with the exception of the Microsoft case in 1998, the government filed the antitrust complaints against the companies in our sample in recessionary or late-cycle periods (within a year of a recession). Additionally, rising and relatively high inflation tended to precede these periods (Chart 3). Although we have no outright evidence, the timing suggests that the government was looking to deflect the blame of the bust phase or general economic mismanagement. Chart 3Are Antitrust Suits A Distraction From Economic Mismanagement? Antitrust Cases And Stock Prices  The length of the cases in our sample range from roughly three years in the Microsoft case to more than 13 years in the Alcoa case. Moreover, the number and type of judicial decisions varied widely between cases. To make for a better comparison we look at only three events in each case: 1.  The Accusation: the date when the suit was first filed by the Department of Justice. 2.  The Decision: the date of the effective end of the case; when the case was either dropped or settled, or when the “last resort” court arrived at a final remedy. 3.  The Breakup: for the cases ending in dissolution, the date when shares of the new companies were distributed to investors; when the breakup was consummated. For all the charts in this section, we denote month “t” as the relevant event month. For information on the stock price movement following other important judicial events, please see Appendix B. The filing of a suit was generally negative for the stock price of the accused company. The Accusation The filing of a suit was generally negative for the stock price of the accused company (Chart 4). The stock price of every one of the companies suffered relative to the appropriate benchmark in the month of the accusation. The effect seems to have been more dramatic for the cases before the 1920’s with an average underperformance of 13% in the month of the event, although they were able to recover from the initial hit within six months. The impact on the more recent cases was more muted, with an average underperformance of 3.7%. The Decision When analyzing the last judicial event of the suit, we separate our cases into three different outcomes: cases where the suit was dropped or won (U.S. Steel and IBM), cases where there was a remedy other than dissolution (Alcoa and Microsoft), and cases concluding in dissolution (Standard Oil, American Tobacco, and AT&T). Both U.S. Steel and IBM outperformed the market in the year following the positive announcement (Chart 5), though the effect seems to have been more muted for U.S. Steel. On the other hand, the effect was much more pronounced for IBM, which found some relief from regulators after famously spending a fortune defending itself. Alcoa, on the other hand, suffered a 4.3% underperformance once its stock disposal remedy was announced, although it managed to recover the losses within seven months (Chart 6). Meanwhile, Microsoft finished the year following the announcement outperforming the market by 12%. For the cases in which dissolution was the result, we look at the performance of the stock from the decision of the breakup until the month before the new shares were distributed. The month of the announcement was negative for both Standard Oil and particularly American Tobacco (Chart 7). AT&T, on the other hand, managed to rally slightly following the settlement. However, the months leading to the breakup involved a significant amount of volatility for all companies, most likely as investors slowly got to know the terms that were being agreed upon for the dissolution. In the AT&T case, the two-year period in which the dissolution was arranged proved to be particularly negative, with the stock underperforming the market by more than 20%. Every single one of the companies outperformed the market on the date of the breakup. The Breakup To analyze the performance following the breakup we look at the portfolios that were given to investors in exchange for their pre-dissolution shares. The AT&T case resulted in the simplest portfolio: for every 10 shares of old AT&T, the investor received 10 shares of new AT&T, plus one share of each of the other seven companies. The Standard Oil portfolio involved varying amounts of shares of 34 companies. The American Tobacco portfolio was slightly more complex, as the stock for two of the post-breakup companies was not given away for free but instead offered at a discount. Given that shareholders might not have had the funds available for this purchase we show the portfolio without the investment (LOWER BOUND) and fully invested up to the amount permitted (UPPER BOUND). Every single one of the companies outperformed the market on the date of the breakup (Chart 8). Furthermore, they all managed to outperform by large amounts over the following year, with AT&T outperforming by 14%, American Tobacco outperforming by 47% (10% for the lower bound), and Standard Oil outperforming by a gargantuan 66%.14 While this sample size is small, the large positive market effect from the breakup of companies from such disparate industries has drawn the interest of academics.15 Overall, it seems that the fear that competition might bring about earnings erosion is misguided. Rather, earnings growth outperformed the market following the dissolution (Chart 9). Investment Implications The previous analysis provides us with some answers to the following questions: When will one or more of the FAANGs be accused of monopolization? The current political environment is ripe for significant antitrust enforcement, particularly for the high-flying FAANG stocks. Whether it is election meddling, data privacy issues, perceived ideological bias, or large accumulation of wealth, Americans across the political spectrum are wary of the power of tech companies (Chart 10). Moreover, BCA expects the next recession by 2021 with inflation trending to the upside. Thus, we expect that antitrust action against a large tech company is likely to occur in the next couple of years. Which of the FAANGs is the most likely target? Among all FAANG stocks, no company has crushed its rivals more than Amazon (Chart 11). This makes it particularly vulnerable to antitrust enforcement, and it is thus not surprising that President Trump most often singles it out, entirely aside from any personal issues with CEO Jeff Bezos.16 Chart 11Amazon Is Devastating Small Retailers How will the stock of an accused company react? A monopoly suit will likely be negative for the stock. If recent history is any guide, the underperformance on the event could be relatively mild (2% to 5%), although the stock could underperform by up to 15%, if similar to older cases. However, investors must remember that monopoly cases have historically developed across multi-years periods. Thus, while individual court decisions will influence the stock through the process, other factors will determine the overall trend of these stocks throughout the duration of the case. The date when the breakup is complete could prove to be a fantastic buying opportunity, as competition is unlikely to erode earnings. How will the stock price react when the case is decided? Outcomes in which the accused wins the suit, or there is a remedy other than dissolution will ultimately be benign for the stock within a one-year period. Thus, investors should fade any selloff in this situation. In the case of a breakup, investors should try to sell the stock of the accused on or before the announcement, as the agreement of the terms of the dissolution will likely bring a substantial amount of volatility and negative performance to the share price. However, the date when the breakup is complete could prove to be a fantastic buying opportunity, as competition is unlikely to erode earnings.   Juan Manuel Correa Ossa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com     APPENDIX A A Brief History Of Monopoly Regulation Interest in monopolies started in the late nineteenth century with the emergence of the business trust. It increased markedly in the earlier years of the twentieth century (Appendix A Chart 1, top panel). Soon breaking up powerful companies became a popular bipartisan goal for many voters. Appendix A Chart 1Monopoly Regulation Throughout The Years Politicians reacted accordingly. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Act, the first federal legislation regulating competition. This piece of legislation served as the basis for prosecuting the first few cases  in our sample: Standard Oil in 1906, American Tobacco in 1907, and U.S. Steel in 1911. After a brief respite in the roaring 1920’s, monopoly regulation rose throughout the New Deal, with the 1937 Alcoa case being the landmark case of this era. Regulation continued to tighten and peak in the 1950’s – the era with the strictest enforcement of monopoly laws in the history of the Unites States (Appendix A Chart 1, middle panel). No cases from our sample fall in this period, probably because intense antitrust regulation made it difficult for large monopolies to exist in the first place. Nevertheless, as the 1960’s passed, interest started to dwindle. While regulation of monopolies was a staple talking point of the State of the Union address for Republicans and Democrats alike throughout the first half of the twentieth century, no president would again feature it after 1962.17  Amid this decline in enforcement, the IBM and AT&T cases were the last monopoly cases for many years, as the “Chicago School”, and its free market paradigm, rose in popularity in the 1970’s and 1980’s (Appendix A Chart 1, bottom panel). Monopoly enforcement would continue to decline throughout the 1990’s and into the present, with the Microsoft case being the only one from our sample that developed during the past three decades. Appendix B   Footnotes 1      The largest monetary fine ever imposed by the Department of Justice on an antitrust case was the $925 million fine against Citicorp. This amounts to roughly 0.6% of the market cap of Netflix, the smallest of the FAANGs. Even larger fines imposed in the EU, like the €4.34 billion fine imposed against Google had little effect on the stock price. 