バブル/危機/熱狂

Highlights The Turkish economy is in disarray, ... : The lira's plunge has reminded some investors of the Thai baht's in 1997, but we do not foresee a replay of the Asian Crisis. ... highlighting emerging markets' vulnerability to external factors: EM economies may be on firmer footing than they were 20 years ago, but the vicissitudes of dollar-denominated debt remain their Achilles' heel. Fraught times around the world justify paring back portfolio risk, ... : Increased caution is appropriate in the face of potential EM distress. Multiples are elevated and spreads are tight, leaving stocks and bonds susceptible to a pickup in risk aversion. ... even if domestic data indicate that the U.S. expansion is alive and well: Global concerns did nothing to dim small businesses' rosy outlook, but the dirty little secret within the July NFIB survey is that rising cost pressures will keep the Fed from backing off of its tightening plans. Feature Dear Client, This is our final report for the month of August. We will resume our regular publication schedule the first week of September. We wish everyone an enjoyable rest of the summer. Best regards, Doug Peta, Chief U.S. Investment Strategist What a difference a year makes. If 2017 was all about synchronized global growth, 2018 has been a study in desynchronization. While the list of sputtering international economies grows longer with every passing month, the U.S. economy continues to gather steam. The fact that it is leaving the laggards choking on its exhaust as it speeds by, trampling the conventions of the postwar international order the U.S. itself established, and tightening the screws on dollar borrowers, is bruising feelings from Ankara and Beijing to Ottawa and Brussels. There is nothing on the horizon to indicate that the desynchronization trend is about to end. Surreal as it may be for baby boomers and other pre-millennials, trade barriers are an essential plank in the Republicans' midterm election platform. Our geopolitical strategists caution that there is little reason to expect the anti-trade rhetoric out of Washington to die down before November. The associated headwinds for multinational corporations and economies more reliant on global trade are likely to persist for at least a few more months. The other global policy irritant comes from the Fed. Although it is not blind to the impact of its policies on other economies, its America First mandate is firmly entrenched. Confronted with a domestic economy that is being force-fed stimulus when it is already showing signs of bumping up against supply constraints, the Fed has very little room to relax its vigilance. Investors counting on an "EM put" to alter the course of rate hikes should recognize that that put is way out of the money: it will take a great deal of EM pain for the Fed to back away from its projected course. Turkey's Tenuous Model Before the Asian Crisis, the growth of the Asian Tiger economies was the envy of the world. The formula was simple and effective: take ample supplies of cheap labor, mix with developed-world capital to finance a buildup of manufacturing capacity, and watch eye-popping growth ensue. All was well until too much excitement led to hard-currency-debt-financed investment in overcapacity. When exchange-rate pegs fell, domestic borrowers became unable to meet their obligations and the Asian Miracle imploded. The Turkish lira's plunge has put many investors in mind of the Thai baht's 1997 collapse that set the Asian Crisis in motion. The EM contagion eventually found its way to Russia in the summer of 1998, felling hedge fund titan Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) and thoroughly rattling several of its Wall Street enablers. Investors would be foolish to ignore the problems in Turkey, which could well ripple out into other EM economies and the developed world. However, our current base-case scenario does not call for anything on the order of the Asian Crisis. Chart of the WeekTurkey Is A Clear Outlier Today ... Chart 2... But It Would Have Been In The Thick Of Things In 1997 Turkey's dependency on external capital flows is reminiscent of the Asian Tigers', but it is an outlier in today's more conservative context (Chart of the Week). On the eve of the Asian Crisis, Turkey's external financing profile, on both a flow (current-account balance as a share of GDP) and a stock (external private debt as a share of GDP) basis, would have placed it squarely within the smart set (Chart 2). In retrospect, the Asian Miracle template of the early and mid '90s was an accident waiting to happen. Currency pegs are seen as a naïve relic, and exporters assiduously build up reserve war chests to prevent currency panics from taking root. Chart 3U.S. Banks Have Modest EM Exposure The key issue for U.S. investors is the potential for contagion to the U.S. banking system and its markets. It is almost impossible to identify an LTCM in advance, but the fact that the banking system is on a much tighter leash following the crisis means that it is far less vulnerable than it was in the late '90s. As our f/x strategists point out,1 European banks (especially Spain's BBVA) have considerably more exposure to Turkey and other fragile EM economies (Chart 3). Sentiment is the most likely transmission mechanism, and U.S. assets would seem to be last in line for multiple de-rating and spread widening, given the strength of the U.S. economy and its comparative remove from the rest of the world. Bottom Line: The magnitude of Turkey's financing excesses is not representative of the entire EM complex. U.S. investors should operate with a heightened sense of caution, but they should not panic. Emerging Markets' Achilles' Heel The magnitude of Turkey's reliance on external financing is unusual, but the direction is common. The vast bulk of the world's wealth is held in developed economies, and EM projects necessarily source capital from DM investors. Over 90% of all EM corporate debt is denominated in hard currency, of which the vast majority is denominated in U.S. dollars. For EM corporates with mainly domestic revenues, moves in the dollar exchange rate exert disproportionate influence over how comfortably they can service their debt. Exchange rates are determined by many factors, but real interest rate differentials are among the most prominent drivers. When the Fed hikes the fed funds rate while other central banks are easing policy or standing pat, the dollar tends to appreciate. A rising dollar pressures EM corporate borrowers, and hasn't been good for EM stock prices, either (Chart 4). If the Fed were to lift the fed funds rate all the way to 3.5% by the end of 2019, as we expect, several EM borrowers could find themselves in the crosshairs. Chart 4Tighter Fed Policy Squeezes EM Equities, Too Meaningful Chinese stimulus could go a long way to offsetting Fed tightening pressures. A more robust Chinese economy would trade more and consume more natural resources. Increased export volumes and higher commodity prices would boost EM exports and commodity prices, helping to support exchange rates. Unfortunately for Asian and Latin American EMs, the jury is still out as to whether or not the Chinese cavalry will ride to the rescue. Our China strategists have observed that a sizable stimulus injection would run counter to policy makers' commitment to reining in shadow banking excesses and cooling off the property market. If the trade war with the U.S. really starts to bite, however, reform may become a lesser priority. The powers that be have been circumspect with stimulus so far (Chart 5), weakening the currency to defend exports (Chart 6) rather than attempting to boost domestic activity via government spending. We will keep a close eye on Chinese policy developments as they unfold. Chart 5Instead Of Helping The EM Bloc With Reflation,... Chart 6...China Has Been Exporting Deflation Bottom Line: Chinese stimulus could help cushion the blow from a stronger dollar, but policy makers have yet to show their hand. Stay tuned. The View From Main Street Despite the global challenges, the July NFIB survey underlined the point that the U.S. economy is flying high. The headline Optimism Index is a single tick below its all-time high (Chart 7, top panel), the Hiring Plans (Chart 7, second panel) and Job Openings components (Chart 7, third panel) are at or near all-time highs, and the Good Time to Expand component is just off the high it set in May (Chart 7, bottom panel). All in all, the view from Main Street is the best it's ever been over the survey's 44-year history. All of the readings in Chart 7 are so good (two-plus standard deviations above the mean), that there is little scope for improvement. Mean reversion may well begin to assert itself, but it is likely to be a slow process. Overall optimism peaks well ahead of downturns, and tends to take its time deteriorating. It lends support to the message from our recession indicator2 that the expansion has at least another year to run. All good things come to an end, however, and the downside to the gangbusters survey results is that they foreshadow the expansion's eventual demise. Respondents' reports of price changes and future intentions to raise them correlate closely with PCE inflation (Chart 8). Record strength in job openings and hiring intentions indicates the labor market is tight enough to squeak, suggesting that firms will soon have to bid up wages to attract new employees. Taken together, the inflation-related measures imply that the Fed will not be able to let up, supporting the house view that the fed funds rate will surprise to the upside. Chart 7A Roaring Economy... Chart 8...Carries The Seeds Of Its Own Demise Bottom Line: The end of the expansion is not at hand, but its strength will eventually compel the Fed to step in to cut it off. Investment Implications Fiscal stimulus and monetary policy still support the expansion and the bull markets in equities and corporate debt, but they will not do so indefinitely. Stimulus is not sustainable from a budgetary standpoint, and gathering inflationary pressures will eventually inspire the Fed to wield its policy tools to bring the curtain down on the business cycle. The shift to restrictive policy will mark an inflection point in risk-asset performance, and investors should pursue more defensive portfolio positioning when it arrives. Although the cyclical inflection point is not yet upon us, the uncertain outcome of trade tensions and emerging market vulnerabilities merit dialing back portfolio risk in the near term. In line with the BCA house view, we recommend overweighting cash and underweighting bonds, while maintaining benchmark positioning in equities. Treasuries will likely outperform if the EM rumblings turn into something more serious, but we would view any decline in yields as a temporary respite from a Treasury bear market that has already been in place for two years. Depending on when, or if, the current global pressures abate, the equity bull market may still have some juice, and we are keeping an open mind about moving stocks back to overweight for the final push. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the August 17, 2018 Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers," available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the August 13, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Dear client, Our publishing schedule will be shifting over the next two weeks. Next Friday, we will publish a Special Report aggregating various pieces from our colleague Matt Gertken of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy detailing the reforms taking place in China and their past and future evolution, and the economic and investment implications for China and the rest of the world. Matt argues that Chinese reforms are in place and here to stay, which should deepen the malaise in EM and support the dollar. We will not publish any report on August 31st. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on September 7. I hope you enjoy the rest of your summer. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights The 1997 Asian Crisis was a deflationary event, causing commodity prices, commodity currencies and the yen to fall against the dollar, but it had a limited impact on the euro. When Russia collapsed in 1998, the LTCM crisis hit the U.S. banking system, with fears of solvency dragging Treasury yields lower, hurting the dollar against the yen and the euro. Today is not 1997, but the tightness of the U.S. economy suggests the Federal Reserve will need a large shock before abandoning its current pace of a hike per quarter; additionally, global liquidity conditions are tightening and China is slowing. The EM crisis is therefore not over, and vulnerable Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia and South Africa could still experience significant pain. Unlike in 1998, the hot potato is not hiding in the U.S. but in Europe. A contagion event is therefore more likely to hurt the euro than 20 years ago; meanwhile, the yen stands to benefit. DXY could hit 100, and commodity currencies still have ample downside, the AUD in particular. Continue to monitor our China Play Index to gauge if Chinese stimulus could delay the day of reckoning for EM; this index can also be employed as a hedge for investors long the dollar or short EM plays. Feature "Misfortune tests the sincerity of friends." - Aesop This summer is oddly reminiscent of that of 1997. The Federal Reserve is tightening policy because the U.S. economy is not only at full employment but is also growing strongly and generating increasing domestic inflationary pressures. But the most familiar echoes come from outside the U.S. Specifically, emerging market trepidations are once again front page news as the Turkish lira, which had already fallen by 24% between January 2018 and July 31st, dropped by an additional 28% at its worst in a mere two weeks. Consequently, investors are now fretting about the risks of contagion across EM markets, one that could reverberate among G10 economies as well. We too worry that the echoes of 1997 are becoming increasingly louder. EM economies have built up large stocks of debt, and have financed themselves heavily by tapping foreign investors. However, these investors can be rather fickle friends, and we are set to test their sincerity. In this piece, we review how the events of 1997-'98 unfolded, what it meant for G10 currencies, and whether the same lessons can be applied today. We find that in 2018, an EM crisis could ultimately be more supportive for the dollar versus the euro, as unlike in 1998, where the hot potatoes were held by U.S. hedge funds, this time the mess sits squarely in Europe. Tom Yum Goong Goes Viral Initiated in the second half of the 1980s, the peg of the Thai baht seemed like a very successful experiment. The stability created by this institutional setup not only contributed to keeping Thai inflation at manageable levels, but by incentivizing capital inflows in the country it also helped Thailand build up its capital stock. At the time, this yielded a large growth dividend, with real GDP growth averaging 9% from 1985 to 1996. However, the economic boost generated by this cheap financing had a dark side. The Thai current account balance ballooned to a deficit of 8% of GDP in 1995-'96. As Herb Stein famously expressed, if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. Like in Aesop's fable where one of two travelers climbed up a tree to avoid a bear, leaving his friend to fend off the bear on his own, foreign investors abandoned Thailand, which was left on its own to finance its large current account deficit. While the Bank of Thailand was able to fend off the attacks for a few weeks, on July 2nd, 1997, it abandoned its efforts. The THB was left to float freely and dropped 56% against the USD over the subsequent six months. Other EM countries including Malaysia, Brazil and Korea, to name a few, had implemented similar U.S. dollar pegs. They too enjoyed stable inflation, growing money inflows and improved growth, but also experienced growing current account deficits and foreign currency debt loads. It did not take long for investors to extrapolate Thailand's woes to other countries. The Malaysian ringgit and the Indonesian rupiah began falling soon after the THB, while the Korean won began its own steep descent four months later (Chart 1). The economic pain was felt globally. The collapse in EM Asian exchange rates and the deep recessions experienced in these countries caused their export prices to collapse, which created a global deflationary shock (Chart 2). This shock was compounded by a fall in commodity prices that materialized as market participants realized that demand for commodities from the crisis-stricken countries was set to evaporate (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 1How The Thai Crisis Morphed Into An Asian Crisis Chart 2The Asian Crisis Was A Deflationary Shock Not only did this deflationary shock lift the USD against EM currencies and commodity currencies, it also caused inflation breakevens in the U.S. to fall significantly (Chart 3). However, because the U.S. economy remained robust through the second half of 1997 and in the early days of 1998, real rates did not respond much (Chart 3, bottom panel). Markets where not very concerned that this shock would force the Fed to cut rates, as it did not seem to affect the outlook for U.S. growth and employment. However, this combination of stable real rates in the face of weaker growth in EM, as well as the collapse in commodity prices ended up having large second-round effects. Russia defaulted in August 1998, prompting a collapse in the ruble. To patch up its finances, Russia began pumping ever more oil out of the ground, causing oil prices to fall below US$10/bbl in December 1998, deepening the malaise in commodity prices. This caused the Brazilian real to collapse in 1999, and the Argentinian peso to follow in 2002 (Chart 4). Chart 31997: Falling Breakevens, Stable Real Yields Chart 4Asian Crisis Goes Global Among these contagions, the Russian default was the event with the greatest systemic impact. This was because it was a direct hit to the U.S. banking system. Long Term Capital Management, a large Connecticut-based hedge fund, had accumulated massive bets on Russia. The country's default plunged the fund into the abyss. However, LTCM had liabilities to banks to the tune of US$125 billion. The exposure was perceived as an existential threat to the banking sector, and the market began to anticipate a repeat of the 1907 panic.1 Junk bond spreads jumped, the S&P 500 fell by 18%, and U.S. government bond yields collapsed by 120 basis points (Chart 5). The Fed was forced to respond, coming out of hibernation and cutting rates by 75 basis points between September and November of 1998. As the Fed forcefully responded to this shock and 10-year Treasury yields fell, the dollar, which had managed to stay somewhat stable against the synthetic euro from July 1997 to August 1998, fell 11%. Within the same one-year window starting in July 1997, the yen dropped 23%, dragged lower by the competitive pressures created by weaker Asian currencies. However, as soon as U.S. bond yields collapsed, the yen began to surge, rising by 36% from August 1998 to January 1999 (Chart 6). Only once the Fed started increasing rates anew did the euro and the yen level off. Chart 5The Russian Default Was The Real Shock For The U.S. Chart 6The Dollar Buckled After LTCM In aggregate, the dollar's performance through the 1997-1998 period was very mixed. The trade-weighted dollar managed to rise from July 1997 to August 1998. Nevertheless, this was a complex picture. During this timeframe the dollar rose against EM currencies - against the CAD, the AUD, the NZD and the JPY - but was flat against the euro. The USD then fell against everything from August 1998 to the first half of 1999. Only once the Fed started hiking again in the summer 1999, was the greenback able to resuming its broad ascent, one that lasted all the way until late 2001. Bottom Line: In 1997, the first domino to fall was Thailand. Since many East Asian economies suffered the same ills - current account deficits, foreign currency debt loads and falling foreign exchange reserves - Asian currencies followed, dragging the yen lower in the process. This generated a deflationary shock that hurt commodity prices and commodity currencies, leading to the infamous Russian default of 1998. The associated LTCM bankruptcy threatened the survival of the U.S. banking system, forcing bond yields much lower as the Fed cut rates three times. The dollar suffered because of this policy move, especially against the yen. However, once the Fed resumed its hiking campaign, the dollar recovered across the board, making new highs all the way to late 2001 and early 2002. Is 2018: 1997, 1998, Or 2018? In one key regard, today is not the late 1990s: Dollar pegs are few and far between. However, in many respects, similarities abound. First and most obviously, EM foreign currency debt loads, as measured against exports, GDP or reserves, are at similar levels to those prevailing in the late 1990s (Chart 7). This means that EM economies suffer when the dollar rises, as it represents an increase in their cost of capital, and thus a tightening in financial conditions. Second, the Fed has been increasing interest rates. Most importantly, the Fed is growingly concerned that domestic inflationary pressures in the U.S. are intensifying, courtesy of strong growth - at least relative to potential; a high degree of capacity utilization, especially in the labor market (Chart 8); and, unique to today, the U.S. has received a large degree of unneeded fiscal stimulus. Chart 7EM Dollar Debt Is High EM Have More ##br##Foreign-Currency Debt Than In The 1990s Chart 8The Foreign Pain Threshold For The Fed Is Much Higher ##br##Now Than In 2015 or 2016 This means it will take a lot of pain to derail the Fed from its desire to hike rates once a quarter. This also makes the current environment very different from 2015, the most recent episode of EM tumult. In 2015-2016, the Fed easily abandoned its hiking campaign. When it hiked rates in December 2015, the Fed anticipated increasing rates four times over the following 12 months. It delivered only one hike in December 2016. The reason was straightforward: Unlike today, the U.S. economy was still replete with slack (Chart 8) and was not on the receiving end of a large fiscal stimulus program, suggesting the Fed could not tolerate the deflationary impact of tightening financial conditions. Third, global liquidity is tightening, which is hurting the global growth outlook. Today, global excess money, as defined by the growth of broad money supply above that of loan growth in the U.S., the euro area and Japan, is contracting. Today, as in 1997, this indicator forebodes important weaknesses in global industrial production (Chart 9). U.S. liquidity is particularly important. Not only is dollar-based liquidity crucial to financing the large stock of dollar-denominated foreign debt, but the U.S. is also driving the fall in global excess money. The pick-up in U.S. economic activity is sucking liquidity from both the rest world and from the financial system to finance U.S. loan growth (Chart 10). This phenomenon was also at play in 1997. Chart 9Excess Money Is Contracting Global Excess ##br##Money Contracting, Just Like In Early 1997 Chart 10The U.S. Economy Is ##br##Sucking In Liquidity Why does this matter? Simply put, U.S. financial liquidity; built as a composite of 3-month T-bills, total bank deposits minus bank loans, bank investments, and M2 money supply; is a wonderful leading indicator. The current collapse in financial liquidity suggests that the global economy is about to hit a rough patch. As Chart 11 illustrates, the weakness of this indicator points to declines in our Global Leading Economic Indicators and in global commodity prices. This suggests the indicator is foretelling that a deflationary scare could materialize, an event normally also associated with a stronger dollar and downside in EM export prices (Chart 12). In a logically consistent fashion, the liquidity indicator is also warning that the AUD, CAD and NZD have substantial downside, while EM equity prices could also suffer more (Chart 13). Finally, it also highlights that even the U.S. stock market may not be immune to upcoming troubles (Chart 14). Chart 11U.S. Financial Liquidity Points To Weaker Growth... Chart 12...And A Stronger Dollar But Weaker EM Export Prices... Chart 13...Falling EM Stocks And Commodity Currencies... Chart 14...And Maybe Even A Correction In U.S. Stock Prices Fourth, gold is sending a similar signal as in the late 1990. As we have argued in the past, gold is a very good gauge of global liquidity conditions. During the Asian Crisis and the Russia/LTCM fiasco, industrial commodity prices only experienced a serious decline after the Thai baht had dragged down Asia into a tailspin. However, gold had been falling since 1996, a move predating the fall in Asian currencies (Chart 15). The precious metal was confirming that global liquidity was tightening and being sucked back into the booming U.S. economy. Today, gold prices are sending an ominous signal. After forming a large tapering wedge from 2011 to 2018, gold prices have broken down below the major upward-sloping trend line that had defined the bull market that began in 2001 (Chart 16). This indicates that gold may be starting another leg of a major bear market. Moreover, as the bottom panel of Chart 16 illustrates, it is true that net speculative positions in the yellow metal have plunged, but they remain far above the large net short positions that prevailed in the late 1990s. If gold is indeed entering another major down leg, this would confirm that tightening liquidity will further hurt EM asset prices, commodity prices and non-U.S. economic activity. Chart 15As Early As 1996, Gold Warned Of Upcoming Problems In Asia Chart 16Is A Secular Bear Market In Gold Beginning? Finally, adding insult to injury is China. The current communist party leadership is hell-bent on reforming the Chinese economy, moving it away from its dependence on capex and leverage. Consequently, China is in the midst of a major deleveraging campaign concentrated in the shadow banking sector, which has already caused money growth and total social financing to plumb to new lows (Chart 17). This is deflationary for the global economy as weaker Chinese credit weighs on capex, which in turns weighs on Chinese imports, as 69% of China's intake from the rest of the world are commodities and intermediate as well as industrial goods. Chart 17Chinese Monetary And Credit Conditions Remain ##br##Tight China Deleveraging Is Biting Chart 18No Capitulation ##br##Yet Moreover, the recent wave of renminbi weakness is exacerbating these deflationary pressures. The 9% fall in the yuan versus the dollar since April 11th represents a competitive devaluation that will hurt many EM countries. It also implies downside in China's import volumes, as it increases the prices paid by Chinese economic agents for foreign-sourced industrial goods and commodities.2 All these forces suggest that the pain that started in Argentina and Turkey could continue to spread across other vulnerable EM economies. It is doubtful that economies with large debt loads, large upcoming debt rollovers and other underlying economic problems will find it easy to receive financing in an environment of declining global liquidity, a strong dollar, budding deflationary pressures and a slowing China. Making this worry even more real, EM investors have not capitulated, as bottom-fishing has prompted massive inflows into Turkey in recent days (Chart 18). 