2      Please see Spencer Weber Waller, ”The Past, Present, and Future of Monopolization Remedies,” Antitrust Law Journal, 76:11 (2008), pp. 14-15, available at lawecommons.luc.edu 3      Please see Lina M. Khan, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," The Yale Law Journal 126:710 (2017), pp. 739. 4      Khan 740. 5      Please see Steve Coll, The Deal of The Century: The Break Up of AT&T (New York, NY: Open Road Media, 2017). 6      Please see Werner Troesken, “The Letters of John Sherman and the Origins of Antitrust”, The Review of Austrian Economics 15:4 (2002), pp. 279, available at www.gmu.edu 7      Please see Don E. Waldman and Elizabeth J. Jense, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice: Fourth Edition (Routledge, 2016). 8      Please see Robert W. Crandall, ”The Failure of Structural Remedies in Sherman Act Monopolization Cases”, AEI-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies, Working Paper No. 01-05 (March 2001). 9      Ironically, U.S. Steel, the only case won in court and without a predatory pricing allegation, was the only company that fit the definition of a stereotypical monopoly. Its need to coordinate with more efficient competitors to set prices was ultimately used as key evidence to prove that U.S. Steel did not have monopoly power. Please see William H. Page, “Standard Oil and U.S. Steel: Predation and Collusion in the Law of Monopolization and Mergers”, Southern California Law Review 85:3 (2012), pp. 112, available at scholarship.law.ufl.edu 10     Please see Federal Trade Commission, “Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing”, available at www.ftc.gov 11     Please see Christopher Grandy, “Original Intent and The Sherman Antitrust Act: A Re-examination of the Consumer-Welfare Hypotheses,” The Journal of Economic History 53:2 (1993), pp. 360, available at www.jstor.org 12     Please see William Kolasky, “Trustbusters: Senator Sherman And The Origin of Antitrust”, Antitrust Magazine of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law 24:1 (2009), pp. 86. 13     Some examples include the Ohio Oil lobby in the Standard Oil case, MCI in the AT&T case, and Netscape in the Microsoft case. 14     The explosive performance of the trusts after their breakup would anger Theodore Roosevelt, who would bitterly joke that people in Wall Street prayed: ‘Oh Merciful Providence, give us another dissolution’”. Please see Steve Weinberg, Taking on the Trust: The Epic Battle of Ida Tarbell and John D. Rockefeller (Norton & Company, 2009). 15     Please see Malcolm R. Burns, “The Competitive Effects of Trust-Busting: A Portfolio Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy 85:4 (1977), pp. 719, available at www.jstor.org 16     Please see AXIOS, “Trump Hates Amazon, not Facebook,” dated March 28, 2018, available at www.axios.com. 17     Please see The Atlantic, “The Rise And Fall of the Word ‘Monopoly’ In American Life,” dated June 20, 2017, available at www.theatlantic.com

Highlights Global equities will remain rangebound for the next month or so, but should move decisively higher as economic green shoots emerge in the spring. A revival in global growth will cause the recent rally in the U.S. dollar to stall out and reverse direction, setting the stage for a period of dollar weakness that could last until the second half of next year. Rising inflation will force the Fed to turn considerably more hawkish in late-2020 or early-2021. This will cause the dollar to surge once more. The combination of a stronger dollar and higher interest rates will trigger a recession in the U.S. in 2021, which will spread to the rest of the world. Investors should maintain a bullish stance towards global equities for the next 12 months, but look to reduce exposure at some point next year. Feature Stocks Temporarily Stuck In The Choppy Trading Range We argued at the end of February that global equities and other risk assets would likely enter a choppy trading range in March as investors nervously awaited the economic data to improve.1 Recent market action has been consistent with this thesis, with the MSCI All-Country World Index falling nearly 3% at the start of the month, only to recoup its losses over the past few days. We expect stocks to remain in a holding pattern over the coming weeks, as investors look for more evidence that global growth is bottoming out. The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of global growth (Chart 1). This countercyclicality stems from the fact that the U.S. economy is more geared towards services than manufacturing compared with the rest of the world. This makes the U.S. a low-beta play on global growth (Chart 2). As such, when global growth accelerates, capital tends to flow from the U.S. to the rest of the world, translating into more demand for foreign currency and less demand for dollars. Chart 1The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 2The U.S. Is A Low-Beta Play On Global Growth Given the dollar’s countercyclical nature, it is not surprising that the slowdown in global growth over the past 12 months has given the greenback a lift. The broad trade-weighted dollar has strengthened by almost 8% since February 2018, putting it near the top of its post 2015-range (Chart 3). Chart 3The Dollar Has Gotten A Lift From Global Growth Disappointments Stocks Will Rally And The Dollar Will Weaken Starting In The Spring We expect the U.S. dollar to strengthen over the coming weeks as global economic data continues to underwhelm. However, an improvement in leading economic indicators in the spring will set the stage for a reacceleration in global growth and a decline in the dollar in the second half of this year. The combination of stronger growth and a weaker dollar later this year should be highly supportive of global equities. Equity investors with a 12-month horizon should overlook any near-term weakness and maintain a bullish bias towards stocks. We do not have a strong view on U.S. versus international equities at the moment, but expect to upgrade the latter once we see more confirmatory evidence that global growth is bottoming out. Equity investors with a 12-month horizon should overlook any near-term weakness and maintain a bullish bias towards stocks.   A Stronger China Will Lead To A Weaker Dollar Our expectation that the dollar will weaken in the second half of this year hinges on what happens to China. The deceleration in global growth in 2018 was largely the consequence of China’s deleveraging campaign. China’s slowdown led to a falloff in capital spending throughout the world. Weaker Chinese growth also put downward pressure on the yuan, pulling other EM currencies lower with it (Chart 4). All this occurred alongside an escalation in trade tensions, further dampening business sentiment. Chart 4EM Currencies Are Off Their Early 2018 Highs While it is too early to signal the all-clear on the trade front, the news of late has been encouraging. A recent Bloomberg story described how Trump watched approvingly as Asian stocks rose and U.S. futures rallied following his decision to delay the scheduled increase in tariffs on Chinese goods.2 As a self-professed master negotiator, Trump needs to secure a deal with China before next year‘s presidential election, while also convincing American voters that the deal was concluded on favorable terms for the United States. Reaching a deal with China early on in his term would have been risky if the agreement had failed to bring down the bilateral trade deficit — an entirely likely outcome given how pro-cyclical U.S. fiscal policy currently is.  At this point, however, Trump can crow about making a great deal with China while reassuring voters that the product of his brilliance will be realized after he has been re-elected. This means that we are entering a window over the next 12 months where Trump will want to strike a deal. For their part, the Chinese want as much negotiating leverage with the Trump administration as they can muster. This means being able to convincingly demonstrate that their economy is strong enough to handle the repercussions from turning down a trade deal that fails to serve their interests. Since the credit cycle is the dominant driver of Chinese growth, this requires putting the deleveraging campaign on the backburner. Admittedly, credit growth surprised on the downside in February. However, this followed January’s strong showing. Averaging out the two months, credit growth appears to be stabilizing on a year-over-year basis. Conceptually, it is the change in credit growth that correlates with GDP growth.3 Thus, merely going from last year’s pattern of falling credit growth to stable credit growth would still imply a positive credit impulse and hence, an uptick in GDP growth. In practice, we suspect that the Chinese authorities will prefer that credit growth not only stabilize but increase modestly. In the past, this outcome has transpired whenever credit growth has fallen towards nominal GDP growth (Chart 5). The prospect of a rebound in credit growth in March was hinted at by the PBOC, which spun the weak February data as being caused by “seasonal factors.” Chart 5Historically, China Has Scaled Back On Deleveraging When Credit Growth Has Fallen Close To Nominal GDP Growth Europe: Down But Not Out Stronger growth in China will help European exporters. Euro area domestic demand will also benefit from a rebound in German automobile production, the winding down of the “yellow vest” protests in France, and incrementally easier fiscal policy. In addition, the ECB’s new TLTRO facility should support credit formation, particularly in Italy where the banks remain heavily reliant on ECB funding. Our expectation that the dollar will weaken in the second half of this year hinges on what happens to China. Euro area financial conditions have eased significantly over the past three months, which bodes well for growth in the remainder of the year. It is encouraging that the composite euro area PMI has rebounded to a three-month high. The expectations component of the euro area confidence index has also moved up relative to the current situation component, which suggests further upside for the PMI in the coming months (Chart 6). Chart 6Easing Financial Conditions Bode Well For Euro Area Growth The selloff in EUR/USD since last March has been largely driven by a decline in euro area interest rate expectations (Chart 7). If euro area growth accelerates in the back half of the year, the market will probably price back in a few rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. Chart 7EUR/USD Sell-Off Has Been Driven By Falling European Rate Expectations What Will The Fed Do? Of course, the degree to which a steeper Eonia curve benefits EUR/USD will depend on what the Fed does. The 24-month discounter has fallen from over +100 bps in March 2018 to -25 bps today, implying that investors now believe that U.S. short rates will fall over the next two years (Chart 8). Chart 8The Fed's Dovish Messaging Has Worked... Almost Too Well We expect the Fed to raise rates more than what is currently priced into the curve, thus justifying a short duration position in fixed-income portfolios. However, the Fed’s newfound “baby step” philosophy will probably translate into only two hikes over the next 12 months. Such a gradual pace of Fed rate hikes is unlikely to prevent the euro from appreciating against the dollar starting in the middle of this year, especially in the context of a resurgent global economy. We do not expect any major inflationary pressures to emerge in the near term. In contrast to the euro, the yen should depreciate against the dollar in the back half of this year. The yen is a “risk-off” currency and thus tends to weaken whenever global risk assets rally (Chart 9). The government is also about to raise the sales tax again in October, a completely unnecessary step that will only hurt domestic demand and force the Bank of Japan to prolong its yield curve control regime. We would go long EUR/JPY on any break below 123. Chart 9The Yen Is A Risk-Off Currency A Blow-Off Rally In The Dollar Starting In Late-2020 What could really light a fire under the dollar is if the Fed began raising rates aggressively while the global economy was slowing down. In what twisted parallel universe could that happen? The answer is this one, provided that inflation rose to a level that evoked panic at the Fed. We do not expect any major inflationary pressures to emerge in the near term. The growth in unit labor costs leads core inflation by about 12 months (Chart 10). Thanks to a cyclical pickup in productivity growth, unit labor cost inflation has been trending lower since mid-2018. However, as we enter late-2020, if the labor market has tightened further by then, wage growth will likely pull well ahead of productivity growth, causing inflation to accelerate. Chart 10Decelerating Unit Labor Costs Will Dampen Inflationary Pressures For The Time Being All things equal, higher inflation is bearish for a currency because it implies a loss in purchasing power relative to other monies. However, if higher inflation spurs a central bank to hike policy rates by more than inflation has risen – thus implying an increase in real rates – the currency will tend to strengthen. Chart 11 shows the “rational expectations” response of a currency to a scenario where inflation suddenly and unexpectedly rises by one percent relative to partner countries and stays at this higher level for five years while nominal rates rise by two percent. The currency initially appreciates by 5%, but then falls by 2% every year, eventually finishing down 5% from where it started.4 The yen should depreciate against the dollar in the back half of this year. The real world is much messier of course, but we suspect that the dollar will stage a final blow-off rally late next year or in early-2021 (Chart 12). Since the Fed will be hiking rates in a stagflationary environment at that time, global growth will weaken, further boosting the dollar. The resulting tightening in both U.S. and global financial conditions will likely trigger a global recession and a bear market in stocks. Investors should maintain a bullish stance towards global equities for the next 12 months, but look to reduce exposure at some point next year.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Gretzky’s Doctrine,” dated March 1, 2019. 2      Jennifer Jacobs and Saleha Mohsin, “Trump Pushes China Trade Deal to Boost Markets as 2020 Heats Up,” Bloomberg, March 6, 2019. 3      Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. 4      The 2% annual decline in the currency is necessary for the real interest parity condition to be satisfied. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights So What? The late-cycle rally still faces non-trivial political hurdles. Why? U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit continue to pose risks. A shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a temporary negative impact on equity markets. A bombshell would increase Trump’s chances of removal from office. We give 35% odds to tarrifs on autos and auto parts, and 10% odds to a hard Brexit. Feature In our February 6 report we outlined how a “Witches’ Brew” of geopolitical risks had the potential to short-circuit the late-cycle equity rally. A month later, that brew is still bubbling. President Donald Trump’s approval rating has rebounded but going forward it faces challenges from negative headlines (Chart 1). These include a soaring trade deficit, a large influx of illegal immigrants on the southern border, a weak jobs report for February, a setback in North Korean diplomacy, and an intensification of the scandals plaguing Trump’s inner circle. Chart 1Don't Get Comfortable Just Yet, Mr. President Each of these issues calls into question the effectiveness of Trump’s core policies and the stability of his administration, though in reality they are only potentially problematic. While Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s forthcoming report poses a tail risk, the substantial threat remains Trump’s trade policy.  Indeed, investors face “the persistence of uncertainties related to geopolitical factors” and the “threat of protectionism,” according to European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, who spoke as he rolled out a new round of monetary stimulus for Europe and its ailing banks. What did Draghi have in mind? The obvious culprits are the U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit. There were other issues – such as “vulnerabilities in emerging markets” – but the first three are the most likely to have turned Draghi’s head. The global economic outlook is likely to improve on the back of Chinese stimulus and policy adjustments by the ECB and Federal Reserve. But growth has not yet stabilized and financial markets face additional volatility due to the fact that none of these “geopolitical factors” is going to be resolved easily. The good news is that Trump, overseeing a precarious economy ahead of an election, has an incentive to play softball rather than hardball.  Mueller’s Smoking Gun? News reports suggest that Mueller will soon issue the final report of his investigation into President Trump’s election campaign links with Russia. There is really only one way in which the Mueller report could be market relevant: it could produce smoking-gun evidence that results in non-trivial impeachment proceedings. Any scandal big enough to remove Trump from office or clearly damage his reelection chances is significant because financial markets would dislike the extreme policy discontinuity (Chart 2). Anything short of this will be a red herring for markets, though admittedly many of our clients disagree. Very little is known about what Mueller will report and how he will interpret his mandate. Mueller’s investigation may or may not make it to the public in full form, at least initially, and he may or may not make any major additional indictments. Congress will strive to get access to the report, which is internal to the Justice Department, while spin-off investigations will proliferate among lower-level federal district attorneys and congressional committees. The legal battle, writ large, will run into the 2020 election and beyond. House Democrats alone can decide whether to bring articles of impeachment against Trump, but the case would be struck down in the Senate if it did not rest on ironclad evidence of wrongdoing that implicated Trump personally. Republican Senators will not jump ship easily – especially not 18 of them. That would require a sea change in grassroots support for Trump. Trump’s approval among