2018 may not be 1997 or 1998, but it is likely to be a year to remember. Bottom Line: EM currency pegs to the dollar may not be as prevalent as they were back in the 1990s, but enough risks are present that contagion from Argentina and Turkey to other EM economies is a very real risk. Specifically, the domestic economic situation in the U.S. warrants higher interest rates, which suggests the Fed is unlikely to be fazed by EM market routs unless they become deep enough to present a threat to U.S. growth itself. Moreover, global liquidity conditions are tightening as the U.S.'s economic strength is sucking in capital from around the world. This combination means that EM countries with large dollar debt loads are likely to find debt refinancing a very onerous exercise. Finally, China is slowing and letting the RMB fall, which is exerting a deflationary impact on the world. Investment implications An environment of slower global economic activity, tightening global liquidity conditions and a potential deflationary scare is positive for the dollar. But 1998 shows that if the hot potato hides in the U.S. and the Fed is forced to ease aggressively, the dollar could nonetheless suffer. In order to get a sense as to whether the dollar can continue to strengthen or not, it is important to get a sense of where the exposure to an EM accident may lie. To begin this exercise, we need to first assess which EM countries are most vulnerable to catching the "Turkish Flu." To do so, we collaborated with our colleague Peter Berezin and his team at BCA's Global Investment Strategy to build a heat map of vulnerable EM economies. This heat map is based on the following factors: current account balance, net international investment position, external debt, external debt service obligation, external funding requirements, private sector savings/investment balance, private sector debt, government budget balance, government debt, foreign ownership of local currency bonds, and inflation. This method shows that after Turkey and Argentina, the next six most vulnerable countries are Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, South Africa, and Indonesia in this order (Chart 19). Chart 19Vulnerability Heat Map For Key EM Markets While our long-term valuation models show that the Colombian peso is already trading at a significant discount to its fair value, the BRL, the CLP, the ZAR, and the MXN are not (Chart 20). This highlights that these markets could provide serious fireworks in the coming months. Moreover, they all have their own idiosyncrasies that accentuate these risks. Brazil will soon undergo elections that will likely not result in a market-friendly outcome.3 Chile has an extremely large dollar-debt load, copper prices are tanking and the CLP is very pricey. Finally, South Africa is contemplating the kind of land expropriations reminiscent of those that plunged Zimbabwe into chaos - not a good optic for a still-expensive currency. So, who is most exposed to this potential mess? The answer is the euro area, most specifically, Spain. As Chart 21 shows, the exposure of Spanish banks to the most vulnerable EM markets totals nearly 170% of the banking system's capital and reserves. This means that 30% of the capital and reserves of the banking systems in the euro area's five largest economies is exposed to these markets. Making the risk even more acute, French banks have large exposure to Spain, and German banks to France. This combined exposure dwarfs the exposure of the U.K., Japan or the U.S. to the most vulnerable EM economies. To be fair to Spain, Spanish banks often have set up their foreign affiliates as separate legal entities. This means that the impact on the balance sheets of the Spanish banking system of defaults in vulnerable EM countries may be more limited than seems at face value. Yet, this is far from certain. Chart 20BRL, CLP, ZAR, And MXN Are Too Expensive##br## In Light Of Their Vulnerabilities Chart 21Who Has More Exposure To EM? As a result, we would not be surprised if the European Central Bank is forced by an EM accident to back away from its desire to abandon its extraordinary accommodative stance. The ECB would first use forward guidance to message that a hike will be delayed ever further in the future. The ECB may even be forced to resume government and corporate bonds purchases past 2018. This is a potential nightmare scenario for the euro. In fact, as Chart 22 illustrates, a euro at parity may not be a far stretch. Historically, the euro bottoms when it trades 10% below our fair value model, based on real short rate differentials, relative yield curve slopes and the ratio of copper to lumber prices. Such a discount would correspond to EUR/USD at parity. Because under such circumstances the Fed could be forced to pause its own hiking cycle for a quarter or two, a move to EUR/USD between 1.10 and 1.05 seems more likely than a collapse to parity right now. This also means that in conjunction with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team, we recommend our clients close overweight positions in Spanish assets. Chart 22The Euro Still Has Downside If EM Go Bust What about the yen? In the late 1990s, the yen fell against the U.S. dollar as Asian currencies were collapsing, but surged once the Fed backtracked and bond yields tanked in 1998. This time could follow a different road map. Japan does not compete against Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and South Africa in the same way as it was competing against industrial companies in countries like Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea. This means that Japan is unlikely to need to competitively devalue to remain afloat if the BRL, COP, MXN, CLP and ZAR collapse further. However, since an EM shock is likely to prove to be a deflationary event, this means that bond yields could experience downside, especially as positioning in the U.S. bond market is massively crowded to the short side (Chart 23). A countertrend bull market in bonds would greatly flatter the yen. As a result, we are maintaining our short EUR/JPY bias over the coming months. The G10 commodity currency complex is also at risk. Not only does tightening dollar liquidity imply further weakness in this group of currencies, so does slowing EM activity and a deflationary scare. Additionally, the CAD and the NZD are not trading at much of a discount to their fair value, and the AUD trades at a premium (Chart 24). This means we would anticipate these currencies to suffer more in the coming quarters, led by the AUD, which is not only the most expensive of the group, but also the most geared to EM economic activity. Being short AUD/CAD still makes sense. Chart 23A Bond Rally Would ##br##Support The Yen Chart 24TDollar-Bloc Currencies Offer Limited Cushion##br## In The Event of An EM Selloff Finally, the pound is its own animal. GBP/USD is now quite cheap, but the U.K.'s large current account deficit of 3.9% of GDP, which is not funded through FDIs anymore, means that Great Britain remains vulnerable to tightening global liquidity conditions. Moreover, Brexit negotiations will heat up in the fall, as the March 2019 deadline for reaching a deal with the EU looms large. This means that political tumult in the U.K. will remain a large source of risk for the pound. We will explore the outlook for the pound in an upcoming report this September. Currently, our long DXY trade is posting an 8.5% profit, with a target at 98. The above picture suggests that the dollar could move well past 98, especially as the momentum factor that is so important to the greenback still plays in favor of the USD.4 As a result, we are upgrading our target on the dollar to 100. However, we are also tightening our stop loss to 94.88. We will update our stop loss to 97 if the DXY hits 98 in the coming weeks, in order to protect gains while still being exposed to the dollar's potential upside. Bottom Line: Beyond Turkey and Argentina, the EMs most vulnerable to tightening global liquidity conditions are Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and South Africa. Spanish banks have outsized exposure to these markets, which means the euro area is at risk if the "Turkish Flu" becomes contagious. As such, the ECB could be forced to remain easier than it wants to. The euro is still at risk. The yen could strengthen if global bond yields suffer. Hence, it still makes sense to be short EUR/JPY. While the CAD, AUD and NZD are also all vulnerable to a deflationary scare, the Aussie is the worst positioned of the three. Shorting AUD/CAD still makes sense. The DXY is likely to experience significant upside from here, with a move to 100 becoming an increasingly probable scenario. Risks To Our View Chart 25A Gauge And A Hedge Against Chinese Stimulus The biggest risk to our view is China. In 2016, a vicious EM selloff was staunched by a large wave of stimulus that put a floor under Chinese economic activity, and caused China to re-lever. The impact was felt around the world, lifting commodity prices and EM assets while plunging the dollar into a vicious selloff in 2017. It is conceivable that such an outcome materializes anew, especially as China is, in fact, injecting stimulus into its economy. However, as we wrote two weeks ago, the current stimulus still pales in comparison to what took place in 2015. Moreover, reforms and deleveraging have much greater primacy now than they did back then.5 BCA believes that the current wave of stimulus is not designed to cause growth to surge again, as was the case in 2015, but is instead aimed at limiting the negative impact of the ongoing trade war with the U.S. Yet, we cannot be dogmatic. Not only is it hard to gauge the actual degree of stimulus currently applied to the Chinese economy, there is a heightened risk that the flow of policy announcements causes a shift in the dominant narrative among market participants. Such a shift in attitudes could easily cause a mass buying of EM assets and commodities, delaying the day of reckoning for vulnerable EM. As a result, we continue to promulgate that investors track the behavior of our China Play Index, introduced two weeks ago (Chart 25).6 Not only does this index provide a live read on how traders are pricing in Chinese developments, but it also provides a great hedge for investors long the dollar, short EM, or short the commodity complex. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 In the panic of 1907, the Knickerbocker Trust Company went bankrupt, threatening the health of the U.S. banking system. The stock market crashed, money markets went into paralysis, and a consortium of bankers led by J.P. Morgan himself ended up acting as a lender of last resort, staunching the crisis. As a consequence of this panic, the Federal Reserve System was born in 1913. 2 For a more detailed discussion of the deflationary risk created by the RMB, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World", dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: Faceoff Time", dated July 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets", dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus", dated August 3, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 6 Ibid. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights President Trump has little to do with the ongoing EM selloff; The macro backdrop is the real culprit behind Turkey's woes, particularly the strong dollar... ... Which is a product of global policy divergence, with the U.S. stimulating while China pursues growth-constraining reforms; Chinese stimulus is important to watch, as it could change the game, but we do not expect China to save EM as it did in 2015; Turkey's troubles are a product of its late-stage populist cycle and will not end with Trump's magnanimity; The positive spin on the EM bloodbath is that it may force the Fed to slow its rate hikes, prolonging the business cycle. Feature Chart 1EM: Bloodbath Markets are selling off in Turkey and the wider EM economies (Chart 1), with the financial media focusing on the actions taken by the U.S. President Donald Trump in the escalating diplomatic spat between the two countries. Investors should be very clear what it means to ascribe the ongoing selloff to President Trump's aggressive posture with Ankara in particular and trade in general. If President Trump started EM's troubles with his tweets, he can then end them with another late-night missive. This is not our view. Turkey is enveloped in a deep morass of populism and weak fundamentals since at least 2013. What is worse, the ongoing selloff is likely going to ensnare at least the other fragile EM economies and potentially take down EM as an asset class. In this Report, we recount the pernicious macro backdrop - both geopolitical and economic - that EM economies face today. We then focus on Turkey itself and show that President Trump has little to do with the current selloff. The Bloodbath Is Afoot, Again Every financial bubble, and every financial bust, begins with a compelling story grounded in solid fundamentals. The now by-gone EM "Goldilocks Era" (2001-2011) was primarily driven by exogenous factors: a generational debt-fueled consumption binge in DM; an investment-fueled double-digit growth rate in China that kicked off a structural commodity bull market; and the unleashing of pent-up EM consumption/credit demand (Chart 2).1 These EM tailwinds petered out by 2011. Subsequently, China and EM economies entered a major downtrend that culminated in a massive commodity rout that began in 2014. But before the bloodbath could motivate policymakers to initiate painful structural reforms, Chinese policymakers stimulated in earnest. In the second half of 2015, Beijing became unnerved and injected enormous amount of credit and fiscal stimulus into the mainland economy (Chart 3). The intervention, however, did not change the pernicious fundamentals driving EM economies but merely caused "a mid-cycle recovery, or hiatus, in an unfinished downtrend," as our EM strategists have recently pointed