Republicans remains the indicator to watch, and it is still strong (Chart 3). If this number crashes in the aftermath of the Mueller report, then Trump could find himself on a Nixonian trajectory, implying higher odds of a Senate conviction (Chart 4). At that point, markets would begin discounting a Democratic sweep in 2020, with business sentiment and risk assets likely to drop at the prospect of higher taxes and increased regulation (Chart 5). Chart 5A 2020 Democratic Sweep Would Dent Business Sentiment After all, if scandals remove Trump from office, then not only is a Democrat likely to win the White House, but any Democrat is likely to win – even a non-centrist like Bernie Sanders or other Democratic candidates like Kamala Harris who have swung hard to the left. Meanwhile, the odds of Democrats taking control of the Senate (while keeping the House) will rise. With Democratic candidates flirting with democratic socialism and proposing a range of left-wing policies, the prospect of full Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches would weigh on financial markets. We doubt that the Mueller report can fall short of a smoking gun while still dealing a fatal blow to Trump. The Democrats control the House, so if the scandal grows to gigantic proportions, they will impeach. Yet if they impeach without an ironclad case, Trump will be acquitted. And if Trump is acquitted, it is hard to see how his chances of reelection would fall. The impeachment of former President Bill Clinton looms large over Democrats, since it ended up boosting his popularity. If Democrats are overzealous to no end, it will help Trump’s campaign. If Trump should then win re-election, he will have veto power and likely a GOP Senate, so his policies will remain in place. The outcome for markets would be policy continuity, though the market-positive aspects of Trump’s first term may not be improved while the market-negative aspects, such as his trade policy and foreign policy, may reboot. Mueller is an all-or-nothing prospect: he either leads us to the equivalent of the Watergate Tapes or not. Lesser crimes are unlikely to have a decisive impact on the election. But volatility is likely to go up as the report comes due, just as it did during the Lewinsky scandal (Chart 6), at least until the dust settles and there is clarity on impeachment. And an equity sell-off at dramatic points in the saga cannot be ruled out, especially if global factors combine with actual impeachment (Chart 7). Chart 6Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol... Chart 7… And Potentially Dampen Returns Bottom Line: A specific, shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a negative impact on equity markets and risk assets, but any such moves would be temporary as long as the growth and earnings backdrop remain positive and Mueller does not drop a bombshell that increases Trump’s chances of removal from office. Separating The Budget From The Border The president faces adverse developments on the southern border after having initiated a controversial national emergency in order to transfer military funds to construct new barriers. The U.S. has seen an abnormally large increase in apprehensions and attempted entries this year (Charts 8A & 8B). Ultimately the influx calls attention to the porous southern border and as such may help to justify Trump’s policy focus. For now it raises the question of why the administration’s tough tactics are failing to deter immigrants. Meanwhile his emergency declaration has divided the Republican Party, with several members likely to join with Democrats in a resolution of disapproval that Trump will veto. Congress will not be able to override the veto, but Trump’s decree also faces challenges in the judicial system. We doubt that the Supreme Court will rule against him but it certainly is possible. The ruling is highly likely to come before the election. Meanwhile Trump is kicking off the FY2020 budget battle with his newest request of $8.6 billion for the border wall and cuts to a range of discretionary non-defense spending. The presidential budget is a fiction – it is based on unrealistic cuts to a range of government programs. Any budget that is passed will bear no relation to the administration’s proposals. Opinion polls referenced above clearly demonstrate that Trump’s approval rating suffered from the recent government shutdown. This does not mean that he will conclude the next budget battle by the initial deadline of October 1 or that a late-2019 shutdown is impossible. He might accept a short shutdown to try to secure defense spending that would arguably legitimize his repurposing of military funds for border construction. But his experience early this year means that the odds of another long-running, bruising shutdown are low. Might Trump refuse to raise the debt ceiling later this year to get his way on the wall? This is even less likely than a shutdown due to the negative impact that a debt ceiling constraint would have on social security recipients and bond markets. Trump also has the most to lose if the 2011 budget caps snap back into place in 2020 due to any failure of the FY2020 negotiations (Chart 9). As such, the debt ceiling – which the Treasury Department can keep at bay until the end of the fiscal year in October – and the 2020 budget may be resolved together this time around. In short, Trump will be forced to punt on congressional funding for the wall later this year and will have to campaign on it again in November 2020, with the slogan “Finish the Wall.” This is a market-positive outcome, as the hurdles to fiscal spending in 2020 are likely to be reduced: Trump will have to concede to some Democratic priorities and abandon his proposed cuts. The Democrats, for their part, are likely to have enough moderates to get the next budget over the line with Republican support. To illustrate, Republicans only need 21 votes for a majority, while no fewer than 26 Democrats were recently chastised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for cooperating with Republicans. The implication is that a bipartisan majority can be found. Since Trump cannot get his budget cuts, and does not really even want them, the projected contraction of the budget deficit in 2020 will be reduced or erased (Chart 10). On the margin, this would support higher inflation and bond yields.  The biggest threat to Trump’s reelection is still the risk that the long business cycle will expire by November next year. However, the exceedingly low February payrolls print was misleading – the unemployment rate fell and wage growth was firm (Chart 11). American households are in relatively good shape and that bodes well for Trump, for the time being. Chart 11American Households Are In Good Shape Bottom Line: The economy is relatively well supported and Trump and the Democrats are ultimately likely to cooperate on the budget under the table, reducing the risks of a debt ceiling breach, or an extended government shutdown later this year, or a fall off the 2020 stimulus cliff. The Trade Deficit: Trump’s Pivot To Europe Trade policy is where Trump’s challenges merge with Draghi’s woes. The U.S. trade deficit lurched upwards to a ten-year high of $621 billion in 2018 (Chart 12). The trade deficit is uniquely important to Trump because he campaigned on an unorthodox protectionist agenda in order to reduce it. It will be very difficult for him to evade the consequences if the deficit is higher, as a share of GDP, in November 2020 than it was in January 2017. Chart 12Trade Deficit Jump Is A Blow To Trump The underlying cause of the rising deficit is that a growing American economy at full employment with a relatively strong dollar will suck in larger quantities of imports. This effect is overriding any that Trump’s tariffs have had in discouraging imports. Meanwhile the global slowdown, reinforced by trade retaliation and negative sentiment, are harming U.S. exports (Chart 13). The administration’s policies of fiscal stimulus combined with encouraging private investment are guaranteed to lead to a higher current account deficit, barring an offsetting (and highly unlikely) rise in private saving. The current account deficit must equal the gap between domestic saving and investment and a rising fiscal deficit represents a drop in saving. Chart 13Trade War Hurting U.S. Exports What does the trade deficit imply for the U.S.-China talks? On one hand, the U.S. could put more pressure on China after feeling political heat from the large deficit. On the other hand, China has always offered to reduce the bilateral trade deficit directly through bulk purchases of goods, particularly commodities. It is Trump’s top negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, who has insisted that China make structural changes to reduce trade imbalances on a long-term and sustainable basis.1  In a sign of progress, the U.S. and China have reportedly arrived at a currency agreement. No details are known and therefore it is impossible to say if it would mean a more “market-oriented” renminbi, which could fluctuate and have a variable impact on the trade deficit, or a renminbi that is managed to be stronger against the dollar, which would tend to weigh on the deficit, as Trump might wish. The two negotiating teams are working on the text of five other structural issues that should also mitigate the deficit. Moreover, China’s new foreign investment law, if enforced, could increase American market access by leveling the playing field for foreign firms. However, there is still no monitoring mechanism, the two presidents have not scheduled a final signing summit, and the deterioration in North Korean peace talks also works against any quick conclusion. If Trump concludes a deal, the next question for investors is whether he will impose Section 232 tariffs on auto and auto imports on the EU and other partners (Chart 14). The European Commission’s top trade negotiator, Cecilia Malmstrom, recently met with Lighthizer in Washington to discourage tariffs. She refused to admit agriculture into the negotiations, as per a U.S.-EU joint statement in July 2018, but proposed equalizing tariffs on industrial goods as a way for both sides to make a positive start (Chart 15). She said that the U.S. repealing the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs are necessary for any final deal. And she reiterated that any new tariffs (e.g., the proposed Section 232 tariffs on autos and auto parts) would prevent a deal and provoke immediate retaliation on $23 billion worth of American exports. Malmstrom also said that the EU would prefer to work with the U.S. on reforming the World Trade Organization and addressing China’s trade violations. This approach fits with that of Japan, which has joined the U.S. and EU in trilateral discussions toward reforming the global trade architecture in a bid to mitigate U.S. protectionism and constrain China. The problem with the EU’s position is that once the U.S. and China make a trade deal, the U.S. will not have as immediate of a need to form a trade coalition against China (other than in dealing with WTO issues). Moreover, Japan will be forced to accept a deal with the U.S. in short order. A rotation of Trump trade policy to focus on Europe is likely. We give 35% odds to tariffs on autos and auto parts. The USMCA will increase the cost of production in North America while Europe is so far excluding cars from negotiations with the U.S., so there is room for a clash. But any tariffs on autos will be less sweeping than those against China. Trump will play softball rather than hardball for the following reasons: The public is less skeptical of trade with Europe and Japan than with China. The auto sector is heavily concentrated in the Red States and many states that are heavily exposed to trade with the EU are also critical to Trump’s reelection (Map 1). Section 232 tariffs that are required to be enacted by May 18 would have plenty of time to impact the U.S. economy negatively by November 2020. Congress and the defense establishment are against a trade war with U.S. allies, while bipartisanship reigns when it comes to tougher actions toward China. The bilateral trade deficit is less excessive with Europe than with China (see Chart 12 above). The U.S. carmaker and auto parts lobby are unanimously against the tariffs – and in fact has called for the removal of the steel and aluminum tariffs in a stance that echoes that of the EU. The existing steel and aluminum tariffs provide Trump with leverage in the negotiations with the EU and Japan, whereas the U.S. has agreed not to impose new tariffs on these partners while trade negotiations are underway. New tariffs would nix negotiations and ensure that the ensuing quarrels are long and drawn out, with a necessarily worse economic impact. To initiate a new trade war in the wake of the U.S.-China war would be to undercut the positive impact on trade, financial conditions, and sentiment that is supposedly driving Trump’s desire for a China deal in the first place. The U.S. eventually will need to build a trilateral coalition to hold China to account and ensure that it does not slide back into its past mercantilist practices. Even limited or pinprick tariffs will have an adverse impact on equity markets, given that they will hit Europe at a time when its economy is decelerating dangerously and when Brexit uncertainty is already weighing on European assets and sentiment (see next section).  This may be why both the U.K. and Germany have recently softened their positions on Chinese telecom company Huawei, which they have been investigating for national security concerns related to the rollout of 5G networks. They are signaling that they are not going to sacrifice their relationship with China if the U.S. is dealing with China bilaterally while threatening to turn around and slap tariffs on their auto exports. If the U.S. goes ahead with tariffs – on the basis that its China agreement allows it to isolate Europe – the EU will not be a pushover, as exports to the U.S. only amount to 2.6% of GDP (Chart 16). The result of the U.S.-China quarrel has been a deepening EU-China trade relationship and that trend is set to continue (Chart 17), especially if the U.S. continues to use punitive measures that increase the substitution effect and the strategic value of the Chinese and European markets to each other. Chart 16The EU Will Not Be A Pushover In Face Of U.S. Tariffs Chart 17EU-China Trade Relationship Deepening Bottom Line: In the wake of any U.S.-China agreement, we give a 35% chance that Trump will impose tariffs on European cars and car parts. Such tariffs are not our base case because they are unlikely to shrink the U.S. trade deficit and would have a negative impact on the Red State economy. But lower magnitude tariffs cannot be ruled out – and the impact on the euro and European industrial sector would clearly be detrimental in the short run. Assuming that global and European growth is recovering, a tariff shock to Europe’s carmakers could present a good opportunity to buy on the dip. Any U.S.-EU trade war will ultimately be shorter-lived and less disruptive than the U.S.-China trade war, which is likely to resume at some point even if Presidents Trump and Xi get a deal this year. The United Kingdom: Snap Election More Likely A series of important votes is taking place in Westminster this week, with the end result likely to be an extension to negotiations over a withdrawal deal at the EU Council summit on March 21. Conditional on that extension, the odds of a new election are sharply rising. The first vote, as we go to press on Tuesday, has resulted in a rejection of Prime Minister Theresa May’s exit plan by 149 votes – the second rejection after her colossal defeat in January by 230 votes. The loss was expected because the EU has not offered a substantial compromise on the contentious Irish “backstop” arrangement, which would keep Northern Ireland and/or the U.K. in the European Customs Union beyond the transition date of December 31, 2020. All that was offered was an exit clause for the U.K. sans Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland is part of the U.K. and the introduction of additional border checks on the Irish Sea would mark a new division within the constitutional fabric. This is unacceptable to the Conservative Party and especially to the Democratic Union Party of Northern Ireland, which gives May her majority in parliament. On Wednesday, we expect the vote for a “no deal” exit, in which the U.K. simply leaves the EU without any arrangements as to the withdrawal (or future relationship), to fail by an even larger margin than May’s plan. Leaving without a deal would cause a negative economic shock due to the automatic reversion to relatively high WTO tariff levels with the EU, which receives 46% of the U.K.’s exports and is thus vital in the maintenance of its trade balance and terms of trade (Chart 18). It is impossible to see parliament voting in favor of such an outcome – parliament was never the driving force behind Brexit, with most MPs preferring to remain in the EU.     Chart 18No Deal Brexit A Huge Blow To U.K. The risk is that parliament should fail repeatedly to pass the third vote this week, a motion asking the EU for an extension period to the March 29 “exit day.” This is unlikely but possible. In this case, the supreme decision-making body of the U.K. will be paralyzed. A bloodbath will ensue in which the country will either see Prime Minister May ousted, a snap election called, or both. If the extension passes, the EU Council is likely to go along with the decision. It is in the EU’s near-term economic interest not to trigger a crash Brexit and in its long-term interest to delay Brexit until the U.K. public decides they would rather stay after all. The problem is that it will not want to grant an extension for longer than July, when new Members of the European Parliament take their seats after the May 23-26 EU elections. The U.K. may be forced to put up candidates for the election. What good would an extension do anyway? The likeliest possibility is, yet again, a new election. The conditions are not yet ripe for a second referendum, though the odds are rising that one will eventually occur. The Labour Party has fallen in the opinion polls amidst Jeremy Corbyn’s indecisive leadership and a divisive platform change within the party to push for a second Brexit referendum (Chart 19). An election now gives May’s Conservatives an opportunity to build a larger and stronger majority – after all, in the U.K. electoral system, the winner takes all in each constituency, so the Tories would pick up most of the seats that Labour loses. May’s faction might be able to strengthen its hand vis-à-vis hard Brexiters who have less popular support yet currently have the numbers to block May’s withdrawal plan. Chart 19A New Election Would Be Opportunistic Theresa May might be unwilling to call an election given her fateful mistake of calling the snap election of 2017. If she demurs, she could face an internal party coup. There is a slim chance that a hard Brexiter could take the helm, bent on steering the U.K. out of the EU without a deal. Parliament, however, would rebel against such a leader. Ultimately, the economic and financial constraints of a crash Brexit are too hard and we expect that the votes will reflect this fact, whether in an adjusted exit deal or a new election. But both outcomes require an extension.  