out (Chart 4).2 Chart 2Goldilocks Era##BR##Is Over For EM Chart 3Is China About To Cause Another##BR##EM Mid-Cycle Recovery? Take Brazil, for example. Instead of using the 2014-2015 generational downturn to double-down on painful fiscal and pension reforms, the country's politicians declared President Dilma Rousseff to be the root-cause of all evil that befell the nation, impeached her in April 2016, and then proceeded to unceremoniously punt all painful reforms until after this year's election (if ever). They were enabled to do so by the "mid-cycle recovery" spurred by Chinese stimulus. In other words, Brazil's policymakers did nothing to actually deserve the recovery in asset prices but got one anyway. The country now will experience "faceoff time" with the markets, with no public support for painful reforms (Chart 5) and hardly an orthodox candidate in sight ahead of the October general election.3 Chart 4Where Are China/EM In The Cycle? Chart 5Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Could Brazilian and Turkish policymakers be in luck, as Chinese policymakers have blinked again?4 Our assessment is that the coming stimulus will not be as stimulative as in 2015. First, President Xi's monetary and fiscal policy, since coming into office in 2012, has been biased towards tightening (Chart 6). Second, Chinese leverage has plateaued (Chart 7). In fact, "debt servicing" is now the third-fastest category of fiscal spending growth since Xi came to power (Table 1). Third, the July 31 Politburo statement pledged to make fiscal policy "more proactive" and "supportive," but also reaffirmed the commitment to continue the campaign against systemic risk. Chart 6Xi Jinping Caps##BR##Government Spending And Credit Chart 7The Rise And Plateau##BR##Of Macro Leverage Whether China's mid-year stimulus will be globally stimulative is now the question for global investors. The key data to watch out of China will be August credit numbers, to be released September 9th through 15th. Is President Trump not to be blamed at all for the EM selloff? What about the trade war against China? If anything, tariffs against China have caused Beijing to "blink" and implement some stimulative measures this summer. If one must find fault in U.S. policy, it is the double dose of fiscal stimulus that has endangered EM economies. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the idea that global policy divergence would replace the global growth convergence.5 Populist economic stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China would imperil growth in the latter and accelerate it in the former, forming a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). Table 1Total Government Spending Preferences (Under Leader's General Control) Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD As such, the White House is partly responsible for the EM selloff, but not in any way that can be changed with a tweet or a handshake. Furthermore, we do not see the upcoming U.S. midterm election as somehow capable of altering the global growth dynamics.6 It is highly unlikely that Democrats will seek to spend less, and they cannot raise taxes under Trump. Bottom Line: EM economies have never adjusted to the end of their Goldilocks era. A surge in global liquidity pushed investors further down the risk-curve, propping up EM assets despite poor macro fundamentals. China's massive 2015-2016 stimulus arrested the bear market, giving investors a perception that EM economies had recovered. This mid-cycle hiatus, however, has now been overtaken by the global policy divergence between Washington and Beijing, which is bullish USD. President Trump's trade tariffs and aggressive pressure on Turkey do not help. However, they are merely the catalyst, not the cause, of the selloff. As such, investors should not "buy" EM on a resolution of China-U.S. trade tensions or of the Washington-Ankara diplomatic dispute. Contagion Risk BCA's Emerging Market Strategy is clear: in all episodes of a major EM selloff, the de-coupling between different regions proved to be unsustainable, and the markets that showed initial resilience eventually re-coupled to the downside (Chart 9).7 One reason to expect contagion risk among all EM markets is that the primary export market for China and other East Asian exporters are other EM economies, particularly the commodity producers (Chart 10). As such, it is highly unlikely that East Asian EM economies will be able to avoid a downturn. In fact, leading indicators of exports and manufacturing, such as Korea's manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratio and Taiwan's semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratio herald further deceleration in their respective export sectors (Chart 11). Chart 9Asian And Latin American Equities:##BR##Unsustainable Divergences Chart 10EM Trades##BR##With EM Chart 11Asia Export##BR##Slowdown Is Afoot In respect of foreign funding requirements of EM economies, our EM strategists have pointed out that there is a substantive amount of foreign currency debt coming due in 2018 (Table 2), with majority EM economies facing much higher foreign debt burdens than in 1996 (Table 3).8 Investors should not, however, rely merely on debt as percent of GDP ratios for their vulnerability assessment. For example, Malaysia's private sector FX debt load stands at 63.7% of GDP, the second highest level after Turkey. But relative to total exports (a source of revenue for its indebted corporates) and FX reserves (which the central bank can use to plug the gap in the balance of payments), Malaysia actually scores fairly well. Table 2EM: Short-Term (Due In 2018) FX Debt Table 3EM Private Sector FX Debt: 1996 Versus Today Chart 12 shows the most vulnerable EM economies in terms of foreign currency private sector debt exposure relative to FX reserves and total exports. Unsurprisingly, Turkey stands as the most vulnerable economy, along with Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Colombia. Chart 12BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Has Already Pinned Turkey As The Most Vulnerable EM Economy Will the EM selloff eventually ensnare DM economies as well, particularly the U.S.? We think yes. The drawdown in EM will bid up safe-haven assets like the U.S. dollar. The dollar can be thought of as America's second central bank, along with the Fed. If both the greenback and the Fed are tightening monetary conditions, eventually the U.S. economy will feel the burn. As such, it is dangerous to dismiss the ongoing crisis in Turkey as a merely localized problem that could, at its worst, spread to other EM economies. In 1997, Thailand played a similar role to that of Turkey. The Fed tightened rates in early 1997 and largely remained aloof of the developing East Asia crisis that eventually spread to Brazil and Russia, ignoring the tumult abroad until September 1998 when it finally cut rates three times. Fed policy easing at the end of 1998 ushered in the stock market overshoot and dot-com bubble, whose burst caused the end of the economic cycle. The same playbook may be occurring today. The Fed, motivated by the strong U.S. economy and fears of being too close to the zero-bound ahead of the next recession, is proceeding apace with its tightening cycle. It is likely to ignore troubles in the rest of the world until the USD overshoots or U.S. equities are impacted directly. At that point, perhaps later this year or early next year, the Fed will back off from tightening, ushering the one last overshoot phase ahead of the recession in 2020 - or beyond. Bottom Line: Research by BCA's EM strategists shows that EM contagion is almost never contained in just a few vulnerable economies. For investors who have to remain invested in EM economies, we would recommend that they go long Chinese equities relative to EM, given that Beijing policymakers are stimulating the economy to ensure that Chinese growth is stabilized. While this will be positive for China, it is likely to fall short of the 2015 stimulus that also stimulated non-China EM. An alternative play is to go long energy producers vs. the rest of EM - given our fundamentally bullish oil view combined with rising geopolitical risks regarding sanctions against Iran.9 We eventually expect EM risks to spur an appreciation in the USD that the Fed has to lean against by either pausing its tightening cycle, or eventually reversing it as it did in the 1997-1998 scenario. This decision will usher in the final blow-off stage in U.S. equities that investors will not want to miss. What About Turkey? Chart 13Turkey: Volatile Politics, Volatile Stocks In 2013, we called Turkey a "canary in the EM coal mine" arguing that its historically volatile financial markets would mean-revert as domestic politics became turbulent (Chart 13).10 Turkey is a deeply divided society equally split between the secularist cities, which are primarily located on the Mediterranean (Istanbul, Izmir, Bursa, Adana, etc.), and the religiously conservative Anatolian interior. This split dates back to the founding of the modern Turkish Republic in the post-World War I era (and in truth, even before that). The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), a religiously conservative but initially pro-free-market party, managed to appeal to the conservative Anatolia while neutering the most powerful secularist institution in Turkey, its military. Investors hailed AKP's dominance because it reduced political volatility and initially promised both pro-market policies and even accession to the EU. However, the AKP has struggled to win more than 50% of the popular vote in a slew of elections and referendums since coming to power (Chart 14), a fact that belies its supposed iron-grip hold on Turkish politics since it came to power in 2002. The vulnerability behind AKP's hold on office has largely motivated President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's attempt to consolidate political power. While we disagree with the consensus view that Erdogan's constitutional changes have turned Turkey into a dictatorship, some of his actions do suggest a deep fear of losing power.11 Populist leadership is characterized by a strategy of "giving people what they want" so that the policymakers in charge remain in office. Erdogan's perpetually slim hold on power has motivated several populist policy decisions that have stretched Turkey's macro fundamentals. First, Turkey's central bank has essentially been conducting quantitative easing since 2013 via net liquidity injections into the banking system (Chart 15). Notably, these injections began at the same time as the May 2013 Gezi Park protests, which saw a huge outpouring of anti-government sentiment across Turkey's large cities. Essentially, politics has been motivating Ankara's monetary policy over the past five years. Chart 14AKP's Stranglehold On Power Is Overstated Chart 15Turkey's Populist Policies Began##BR##With Gezi Park Protests Second, Turkey's current account balance has suffered under the weight of rising energy costs, with no attempt to improve the fiscal balance (Chart 16). The government has done little in terms of structural reforms or fiscal austerity, instead President Erdogan has continued to challenge central bank independence on interest rates, despite a clear sign that the country is experiencing a genuine inflationary breakout (Chart 17). Chart 16Populism Means No Austerity Is In Sight Chart 17Genuine Inflation Breakout Overall, Turkey is a classic example of how populism in a highly divided and polarized country can get out of control. Foreign investors have long assumed that Erdogan's populism was benign, if not even positive, given the presumably ample political capital at the president's disposal. However, with every election or referendum, the government did not double-down on pro-market structural reforms. Instead, the pressure on the central bank only increased while Turkey's expensive and extravagant geopolitical adventures in neighboring Syria accelerated. In this pernicious macro context, it has not taken much to knock Turkey's assets off balance. President Trump's threats to expand sanctions to Turkish trade are largely irrelevant, given that the vast majority of Turkey's exports and FDI sources are non-American (Chart 18). However, given past behavior - such as after the shadowy Gülen "plot" to take over power or the 2016 coup d'état - markets are by now conditioned to expect that Turkish policymakers will double-down on populist policies in the face of renewed pressure. Chart 18Turkey-U.S. Relationship Is Not Economic What of Turkey's membership in NATO? Should investors fear broader geopolitical instability due to the domestic crisis? No. Ankara has used its membership in NATO, and particularly the U.S. reliance on its Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, as levers in previous negotiations and diplomatic spats with Europe and the U.S. If Ankara were to renege on its commitments to the Western military alliance, it would likely face a united front from Europe and the U.S. As such, we would expect Turkey neither to threaten exit from NATO, which it has not done in the past, nor even to threaten U.S. operations in Incirlik, which Erdogan's government has threatened before. The most likely outcome of the ongoing diplomatic spat, in fact, would be to see Ankara give in to U.S. demands, given the accelerating financial and economic crisis. Such an outcome, however, will not arrest the downturn. Turkey's economy and assets are fundamentally under pressure due to the realization by investors that this year's main macro theme is not the resynchronized global growth recovery, but rather the global policy divergence between the U.S. and China, which has appreciated the U.S. dollar. No amount of kowtowing by Ankara will change this macro trend. Bottom Line: The list of Turkish policy sins is long. Erdogan's reign has been characterized by deep polarization and populism, leading to suboptimal policy choices since at least 2013. The latest U.S.