However, we must point out that the constitutional and geopolitical constraints alone are not sufficient to prevent a crash out: parliament is the supreme lawmaking authority and there is no other basis for the U.K. to leave in an orderly fashion. The United Kingdom has survived worse, as many hard Brexiters will emphasize. A crash is a mistake that can happen. But the odds are not higher than 10%-20% given the stakes (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Path To Salvation Remains Fraught With Dangers With the EU economy not having stabilized and the U.S. contemplating Section 232 trade tariffs, Brexit is all the more reason to be wary of sterling, the euro, and European equities in the near term, especially relative to the U.S. dollar and U.S. equities. Gilts can rally even in the event of an extension given the uncertainty that this would entail, though the BCA House View is neutral. Bottom Line: Expect parliament to ask for an extension. At the same time, the odds of a new election have risen sharply. The absence of a new election could lead to a power struggle within the Tory party that could escalate the risk of a hard Brexit, though we still place the odds at 10%. A second referendum is rising in probability but will only become possible after the dust settles from the current crisis. Investment Conclusions The ECB’s stimulus measures are positive for European and global growth over a 6-to-12-month time frame. They suggest that financial assets could be supported later in the year, depending in great part on what happens in China. China’s combined January and February total social financing growth reinforces our Feb 20 report arguing that the risk of stimulus is now to the upside. As People’s Bank Governor Yi Gang put it, the slowdown in total social financing last year has stopped. The annual meeting of the National People’s Congress also resulted in largely accommodative measures on top of this credit increase. Nevertheless, stimulus operates with a lag, and for the reasons outlined above we are not yet willing to favor EUR/USD or European equities within developed markets. A 35% chance of tariffs is non-negligible. We expect U.S. equities to outperform within the developed world and Chinese equities to outperform within the emerging world on a 6-to-12 month basis.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Lighthizer now has bipartisan support in Congress, whose members will lambast Trump if he squanders the historic leverage he has built up in exchange for a shallow deal that only temporarily weighs on the trade deficit. 

Special Report

Highlights So What? Optimism over a U.S.-China trade deal is becoming excessive. Why? Presidents Trump and Xi appear to want a deal but their late March summit is not yet finalized. Several news reports supporting the bullish consensus are overrated. The odds of a “grand compromise” that entails China implementing U.S. structural demands are 10%. The odds of trade war escalation are 30%. China’s policy stimulus is a better reason than trade talks to become more constructive on Chinese and China-sensitive risk assets. Feature The Chinese equity market is rallying enthusiastically as the annual “Two Sessions” legislative meeting convenes (Chart 1). The basis for the rally is evidence of greater policy support for the economy along with a general belief that the U.S. and China are close to concluding a trade deal, possibly at a fourth summit between President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping that may be held in late March. The NPC session will build on the optimism with Premier Li Keqiang’s promise of more “forceful” policy support and the passage of a new foreign investment law that promises fair treatment to foreign companies. Chart 1Positive Trade Signals, But Market Getting Ahead Of Itself Our view is that the trade signals are broadly positive – implying a 70% chance that tariffs will either remain frozen or decrease in the scenario analysis below – but that the market is getting ahead of itself both in terms of the likelihood of a “structural deal” and in terms of the positive market impact from any deal. The market impact will depend on the depth of the concessions that China offers the United States. If the concessions are significant, President Donald Trump will be able to roll back tariffs to a considerable extent – trade policy uncertainty will fall, China’s economic outlook will improve, and Trump’s reelection odds (and hence U.S. economic policy continuity) could increase marginally. If China’s concessions are slight, tariff rollbacks will be limited or non-existent and the deal will stand on shaky ground, ensuring elevated policy uncertainty in the aftermath of the agreement and raising the probability of a relapse into trade war ahead of the 2020 election. Trump may feel he has to prove his protectionist credentials anew against a trade critic in the general election. Will the outcome be positive enough to surprise Chinese and global markets that have already discounted a lot of positive news? From where we sit, this is unlikely. More likely, investors will be underwhelmed by a lack of resolution or the shallowness of a deal. The risk to this view is the aforementioned structural deal that involves substantial Chinese concessions combined with a major reduction in U.S. tariffs and sanctions. But even in this case investors will face additional trade uncertainty relating to the U.S. Section 232 investigation into auto imports, on which Trump must decide by May 18, underscoring the point that trade alone is not a firm basis for bullish investment recommendations over the course of H1 2019. The continued strength of the U.S. economy and China’s policy stimulus provide a more realistic basis for global risk assets to rally over the 6-12 month horizon. Presidential Momentum For A Trade Deal We remain pessimistic about U.S.-China relations in general and the prospects for a structural trade deal in particular. This is reflected in our subjective trade-deal probabilities, which hold that an additional extension is as likely as a final deal this month and that the risk of a relapse into trade war remains elevated at 30% (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities Fundamentally, our pessimism stems from our view that the U.S. and China are locked in the early chapters of an epic struggle for supremacy in Asia Pacific that will reduce their ability to engage cooperatively (Chart 2). Chart 2China, U.S. In Geopolitical Power Struggle Critically, the economic impact of a trade war is not prohibitive for either country. China is not as reliant on exports as it once was. In addition, neither the U.S. nor China is too reliant on trade with the other to make a trade war unthinkable, as was the case with Canada and Mexico (Chart 3). Chart 3Economic Impact Of A Trade War Is Not Prohibitive China is economically vulnerable but is politically centralized, as symbolized by Xi Jinping’s aggressive purge of the Communist Party on the basis of corruption (Chart 4). The ruling party can and will accept the worst international economic outcomes since 1989-91, if it believes this is necessary for regime survival. Chart 4Regime Survival is Paramount Meanwhile the U.S. is economically insulated and performing relatively well (Chart 5), and is not politically divided on the question of China. A bipartisan, hawkish consensus has developed that will be discussed below. Just as we argued correctly that this trade war would occur, so too we believe it has a fair chance of reigniting. This could be due to policy miscalculation, unforeseen events, or the likelihood that Trump will face heat from the left-wing ahead of the election if he gives China as easy of a deal as he gave to Canada. Chart 5The U.S. Economy Is Strong But Softening... Nevertheless we accept that there is top-level momentum in favor of a deal for the time being, and this comes from both Presidents Trump and Xi. In China, delaying tactics are the standard way of coping with an angry Washington, as the perception in Beijing is that economic and technological advancement give it greater leverage over time. Moreover, the economy is weakening on several fronts, private sector sentiment is bearish, and the easing of fiscal and monetary policy is of unclear effectiveness (Chart 6). These are all reasons for Xi to seek at least a temporary reprieve. Chart 6...While the Chinese Economy Is Weak But Stimulating In the United States, Trump faces a difficult election campaign due to his relatively low job approval with voters (Chart 7). His polling has recently improved with the settlement of the FY2019 budget and avoidance of a second government shutdown, and this is despite his controversial decision to press forward unilaterally on southern border security. But he will be running for office late in the business cycle and is vulnerable to an equity bear market and recession. This explains why he has shown risk aversion since October on market-relevant issues ranging from NAFTA, Iran, and China. A trade deal with China offers the possibility not only of satisfying a campaign promise (renegotiating the terrible trade deals of the past) but also of a substantial boost to investor sentiment and key parts of the U.S. economy via Chinese cash. Thus it is reasonable to assess that Trump and Xi can