-Turkey spat is therefore merely one of many problems plaguing the country. As such, its resolution will not be a buying opportunity for investors. Investment Implications Our main investment theme in 2018 was that the global policy divergence between the U.S. and China - emblematized by fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China - would end the global growth resynchronization. As the U.S. economy outperformed the rest of the world, the U.S. greenback would appreciate, imperiling EM economies. The best cognitive roadmap for today is the late 1990s, when the U.S. economy continued to grow apace as the rest of the world suffered from an EM crisis. The problems eventually washed onto American shores in the form of a stronger dollar, forcing the Fed to back off from tightening in mid-1998. Policy easing then led to the overshoot phase in U.S. equities in 1999. Investors should prepare for a similar roadmap by being long DXY relative to EM currencies, long DM equities (particularly U.S.) relative to EM equities, and tactically cautious on all global risk assets. Strategically, however, it makes sense to remain overweight equities as a Fed capitulation would be a boon for risk assets. If the current selloff in EM gets worse, we would expect that the Fed would again back off from tightening as it did in 1998, ushering in a blow-off stage in equities ahead of the next recession. Once the dollar peaks and EM assets bottom, U.S. equities will become the laggard, with global cyclicals outperforming. A secondary conclusion is that President Trump's trade rhetoric in general, and aggressive policies towards Turkey in particular, are merely a catalyst for the selloff. As such, if President Trump changes his mind, we would fade any rally in EM assets. The fundamental policy decisions that have led to the greenback rally have already been taken in 2017 and early 2018. The profligate tax cuts and the two-year stimulative appropriations bill, combined with Chinese policymakers' focus on controlling financial leverage, are the seeds of the current EM imbroglio. Finally, a small bit of housekeeping. We are booking gains on our long Malaysian ringgit / short Turkish lira trade for a gain of 51.2% since May. We are also closing our speculative long Russian equities relative to EM trade for a loss of -0.9% as a result of the persistent headwind from U.S. sanctions. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Understanding The EM/China Cycles," dated July 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Special Report, "Brazil: Faceoff Time," dated July 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?" dated August 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, and Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "A Primer On EM External Debt," dated June 7, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Turkey: Canary In The EM Coal Mine?" in "The Coming Political Recapitalization Rally," dated June 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Turkey: Deceitful Stability," in "EM: The Beginning Of The End," dated April 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Dear Client, This is the first of a two-part Special Report dealing with the question of whether a significant pickup in global inflation may be lurking around the corner. In this week's report, we look back at the causes of the Great Inflation of the 1970s to see if they are still relevant today. While there are plenty of differences, there are also a number of important similarities. In a forthcoming report, we will challenge the often-heard arguments that globalization, automation, e-commerce, aging populations, excessive indebtedness, and the declining role of trade unions all limit the ability of inflation to rise. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The likelihood of a significant increase in inflation over the coming years is greater than the market believes. Just as in the 1960s, policymakers are coming around to the idea that there may be an exploitable trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment. Despite abundant evidence that inflation is a highly lagging indicator, the pressure to keep monetary policy accommodative until the "whites of inflation's eyes" are visible will remain strong. Political influence over the conduct of monetary policy is likely to increase, as already evidenced by Trump's tweets lambasting Jay Powell, suggestions that the Bank of Japan explicitly monetize government debt, Jeremy Corbyn's call for a "People's QE," and the ongoing need for the ECB to keep rates low in order to forestall a sovereign debt crisis in Italy. Feature Chart 1Back To Full Employment In The USA... The U.S. Labor Market Keeps Tightening The U.S. labor market continues to tighten. Nonfarm payrolls increased by 157,000 in July. While this was below consensus expectations of a 193,000 rise, much of the shortfall appears to have been due to a sharp drop in employment among sporting goods and hobby retailers, a category that includes the now-defunct Toys 'R' Us. Revisions to past months pushed up the three-month average payroll gain to 224,000, more than double the additional 100,000 jobs that are needed every month to keep up with population growth. The U-6 unemployment rate - a broad measure of joblessness that includes marginally-attached workers and part-time workers who desire full-time employment - fell by 0.3 percentage points to a fresh cycle low of 7.5%. There are currently more job openings than unemployed workers. A record 75% of labor market entrants have been able to find a job within one month. Business surveys show that companies are struggling to find qualified workers (Chart 1). Inflation: Dead Or Dormant? Despite the increasingly tight labor market, wage growth has been slow to accelerate (Chart 2). Wages of production and non-supervisory employees barely rose in July. The year-over-year change in the Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers edged up to 2.9% in the second quarter, but remains well below its pre-recession peak. The Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker has actually been trending lower since mid-2016. The core PCE deflator rose by 1.9% year-over-year in June, shy of expectations of a 2.0% increase. Most other measures of core inflation remain reasonably well contained (Chart 3). The failure of wage and price inflation to take off in the face of diminished spare capacity has led many observers to conclude that inflation is unlikely to move materially higher. Both market expectations and household surveys reflect this sentiment. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below their pre-Great Recession average (Chart 4). Long-term inflation expectations in the University of Michigan survey are near record lows. Breaking down the University of Michigan survey, one can see that most of the decline in inflation expectations in recent years has stemmed from a smaller share of respondents expecting very high inflation. Chart 2...But Wage Growth Has Been Slow To Accelerate Chart 3Core Inflation Measures Remain Contained Chart 4Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Subdued Fears of a 1970-style inflation episode continue to recede. But could most observers turn out to be wrong? Could a major bout of inflation be lurking around the corner? No one knows for sure, but we would attach a much larger probability to such an outcome than the market is currently assigning. On a risk-adjusted basis, this justifies a cautious view towards long-term bonds. Causes Of The Great Inflation To understand why we think a repeat of the 1970s is a greater risk than is generally accepted, it is useful to ask what caused inflation to spiral out of control during that decade. Much of the academic debate has focused on two competing explanations: call it the "bad luck" view versus the "bad ideas" view. We side with the latter. The "bad luck" view blames rising inflation on a series of unforeseen and unforeseeable shocks. These include the OPEC oil embargoes, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates, and the deceleration in productivity growth that occurred during the 1970s. One major problem with the "bad luck" view is timing. As Chart 5 shows, inflation in the U.S. began to spiral out of control starting in 1966, five years before Bretton Woods collapsed and seven years before the first oil shock. Inflation also initially accelerated during a period when productivity growth was still strong. Chart 5AInflation Started To Pick Up Before##br## 'Bad Luck' Hit The U.S. Economy Chart 5BInflation Started To Pick Up Before ##br##'Bad Luck' Hit The U.S. Economy Reverse Causality Chart 6Oil Lagged Other Commodities ##br##Between 1971 And 1973 Rather than causing inflation to rise, it is quite possible that all three of the shocks listed above were, to some extent, the result of higher inflation. This certainly seems the case for the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, whose existence helped provide a critical nominal anchor for the money supply and, by extension, the price level. At its core, the system functioned like a quasi-gold standard, with the price of U.S. dollars set at $35 per ounce and all other currencies being pegged to the dollar. Inflationary policies in the U.S. and many other countries in the late 1960s made gold cheap relative to regular goods and services, leading to a shortage of bullion. As the largest holder of gold, the U.S. found itself in a position where other countries were swapping their currencies into dollars and then redeeming those dollars for gold. In a desperate bid to stem gold outflows, the U.S. devalued the dollar, which forced foreigners to sacrifice more local currency to get the same amount of gold. When that was not enough, President Nixon ordered the closure of the gold window in August 1971 and imposed a temporary 10% surcharge on imports. The delinking of the price of gold from the dollar ignited a bull market in bullion that ultimately saw the price of the yellow metal reach $850 per ounce in January 1980. The prices of other metals jumped, as did food prices. Farmland entered a speculative bubble. OPEC was initially slow to react to the seismic changes sweeping the globe (Chart 6). The price of oil barely rose between 1971 and 1973, even as other commodity prices soared. The Yom Kippur war shook the cartel out of its slumber. Within the span of four months, the price of oil more than doubled, marking the first of a series of oil shocks. It is hard to know if OPEC would have reacted differently in an environment where the Bretton Woods system did not collapse and the value of the dollar did not tumble. However, it is certainly plausible that excessively easy monetary conditions in the years leading up to the 1973 oil shock created an environment in which the price of crude ended up rising more than it would have otherwise. The dislocations caused by runaway inflation in the 1970s probably had some role in the productivity slowdown during that decade. In general, the economic literature has found that high and volatile inflation has an adverse effect on productivity.1 The fact that policymakers reacted to rising inflation in the 1970s with price controls and trade restrictions only exacerbated the problem. Bad Ideas The temporary imposition of price and wage controls in 1971 was just one of a series of policy blunders that occurred during that era, starting with the failure to quell inflationary pressures in the late 1960s. Three bad ideas enabled inflation to get out of hand: First, policymakers mistakenly believed that high unemployment reflected inadequate demand rather than festering labor market rigidities. Second, they incorrectly assumed that there was a permanent trade-off between lower unemployment and higher inflation. Finally, and perhaps most damaging, they increasingly came to see monetary tightening as an ineffective tool in the fight against inflation. Let's examine each bad idea in turn. How Much Slack? Athanasios Orphanides and others have shown that policymakers in the U.S. and elsewhere systemically overestimated the magnitude of slack in their economies (Chart 7). This occurred mainly because they failed to recognize the upward shift in the natural rate of unemployment that took place during this period. Economists continue to debate the reasons why the natural rate of unemployment rose in the second half of the 1960s. Demographics probably played a role. Young people tend to switch jobs more often, and so the mass entry of baby boomers into the labor market probably pushed up frictional unemployment. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program also led to a massive increase in government entitlement spending (Chart 8). Not only did this supercharge demand, but it also arguably reduced the incentive to work by creating an increasingly elaborate welfare state. Chart 7The Tendency To Overestimate The Level Of Slack Chart 8Entitlement Spending Rose Rapidly In The 1960s Whatever the reasons, policymakers were slow to recognize that structural unemployment had risen. This led them to press down on the economic accelerator when they should have been stepping on the brake. Illusory Trade-Offs Once it became clear that rising demand was pushing up prices by more than it was boosting production, the Federal Reserve should have moved quickly to tighten monetary policy. While the Fed did begrudgingly hike rates in 1968-69, it backed off as the economy began to slow. By February 1970, inflation had reached 6.4%. One key reason why the Fed adopted such a lackadaisical attitude towards inflation is that it saw higher inflation as a small price to pay for keeping unemployment low. This conviction stemmed from the false belief that there was a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Not everyone shared this view. Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps argued that central banks could only stimulate the economy if they delivered more inflation than people were anticipating. Higher-than-expected inflation would push down real interest rates, leading to more spending. However, once people caught on to what was happening, the apparent trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment would evaporate: lenders would increase nominal borrowing rates and workers would demand higher wages. Inflation would rise, but output would not be any greater than before. History ultimately proved Friedman and Phelps correct, but by then the damage had been done. A Dereliction Of Duty Of all the mistakes that central banks made during that period, perhaps the most egregious was their contention that rising inflation had little to do with the way they conducted monetary policy. The June 8th 1971 FOMC minutes noted that Fed Chairman Arthur Burns believed that "monetary policy could do very little to arrest an inflation that rested so heavily on wage-cost pressures. In his judgment a much higher rate of unemployment produced by monetary policy would not moderate such pressures appreciably." 2 This sentiment was echoed by the Council of Economic Advisors, which argued in 1978 that "Recent experience has demonstrated that the inflation we have inherited from the past cannot be cured by policies that slow growth and keep unemployment high." 3 If central banks could not do much to reduce inflation, it stood to reason that the onus had to fall on politicians and their underlings. By shunning their obligation to maintain price stability, central banks opened the door to all sorts of political meddling. And meddle they did. In his exhaustive study of the Nixon tapes, Burton Abrams documented how Richard Nixon sought, and Burns obligingly delivered, an expansionary monetary policy and faster growth in the lead-up to the 1972 election.4 Relevance For The Present Day President Trump's complaints over Twitter about Chair Powell's inclination to keep raising rates is hardly on par with the politicization of monetary policy that occurred during Nixon's presidency. Nevertheless, we may be slowly moving down that slippery slope. And it's not just the Fed. Suggestions that the Bank of Japan explicitly monetize government debt, Jeremy Corbyn's call for a "People's QE," and the ongoing pressure that the ECB will face to keep rates low in order to forestall a sovereign debt crisis in Italy all foreshadow growing political influence over the conduct of monetary policy. History clearly shows that inflation tends to be higher in countries which lack independent central banks (Chart 9). What about the broader question of whether the sort of mistakes that many central banks made in the 1960s and 70s could resurface, perhaps in a different guise? Here is where things get tricky. Today, few economists would question the notion that central banks can reduce inflation if they raise rates by enough to slow growth meaningfully. The Volcker disinflation, as well as the more vigilant approach that the Bundesbank and the Swiss National Bank took towards tackling inflation in the 1970s, are testaments to that (Chart 10). Chart 9Inflation Is Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Chart 10The Great Inflation Around The World The problem is that most economists also recognize that central banks lack effective tools in bringing up inflation when confronted with the zero lower-bound on short-term interest rates. This has prompted many prominent economists to argue that central banks should raise their inflation targets above the current standard of two percent. The evidence is mixed about whether a higher inflation target of, say, three or four percent would unmoor inflation expectations by enough to generate an inflationary spiral. Our suspicion is probably not, but we would not dismiss the possibility altogether. Return Of The Paleo-Phillips Curve? Perhaps more relevant at the current juncture is that many influential economists once again see evidence for an exploitable trade-off between inflation and unemployment. One prominent advocate for this view is Paul Krugman. It is well worth quoting Krugman at length: "From the mid-1970s until just the other day, the overwhelming view in macroeconomics was that there is no long-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation, that any attempt to hold unemployment below some level determined by structural factors would lead to ever-accelerating inflation. But the data haven't supported that view for a while... Looking forward, the risks of being too loose versus too tight are hugely asymmetric: letting the economy slump again will impose big costs that are never made up, while running it hot won't store up any meaningful trouble for the future." 5 We have some sympathy for Krugman's position, as well as Larry Summers' view that policymakers should not raise rates until they see "the whites of inflation's eyes." Still, one cannot help but notice that these arguments bear some resemblance to the views that pervaded economic circles in the 1960s. Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. It typically does not peak until after a recession has begun and does not bottom until the recovery is well underway (Chart 11). The Federal Reserve has cut its estimate of the natural rate of unemployment from 5.6% in 2012 to 4.45% at present. It has also reduced its estimate of the appropriate long-term level of the nominal federal funds rate from 4.25% to 2.875% over this period (Chart 12). Perhaps these new NAIRU estimates will turn out to be correct; perhaps they won't. The IMF reckons that the U.S. economy is currently operating at 1.2% of GDP above potential. Chart 13 shows that the IMF has consistently overestimated slack in the U.S. and other G7 economies during the past twenty years. It is entirely possible that the U.S. economy is already operating well beyond its full potential, but we will not know this until the lagged effects of diminished slack appear in the inflation data. Chart 11Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Chart 12Estimates Of NAIRU And R* Have Fallen Chart 13The IMF Has Tended To Overestimate Slack In The G7 As we discussed several weeks ago, fiscal stimulus, faster credit growth, higher asset prices, and a rising labor share of total income have probably pushed up the neutral rate quite a bit over the past few years.6 This lifts the odds that the Fed will find itself behind the curve, causing inflation to rise more than the market is anticipating. Many commentators have argued that excess capacity in the rest of the world will not permit inflation to rise much from current levels, even if the Fed is slow to raise rates. In addition, they contend that automation, e-commerce, and other deflationary technologies, as well as population aging, high debt levels, and the declining influence of trade unions will keep inflation at bay. We will examine these arguments in a forthcoming report. To preview our conclusions, we think they are much weaker than they first appear. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Stanley Fischer, "The Role of Macroeconomic Factors in Growth," NBER Working Paper (December 1993); and Robert J. Barro, "Inflation and Economic Growth," NBER Working Paper (October 1995). 2 Please see "Federal Open Market Committee, Memorandum Of Discussion," Federal Reserve (June 8, 1971). 3 Please see "Economic Report Of The President (Transmitted To The Congress January 1978)," Frasier, Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis (January 1978). 4 Burton A. Abrams, "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence from the Nixon Tapes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (4): 177-188. 5 Paul Krugman, "Unnatural Economics (Wonkish)," The New York Times, May 6, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

特別レポート

Highlights Despite recent softness in the data, Swedish growth will remain robust over the next 6-12 months, supported by loose monetary conditions and solid export demand. Inflation has climbed back to the Riksbank 2% target, and additional increases are likely over the next 6-12 months. Though debt levels are high, households are relatively healthy given strong wealth, solid disposable income and elevated saving rates. Swedish politics will not substantively impact the markets. If the Moderate Party comes to power, it is unlikely to make significant policy departures from the Social Democrats. Swedish banks' capital levels are elevated, particularly compared to their EU peers. Still, the massive exposure to domestic real estate suggests that banks could not withstand a meaningful decline in house prices. The uninterrupted, long-term surge in Swedish house prices suggests that a bubble has formed. A strong supply-side response has softened prices as of late, but a massive correction is not imminent given robust economic growth and very accommodative monetary policy. Negative interest rates are inconsistent with the robust growth Sweden is experiencing. Going forward, strong growth momentum, rising inflation and a tight labor market will force policymakers to raise rates earlier, and by more, than markets expect. Sweden government debt will underperform global developed market peers over the next 6-12 months. Feature Chart 1Watch What They Do,##BR##Not What They Say Sweden is a country that has been very frustrating to figure out for investors and analysts alike over the past few years. The economy has been performing very well, with real GDP growth averaging around 3% since 2013, well above the OECD's estimate of potential GDP growth of 2.2%. Over that same period, the unemployment rate has fallen from 8% to 6.5% while inflation has risen from 0% to 2%. These are the types of developments that would normally lead an inflation targeting central bank like the Riksbank to contemplate a tightening of monetary policy. Yet while the Riksbank has been projecting significant increases in policy rates and bond yields every year for the past few years, it has actually delivered additional interest rate cuts, bringing the benchmark repo rate down into negative territory in 2014 and keeping it there to this day (Chart 1). In this Special Report, we examine Sweden's economic backdrop, upcoming elections and the health of the financial system to determine the likely future path of Swedish interest rates. We conclude that investors should not fear an imminent collapse of the Swedish housing bubble or a shock outcome in the September general election. A shift in direction for monetary policy, however, is likely later this year, with the Riksbank set to become more hawkish in response to an economy that no longer requires ultra-loose monetary conditions. This has bearish strategic implications for Swedish fixed income, and could finally place a floor under the beleaguered krona. Economy: Sustained Growth Outweighs Potential Risks After experiencing slowing growth momentum in 2016, Sweden's economy made a solid recovery in 2017. Real GDP growth came in at 3.3% on a year-over-year basis in Q4/2017, following on the strong prints earlier in the year. The Riksbank believes that GDP growth will slow slightly in 2018 due to some softening in consumer spending and business investment. However, real consumption has remained resilient and should be supported by the continued recovery in wages. Capital spending has also been robust and industrial confidence remains in an uptrend. While both the OECD leading economic indicator and manufacturing PMI have pulled back in recent months, both are coming off elevated levels. The PMI remains well above the 50 line, suggesting that strong growth momentum remains intact (Chart 2). The National Institute of Economic Research's economic tendency survey bounced back in April on the back of manufacturing and construction strength, with readings for the survey having been above 100 (signifying growth stronger than normal) every month since April 2015. One important factor helping support above-trend growth is fiscal policy, which has become modestly stimulative after two years of major fiscal drag in 2015 and 2016. As an export-oriented country, Sweden is highly levered to the state of the global economy. Export growth remains supported by continued strong global activity, low unit labor costs and recent krona weakness. Real exports expanded at a 4.7% rate (year-over-year) at the end of 2017 and the outlook is bright given firming growth in Sweden's largest export partners and the considerable depreciation of the krona. This is confirmed by our export model, which is signaling a pickup in export growth through the rest of the year before moderating slightly in 2019 (Chart 3). Chart 2Swedish Growth Cooling Off A Bit,##BR##But Remains Strong Chart 3Export Growth##BR##Will Remain Solid Healthy employment growth has driven Sweden's unemployment rate to 6.5%, more than one full percentage point below the OECD's estimate of the full-employment NAIRU1 rate (Chart 4). The spread between the two (the unemployment gap) has not been this low in nearly two decades. During the last period when unemployment was below NAIRU in 2007-08, wage growth surged to over 4%. However, Swedish wage growth has been subdued following the 2008 financial crisis, has been the case in most developed countries, even as unemployment continues to fall. Currently, annual growth in average hourly earnings is now displaying positive upward momentum, both in nominal terms (+2.5%) and, even more importantly for consumer spending, in real terms (+0.9%). A tightening labor market will support additional wage increases in the coming months. Importantly, Swedish wages are also influenced by wages in countries that are export competitors. For example, they have closely tracked German wages in recent years. The strong wage increases coming out of the latest round of German labor union negotiations is therefore a positive sign