satisfy their political preference for a deal in the short run. If Xi does not gratify Trump’s campaign platform as a great deal-maker, he will give impetus to Trump to form a grand protectionist coalition. Such a coalition could eventually succeed in constricting China’s technological development, as exemplified by the U.S.’s campaign against Chinese telecoms equipment maker Huawei. Fundamentally, China still depends on the West for the computer chips that are essential building blocks for its manufacturing sector (Chart 8). However, while this is a reason for Xi to play ball, it is far from clear that Xi will rapidly implement deep structural changes demanded by the United States. Xi has good reason to fear that Trump will continue the tech war on national security grounds despite any trade deal. Plus, either Trump or a Democratic president could take new punitive trade measures after 2020, given the underlying strategic struggle. For these reasons China is likely to slow-walk any structural concessions. We recognize that our 35% probability that trade talks will be extended cannot last forever. Assuming that Trump and Xi confirm the time and place of a fourth summit, the probability of some kind of deal will rise toward 70%. We doubt very much that Trump and Xi will attend such a summit without a high degree of confidence in the outcome, unlike the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi, which suffered from inadequate preparation. Yet even if the probability of a deal rises to 70%, we still think there would remain a 30% chance of either an unexpected extension or a disastrous breakdown in negotiations – and we are not yet at that 70% mark. Bottom Line: Until a Trump-Xi summit is finalized in the context of continued progress in trade negotiations, we maintain our pessimistic probabilities for the trade negotiations, with a 30% chance of total collapse and a 35% chance of a further extension of talks beyond March. Remain Vigilant On The Trade Talks It is debatable whether momentum in favor of a U.S.-China trade deal has increased over the past two weeks as much as the news flow suggests. First, Trump’s extension of the tariff deadline – which he originally envisioned as a pause for a month “or less” – could just as easily lead to additional extensions rather than a quick resolution. This will be clear if a Trump-Xi summit does not materialize in late March. A logical time for the two to meet would be at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan on June 28-29, which would prolong the trade policy uncertainty for nearly four months from today. Second, reports suggest that China, like the EU, is demanding that all Trump’s tariffs be removed as part of any trade deal. If true, this demand is more likely to result in a failure to make a deal than a total tariff rollback. The reason is that the U.S. needs to retain the ability to adjust Section 301 tariffs based on China’s actual degree of implementation of any commitments it makes to reduce forced technology transfers, economic espionage, and intellectual property theft. Several of these commitments are enshrined in the new foreign investment law that would pass through China’s legislature over the next two weeks (Table 2), but the U.S. will want to ensure that the law is actually implemented. Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations If the U.S. rolls back all Section 301 tariffs it will lose a convenient legal standing from which to dial the tariffs back up if necessary. It is more likely that part or all of the 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of goods will be rolled back (our short-term trade deal scenario with 25% odds) than that the entire Section 301 tariffs will be rolled back (our best-case trade deal scenario with a 10% probability). The degree of rollback will be a critical indicator of the durability of any deal, as it will make a material difference for China’s export-manufacturing outlook (Chart 9). Thus far, China’s economy has counterintuitively benefited from the trade war due to tariff front-running. Chart 9The Degree Of Tariff Rollback Matters Third, the disagreements between President Trump and his hawkish lead negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, are likely overstated in their ability to increase the odds of finalizing a deal. There are two arguments for the view that Trump is losing faith in Lighthizer. The first is that he blames Lighthizer’s tough tactics for the equity market selloff. This may not be valid given that stocks continued to sell off after Trump sided with the trade doves and agreed to a trade truce with Xi Jinping. In December the S&P 500 suffered the worst monthly performance since February 2009 and the worst December performance since 1931. The second argument is more substantial and comes from Trump’s public interchange with Lighthizer over the use and value of memorandums of understanding (MOUs). The interchange was awkward and suggests that tensions exist between Trump and his top negotiator.1 However, the episode may have an important implication. Whatever the reason for the disagreement, Lighthizer gained the assent of two Chinese negotiators – Vice Premier Liu He and U.S. ambassador Cui Tiankai – in his declaration, on camera, that the term MOU would be dropped in preference for the term “trade agreement.” The result is that while the deal is still not going to be a “Free Trade Agreement” that requires legislative ratification, the language of the final document will be if anything more, not less, binding. This episode cannot possibly accelerate a final deal. It is hard to believe that Lighthizer is not secretly happy with the result of his dust-up with the president. It is well known – and frequently complained about by Lighthizer and other Trump administration officials – that China has very active diplomacy and makes many international agreements that are more nominal than real in their results. As a simple example, China typically agrees to a larger value of outbound investment than is ultimately realized (Chart 10). In fact, Lighthizer is at the forefront of the administration’s repeated and explicit aim to pin China down to better implementation and enforcement of any agreement. Indeed, in both of Lighthizer’s reports on the Section 301 investigation that motivate the tariffs, he refers to a well-known September 2015 commitment, between President Xi and former U.S. President Barack Obama, not to conduct cyber-espionage against each other’s countries. Lighthizer shares the view of the broader U.S. political establishment that China only temporarily enforced this commitment and later ramped up its hacking to steal trade secrets.2 Chart 10China Known For Overpromising Fourth, Trump’s failure to conclude a peace and denuclearization deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam does not increase the odds of a U.S.-China deal – it is either neutral or negative for U.S.-China talks. Whether intentional or not, the summit reminded the Chinese that Trump’s “art of the deal” requires the willingness to walk away from a bad deal. As mentioned, we view the odds of Trump walking away from a China deal at 30%. But the deeper problem is that Trump expects China’s assistance with North Korea as a condition of the trade deal. Whenever Trump thinks that China is not providing enough assistance, he threatens to walk away from talks with Kim. This occurred in May 2018 and has apparently occurred again. The failure of the summit is a failure of U.S.-China diplomacy in the sense that China could not or would not convince Kim Jong Un to offer more concrete steps toward denuclearization. This reflects negatively on the trade talks if it reflects anything at all. Bottom Line: Aside from the presidential momentum behind a trade deal, none of the recent news reports or leaks form a basis for upgrading the probability of a final agreement in late March. Will It Be A “Structural Deal”? Lighthizer is not isolated in driving a hard bargain with China: he enjoys the support of both parties in the U.S. Congress. At his recent testimony on U.S.-China trade to the House Ways and Means Committee, bipartisanship was a key theme. Democrats as well as Republicans voiced support for Lighthizer as the top negotiator due to his strict stance on China’s trade practices, while Lighthizer himself praised both Trump and Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being skeptical about China’s trade practices as far back as 2001. The takeaway is that Trump needs deep concessions from China – what the top Democrat on the committee called “a structural deal” – in order to defend any trade deal against domestic critics and skeptical voters on the campaign trail in 2020. In other words, there is unanimity in Congress, as there was in May 2018, that Trump should not sacrifice his leverage for a deal limited to Boeings and soybeans but should instead obtain victories on core disagreements: national security, foreign exchange rates, market access, and intellectual property. The MOUs – now “agreements” – that are reportedly being drafted address these core disagreements. Therefore signs of progress in producing final drafts should be seen as evidence that the odds of a final deal are improving: Forced tech transfers: Raising equity caps for foreign investment in key sectors is a headline way to reduce the leverage that Chinese companies have used to extract technology (Table 3). There are other arbitrary licensing and permitting practices that could also be curtailed. Table 3Foreign Investment Equity Caps Intellectual property: China’s purchases