for Swedish wage growth.2 In addition, there is scope for more improvement as the unemployment rate is still above its pre-crisis level. Sweden has experienced a large inflow of immigration over the last decade and the unemployment rate for non-EU-born residents is approximately four times higher than the national figure. The government is stressing education and skill-building programs to address this issue and speed up the integration process. To the extent that these programs are successful, there is scope for a decline in the immigrant unemployment rate that can pull the overall national unemployment rate even lower - as long as the economy continues to expand and the demand for labor remains robust. A rising trend in domestic price pressures from the labor market can extend the recent uptrend in Swedish inflation. Inflation has been steadily rising since the deflation scare at the end of 2013, driven by consistent above-trend economic growth which has soaked up all spare capacity in the Swedish economy (Chart 5). The latest print on headline CPI inflation was 1.9%, while CPIF inflation (the Riksbank's preferred measure that is measured with fixed interest rates) sits right at the central bank's 2% target. Market-based inflation expectations have eased a bit on the year, though most survey-based measures have remained firm. Chart 4Wage Pressures Intensifying Chart 5Inflation Back To Target, May Not Stop There Rising oil prices have lifted inflation and BCA's commodity strategists believe that there is some additional upside given high demand and declining inventories, suggesting additional inflationary pressure ahead. In addition, even though core prices have historically been weak in the summer months, our Swedish core CPI model suggests that inflationary pressures will continue to build over the next six months, primarily due to booming resource utilization (bottom panel). Additionally, inflation should remain supported by a weaker krona, which has declined 8.5% year-to-date despite robust domestic fundamentals. The real trade-weighted index (TWI) peaked in 2017 and is now at a post-crisis low. These depressed levels suggest the currency can rise without derailing export growth. Going forward, the Riksbank expects the krona to gradually appreciate, based on projections from the April 2018 Monetary Policy Report (MPR).3 However, the currency has closely tracked the real policy rate (Chart 6) and thus could continue to fall below the Riksbank's projected path if our base case scenario of inflation rising further before the Riksbank starts hiking rates plays out - providing an additional boost to inflation from an even weaker krona. While the cyclical economic story in Sweden still looks solid, there remains a significant potential structural headwind in the form of high household debt. Mortgage borrowing has propelled the debt-to-income ratio to over 180% and the debt-to-GDP ratio to over 80%, making Swedish households some of the most indebted in the developed world (Chart 7). The Riksbank projects that debt-to-income will reach 190% by 2021 and its financial vulnerability indicator is at a post-crisis high. While we are certainly not understating the risks associated with such a massive debt load, we do not view this as an imminent threat to the economy. Chart 6VERY Loose Monetary Conditions##BR##In Sweden Chart 7Swedish Households Can##BR##Manage High Debt Swedish households' financial situation is better than it appears, with wealth three times larger than liabilities. Additionally, disposable income, which suffers under Sweden's high tax rates, should receive a boost this year from the increase in child allowance and lower taxes on pensioners. Importantly, the Swedish personal saving rate has been trending upward since the financial crisis and currently is one of the highest in the developed world at 9.6%. In addition, while about 70% of Swedish mortgages are variable rate, consumers are prepared for higher interest rates. Survey data shows household expectations on rates are in line with the National Institute of Economic Research's forecast. Outside of a negative growth shock or a substantial and rapid rise in interest rates, which is not our base case, Swedish high household debt levels should not pose a risk to the current economic expansion. Bottom Line: Despite recent softness in the data, Swedish growth will remain robust over the next 6-12 months, supported by loose monetary conditions and solid export demand. Inflation has climbed back to the Riksbank 2% target, and additional increases are likely over the next 6-12 months. Though debt levels are high, households are relatively healthy given strong wealth and elevated saving rates. Politics: Moderating On All Fronts Sweden has become something of a poster child for a country where immigration policy has become unhinged. In the U.S., Sweden's struggle to integrate recent arrivals, particularly its large asylum population, is a frequent feature on right-wing news channels and websites. The narrative is that Sweden is overrun with migrants and that, as a result, anti-establishment and populist parties will be successful in the upcoming elections on September 9th. This view is based on some objective truths. First, Sweden genuinely does struggle to integrate migrants. As BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, has showed, Sweden is one of the worst performers when it comes to integrating immigrants into its labor force (Chart 8) and in educational attainment (Chart 9).4 Peter posits that the likely culprit is the country's generous welfare state, which discourages migrants from participating in the labor force and perhaps creates a self-selection process where migrants and asylum seekers looking to enter Sweden are those most likely to abuse its generous public support system.5 Chart 8Immigrants Have Trouble##BR##Integrating Into The Labor Force Chart 9Immigrants Have Trouble##BR##In Swedish Education Second, the country's premier populist party - the Sweden Democrats - is relatively successful in the European context. Its ardently anti-immigrant policy has helped the party go from just 2.9% of the vote in 2006, to 12.9% in 2014. For much of 2017, Sweden Democrats have polled as the second most popular party in the country, behind the ruling Social Democrats (Chart 10). Chart 10Anti-Establishment Party Polling Well At the same time, the pessimistic narrative is old news and misses the big picture. In Europe, the anti-establishment parties are moving to the center on investment-relevant matters - such as EU integration - while the establishment parties are adopting the populist narratives on immigration. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy described this process in a recent Special Report that outlined how political pluralism - as opposed to the party duopoly present in the U.S. - encourages such a political migration to the center.6 Sweden is a dramatic case of increasing political pluralism. As such, its political evolution is relevant to the thesis that investors should not fear pluralism because the anti-establishment will migrate to the center while the establishment adopts anti-immigrant rhetoric. This is precisely what has been happening in Sweden for the past six months. First, the ruling Social Democrats - traditionally proponents of migration in the country - have called for tougher rules on labor migration, a major departure from party orthodoxy. Second, Sweden Democrats have seen an exodus of right-wing members, including the former leader, as the party moves to the middle ground on all non-immigration-related issues. This opens up the possibility for Sweden Democrats to join the pro-business Moderate Party in a coalition deal after the election. Should investors fear the upcoming election? Our high conviction view is no. There are three general conclusions we would make regarding the election: Anti-asylum policies will accelerate. All parties are becoming more anti-immigrant in Sweden as the public turns against the country's liberal asylum policies. This is somewhat irrelevant, however, as the influx of asylum seekers into Europe has already dramatically slowed due to better border enforcement policies by the EU (Chart 11). Meanwhile, the pace of migration to Sweden from other EU countries will not moderate, given that the country is part of the continental Labor Market. This is important as EU migrants make up 32% of total migrants into Sweden and tend to be more highly educated and much better at participating in the labor market. Euroskepticism is irrelevant: There is absolutely no support for exiting the EU, with Swedes among the most ardent supporters of remaining in the bloc. Less than a third of Swedes are optimistic about a life outside the EU, for example (Chart 12). As such, the pace of migration will only moderate in so far as the country accepts less refugees going forward. There will be no break with the EU Labor Market and no "Swexit" referendum on the investable time horizon. Chart 11Asylum Flows Are Slowing Chart 12Swedes Are Europhiles The Moderate Party is not a panacea: The pro-business, center-right, Moderate Party is often seen as a panacea for investors. It is true that the party's rise to power, in 1991, coincided with a severe financial crisis and that it was under its leadership that reform efforts began in earnest. However, the Social Democrats already initiated reforms ahead of their 1991 loss and accelerated structural changes well past Moderate Party rule, which ended in 1994. Some of the deepest cuts to the country's social welfare programs were in fact undertaken under Prime Minister Göran Persson, who was either the finance or prime minister between 1994 and 2006. Bottom Line: Swedish politics will not substantively impact the markets. Sweden Democrats are shifting to the center on non-immigration issues. Meanwhile, moderate parties are becoming more anti-immigrant. While there are no risks, we would also not expect major tailwinds. If the Moderate Party comes to power, it is unlikely to make significant policy departures from the Social Democrats. Banks: In Good Shape... For Now Chart 13Sweden's Banks Are In Excellent Shape Swedish banks have been generating solid earnings growth, far outpacing their EU peers, as net interest margins are at multi-year highs and funding costs are low (Chart 13). Solid domestic economic growth has helped boost lending volumes. Non-performing loans have been in a downtrend since 2010 and have stabilized at very low levels. While we expect lending volumes to stay strong and defaults to remain low over the medium term given robust economic growth, we are more cautious on the earnings front. Our base case is that the Riksbank will finally embark on the beginning of a monetary tightening cycle at the end of 2018, and banks will likely struggle to maintain the current solid pace of earnings growth with a policy-driven flattening of the Swedish yield curve. Sweden has stricter capital requirements than their EU peers and, as such, the banks are far better capitalized. Both the aggregate Liquidity Coverage Ratio, a measure of short-term liquidity resilience, and the Net Stable Funding ratio are above Basel Committee requirements and have steadily increased over the past few quarters. The ratio of bank equity to risk-weighted assets paints an overly sanguine picture given that banks use internal models to calculate risk weights and are likely underestimating the risk associated with their massive mortgage exposure. Still, our preferred metric, the ratio of tangible equity to tangible assets, has remained firmly at elevated levels. Sweden's banking system has long been dominated by four major banks (Nordea, SEB, Svenska Handelsbanken and Swedbank). However, Nordea, Sweden's only global systemically important bank, is planning to move its headquarters to Finland later this year. The move will drastically reduce the size of Sweden's national bank assets from 400% of GDP to just under 300%. Nordea has clashed with Sweden's government over higher taxes and increased regulation and the relocation is projected to save €1.1 billion over the long run. Importantly, Nordea will be overseen by the European Banking Union. Overall, we believe this lowers the risk to the Swedish banking system given the reduction in banking assets. More importantly, Swedish authorities will no longer be financially responsible for future problems that could develop at Nordea. Bottom Line: Swedish bank earnings growth has been solid, but will come under pressure once the Riksbank begins to raise rates this year. Capital levels are elevated, particularly compared to their EU peers. Still, the massive exposure to domestic real estate suggests that banks could not withstand a sharp or prolonged decline in house prices. Housing: The Beginning Of The End? House prices in Sweden have been in an uninterrupted, secular uptrend due to low interest rates, robust demand, a structural supply shortage and considerable tax incentives for home ownership. While many of its EU counterparts had significant housing corrections over the last decade, the Swedish market escaped relatively unscathed. In fact, the last meaningful decline was during the 1990s crisis, when house prices fell close to -20%. Chart 14The Overheated Housing Market##BR##Has Cooled Off Swedish authorities believe that the bubbling housing market poses the greatest risk to the Swedish economy, given the sheer magnitude of the uptrend and the Swedish banking sector's massive exposure (Chart 14). Valuation metrics indicate that housing is overvalued and, as such, the current five-month decline has prompted concerns that a meaningful correction may be underway. However, the recent pullback was a result of a strong supply-side response that began in 2013, specifically the construction of tenant-owned apartments. Last year had the most housing starts since 1990. That new supply is still insufficient to meet expected