of U.S. intellectual property are conspicuously small, especially when considering that China is not yet an innovation giant in terms of international IP licensing receipts relative to the amount that it pays out.3 If the U.S.’s IP trade balance with China were equivalent to its balance with South Korea, it would result in a $36.7 billion improvement in the U.S. balance (Chart 11). Services: China is a major growing market for U.S. service exports but Washington frequently complains about denial of market access, for instance in financial and legal services. Services exports also underscore the above point about intellectual property (Chart 12). Foreign exchange: The U.S. is asking China not to maintain a more market-oriented currency but rather to promote a stronger currency relative to the dollar, perhaps referring to the yuan’s undervaluation according to purchasing power parity (Chart 13). It is impossible for Trump to accept a deal that does not include some text on the currency since he has hammered the issue of Chinese currency manipulation on the campaign trail and is trying to talk down the greenback. South Korea agreed to a currency annex and Japan is likely to do the same, and that makes it even less feasible for China to get off the hook. Non-tariff barriers: The U.S. has a long roster of complaints about China’s trade practices, including subsidies to state-owned companies, dumping, and inadequate health, environmental, and labor standards. Changing these practices will raise the costs of production in China. Changes to non-tariff barriers can also increase American market access in a way that goes beyond the simultaneous demands for lower tariffs on U.S. imports (Chart 14). Chart 13China Not Off The Hook On Currency Manipulation If China pledges improvements on these issues then it could justify substantial tariff rollback, perhaps the entire 10% tariff on $200 billion. This scenario, the best version of our 25% trade deal scenario, would comprise a positive surprise for markets in the current environment. It still could fall short of a grand bargain justifying a total tariff rollback, unless implementation is swift and decisive, which is highly improbable. A lesser but still market-positive surprise would be an American agreement to reduce pressure on Huawei (comparable to the deal reached in May 2018 on that other besieged Chinese tech company, ZTE). Still less positive outcomes would be a partial reduction in the tariff rate or an American agreement to expand or expedite exemptions to existing tariffs. The last would indicate relatively low expectations about the depth of China’s concessions. Bottom Line: Until the actual details of any Chinese structural concessions and American tariff relief are known, the durability of any U.S.-China trade deal cannot be assessed. This warrants at best cautious optimism regarding the trade talks: the two sides are working on draft texts about the right things. Investors will not be positively surprised by an agreement that does not include structural concessions of the nature above as well as substantial American tariff rollback, which is needed to verify American confidence in China’s commitments. Investment Implications The outcomes that are currently available to investors leave substantial room for prolonged trade policy uncertainty (Chart 15). Any further extension of trade talks means that uncertainty will persist at current levels. A deal that includes limited structural concessions means that uncertainty will ease but remain elevated relative to pre-2018 levels, due to the persistent threat of Section 301 tariffs that the U.S. will wield in order to secure Chinese concessions. A failure of negotiations means a dramatic escalation in uncertainty; this is our 30% risk due to the geopolitical and technological struggle underway. We allot only a 10% chance to a grand bargain that includes deep structural reforms and full tariff rollback. Chart 15Trade Uncertainty Will Persist As a final consideration, investors should be aware that the better the U.S.-China trade deal, the higher the probability that Trump imposes tariffs on auto and auto part imports pursuant to the Section 232 investigation into the impact of these imports on national security, which concluded February 17. The Commerce Department’s recommendations are still unknown but it is not a stretch to imagine that the administration has discovered a national security threat. However, this determination alone does not require Trump to impose tariffs. If he is to impose, he has until May 18 to do so. The full value of U.S. auto and auto parts imports is larger than the value of Chinese imports that currently fall under Trump’s tariffs. It is very unlikely that the U.S. will match this size of tariffs against the EU (Chart 16). Certainly it will not do so if the U.S.-China conflict remains unresolved, since it seems a stretch to believe the equity market can sustain both trade wars at the same time. The Trump administration has already found that the China tariffs without negotiations were disruptive to the U.S. equity market and economy, and the U.S. has told the European Union and Japan that it will not impose tariffs as long as negotiations are underway. To do so would be practically to foreclose the possibility of a trade agreement prior to the 2020 election, at least in the case of the EU. Thus it is only after any U.S.-China deal that the risk of EU impositions rises. We take the view that Japan is likely to conclude an agreement with the Trump administration quickly, possibly even before the China deal but almost certainly shortly afterwards. Trump administration officials will also likely intervene on behalf of South Korea due to the strategic need to stay on the same page regarding North Korea, which itself led to the successful renegotiation of the two countries’ existing trade agreement last year (which included autos but did not explicitly exempt Korea from Section 232 auto tariffs). This leaves the EU, which is quarreling with the U.S. over a range of issues: trade, Iran, Russia, China, Brexit, Syria, etc. Our base case is that the U.S. will not impose sweeping Section 232 tariffs on the EU due to the negative impact this would have on the U.S. auto industry, which is rooted in the electorally critical Midwest; the aforementioned risk to the equity market and economy; and the fact that neither the U.S. public, nor Congress, nor the corporate lobby are supportive of a trade war with Europe. Tariffs would also harm the Trump administration’s broader attempt to galvanize Western countries against the strategic challenge of China, Russia, and Iran. Nevertheless, the risk of such sweeping tariffs is non-trivial because Trump does not face legal constraints in imposing them – he can act unilaterally, just as he did with the early Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, which broadly remain in force. A negative trade shock to the EU at a time of economic weakness may not overwhelm the positive trade impact of a U.S.-China deal in the context of China’s policy stimulus, but it would take the shine off of any risk-on exuberance following a China deal. In the end, China’s risk assets are likely to continue benefiting from domestic policy stimulus plus the 70% likelihood that tariffs will not go up. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy remains cyclically positive Chinese stocks relative to emerging market stocks over a 12-month horizon given China’s more robust stimulus measures and the above trade view. We are shifting our long China Play Index to a trade as opposed to a portfolio hedge. We are also long copper. We would anticipate that the trend for CNY-USD will be flat to up as long as negotiations proceed in a positive manner. BCA’s China Investment Strategy is tactically positive Chinese stocks relative to the global MSCI benchmark on the same basis, but is awaiting more evidence of a stabilization in the earnings outlook before recommending that investors shift to an outright overweight over the cyclical horizon. Still, our China team placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in their February 27 Weekly Report, signaling that the next change in recommended allocation is likely to be higher rather than lower.4   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnote 1 News reports had indicated that Lighthizer and his Chinese counterparts were negotiating six MOUs – on forced tech transfer and cyber theft, intellectual property rights, services, currency, agriculture, and non-tariff barriers to trade – in pursuit of the March 1 deadline. When asked about the time horizon of the MOUs at a public press conference with the Chinese trade delegation in the White House, President Trump said that MOUs were not the same as a “final, binding contract” that he wanted as an outcome of the talks. Lighthizer spoke up in defense of MOUs, leading the president to publicly disagree with him. Lighthizer then declared that the term “MOU” would no longer be used and instead the two sides would use the term “trade agreement.” 2 This was the same summit at which Xi Jinping declared in the Rose Garden that China had no intention to militarize the South China Sea – an even more frequently cited example of divergence between China’s official rhetoric and policy actions on matters of strategic consequence. 3 Please see Scott Kennedy, “The Fat Tech Dragon: Benchmarking China’s Innovation Drive,” CSIS, August 2017, available at www.csis.org. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative,” dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.