demand, however, and Swedish policymakers are implementing a 22-point plan to both increase and speed up residential construction. Swedish regulators have introduced multiple macroprudential measures over the past few years in order to both cool demand and boost household resilience. These include placing a cap on the size of mortgages (85% of the value of a home), raising banks' risk weight floors7 and multiple adjustments to amortization requirements. Data suggests that these policies have affected consumer behavior by both decreasing the amount of borrowing and causing buyers to purchase less expensive homes. Additionally, the government has recently approved legislation that will boost the ability of the financial regulator (Finansinspektionen) to act in the event of a potential downtown. The policy measures to cool the housing market have been fairly effective, with house prices now down -4.4% on a year-over-year basis (middle panel). However, economic history teaches us that asset bubbles never deflate peacefully. We are concerned over a structural horizon, but we believe that a massive correction is unlikely over the next year. Economic growth will like remain robust and monetary policy is very accommodative. It will take multiple rate hikes before monetary conditions are restrictive, thereby drastically weakening demand and prompting a sustained reversal in the house price uptrend. Bottom Line: The uninterrupted, long-term surge in Swedish house prices suggests that a bubble has formed. A strong supply side response has softened prices as of late, but a massive correction is not imminent given robust economic growth and very accommodative monetary policy. Monetary Policy: Riksbank On Hold, But Not For Long At the most recent monetary policy meeting in late-April, the Riksbank decided to keep the benchmark repo rate at -0.5%, further exercising caution after prematurely raising rates in 2010-2011. The Riksbank acknowledged that economic growth was "strong", but also maintained that inflation was "subdued" and monetary conditions needed to remain stimulative to ensure that inflation would sustainably stay at the 2% target. They revised their projected path for the repo rate downward, with the first hike now only coming at the end of this year. Even after that liftoff, however, the Riksbank plans to continue reinvesting redemptions and coupon payments from its government bond portfolio, accumulated during its quantitative easing program that ended last December, for "some time". Chart 15Our New Riksbank Monitor##BR##Is Calling For Rate Hikes In recent years, the Riksbank has moved the repo rate alongside the ECB's policy rate, in order to protect export competitiveness by preventing an unwanted appreciation of the krona. However, the fundamentals do not justify this. Inflation is in a clear uptrend and has recovered to the Riksbank's target, while euro area inflation is still well below the ECB's target. Additionally, Swedish growth has been outpacing that of the euro area, and relative leading indicators suggest this will continue. While the ECB continues to emphasize that it has no plans to raise interest rates anytime soon, it is now far more difficult for the Riksbank to justify keeping its policy rates below zero as the ECB is doing. It is one thing to have negative interest rates and a cheap currency when there is plenty of economic slack and inflation is well below target. It is quite another to have those same loose policy settings when the output gap is closed, labor markets are at full employment and inflation is at target. This can be seen by the reading from our new Riksbank Central Bank Monitor (Chart 15). The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators designed to measure cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future monetary policy decisions. A reading above zero indicates that policymakers are facing pressures to raise interest rates. We have Monitors for most developed markets, but we had not yet built the indicator for Sweden. Currently, the Riksbank Monitor is in "tight money required" territory, as it has been since late-2015. Though the Monitor has been primarily being driven upward by the growth component, the inflation component is also above the zero line. Forward interest rate pricing in the Swedish Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve indicates that markets are not expecting the Riksbank to begin hiking rates until July 2019. Only 95bps of hikes are priced by March 2020, suggesting that the market expects a very moderate start to the tightening cycle once it begins. Given the still-positive growth and inflation backdrop, we expect that the Riksbank will begin to hike earlier - likely by year-end as currently projected by the central bank - and by more than currently discounted by markets. Bottom Line: Negative interest rates are inconsistent with a robust Swedish economy that is operating with no spare capacity. Going forward, strong growth momentum, rising inflation and a tight labor market will force policymakers to raise rates earlier, and by more, than markets expect. Investment Implications With the market not priced for the move in Riksbank monetary policy that we expect, investors can position for that shift through the following recommended positions (Chart 16): Chart 16How To Position For##BR##Higher Swedish Interest Rates Underweight Swedish bonds within a global hedged fixed income portfolio. Swedish government debt has been a star performer since the beginning of 2017, outperforming the Barclays Global Treasury Index by 101bps (currency-hedged into U.S. dollars). Global yields have risen over that period while Swedish yields have remained fairly flat. This trend is unlikely to continue, moving forward. The Riksbank ended the net new bond purchases in its quantitative easing program last December, removing a powerful tailwind for Swedish debt performance. If the Riksbank begins to hike rates by year-end, as it is projecting and we expect, then interest rate convergence will begin to undermine the ability for Sweden to continue its impressive run of fixed income outperformance. Enter a Sweden 2-year/10-year government bond yield curve flattener. As the Riksbank begins to shift to a more hawkish tone over the coming months, markets will begin to reprice not only the level of Swedish interest rates but the shape of the Swedish yield curve. That means not only higher bond yields but a flatter curve, as too few rate hikes are currently priced at the short-end. Growth is robust, inflation is at target and the unemployment rate is well below NAIRU. With their mandates met, the Riksbank will be forced to act more aggressively. Importantly, there is no flattening currently priced into the Swedish bond forward curve, thus there is no negative carry associated with putting on a flattener now. Short 2-year Sweden government bonds vs. 2-year German government bonds. The yield spread between the Swedish and German 2-year yield is only 5bps, well below its long-run average of 27bps. Relative fundamentals suggest that the Riksbank will no longer be able to shadow the actions of the ECB (negative policy rates) as it has over the past few years. Growth in Sweden is likely to outpace that of the euro area once again in 2018. Swedish inflation is already at the Riksbank target while euro area inflation continues to undershoot the ECB benchmark. Also, the currencies have moved in opposite directions since 2017, with the Euro Area trade-weighted index (TWI) rising by 7% and Sweden TWI falling by 6%, suggesting that Sweden can better handle tighter monetary policy. With the ECB signaling that it is in no hurry to begin raising interest rates (even after it ends its asset purchase program at the end of the year, as we expect), policy rate differentials will drive the 2-year Sweden-Germany spread wider over the next 12-18 months, with no spread move currently priced into the forwards. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate Of Unemployment 2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-wages/german-pay-deal-heralds-end-of-wage-restraint-in-europes-largest-economy-idUSKBN1FP0PD 3 https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/rapporter/ppr/engelska/2018/180426/monetary-policy-report-april-2018 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood," dated November 18, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The End Of Europe's Welfare State," dated June 26, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Should Investors Fear Political Plurality," dated November 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 25% of the value of a mortgage loan must be included when banks calculate their required regulatory risk-weighted capital levels.

特別レポート

Highlights Slower nominal GDP growth explains virtually all of the increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past ten years. The authorities were unwilling to restrain debt growth as it became obvious that nominal income was decelerating because this would have only exacerbated the economic downturn. Excess private-sector savings forced the Chinese government to rely on debt-financed investment by state-owned companies (SOE) and local governments in order to keep aggregate demand elevated. Financial deregulation also encouraged debt accumulation. Debt growth linked to speculative activity can be curbed without endangering the economy, but a lasting solution to the surplus savings problem will require consumers to spend more. This will take a while. At some point over the next few years, the central government will transfer a large fraction of SOE and local government debt onto its own balance sheet. The risk to investors is that this "debt nationalization" happens reactively rather than proactively. Feature If there are too many pro-cyclical factors in the economy, cyclical fluctuations are magnified and there is excessive optimism during the period, accumulating contradictions that could lead to the so-called Minsky Moment. - Zhou Xiaochuan, Former Governor of the People's Bank of China, October 19, 2017 The Calm Before The Storm? Stability begets instability. That is the nature of business cycles, Hyman Minsky famously argued. Rising confidence leads to excessive risk-taking, higher asset prices, and mounting economic imbalances. Eventually the mood sours. Like Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff, investors look down and see that there is nothing but thin air between them and the ground below. Panic ensues. Is China on the verge of its own Minsky Moment? A glance at the evolution of its debt-to-GDP ratio would certainly say so. But before running towards the exit door, consider the following: People have been fretting about spiraling Japanese government debt levels for over twenty years now. And yet, interest rates remain at rock-bottom levels in Japan. China's Savings Glut In many respects, China finds itself facing similar problems to those that have haunted Japan. The simultaneous bust in equity and real estate prices in 1990 sent Japan's private sector into a prolonged deleveraging cycle (Chart 1). In order to prop up demand, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government had to absorb the excess savings of the private sector with its own dissavings. The abundance of domestic private-sector savings forestalled a financial crisis, but it also led to today's gross government debt-to-GDP ratio of 240%. Like Japan, China suffers from a dearth of spending, or equivalently, an abundance of savings. The IMF estimates that Chinese gross national savings reached 46% of GDP in 2017. While this is down from a peak of 52% of GDP in 2008, it is still abnormally high for any major economy, even by emerging market standards (Chart 2). Chart 1 Japan Relied On Large Fiscal Deficits And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 2China's Savings Rate Stands Out Even By EM Standards By definition, whatever a country saves must either be invested domestically or channeled abroad via a current account surplus. China's savings rate has edged lower over the past ten years, but its current account surplus has dropped even more, falling from nearly 10% of GDP in 2007 to 1.4% of GDP at present. As a result, investment as a share of GDP has actually risen to 44%, a three-point increase since 2007 (Chart 3). The decline in China's current account surplus was inevitable (Chart 4). In 2007, China accounted for 6% of global GDP in dollar terms. Today it accounts for 15%. Having a massively undervalued currency, as China had in 2007, is just not politically tenable anymore, especially with Donald Trump in the White House. Simply put, China has become too big to continue exporting its way out of its problems. Chart 3Since The Great Financial Crisis, Chinese Savings Have Been Channeled Into Domestic Investment, Not Funneled Abroad Chart 4Undervalued Currency And Massive Current Account Surplus: Modus Operandi Of The Past Debt As The Conduit Between Savings And Investment How does a country transform savings into investment? In an economy like China where the stock market at times appears to be little more than a casino, the answer is that credit markets must play the dominant role. Households or firms with surplus savings park their funds in banks or other financial institutions. These institutions channel the savings to willing borrowers. Debt ends up being the natural byproduct of surplus savings. China is still a relatively poor country with a lot of catch-up potential. Capital-per-worker is a fraction of what it is among advanced economies (Chart 5). Even with its bleak demographics, China would need to grow by around 6% per year over the next few years just to converge with South Korea in output-per-worker by 2050 (Chart 6). All this means that China needs to invest more than most other economies, which is only possible if it saves more than other economies. Chart 5China Has More Catching Up To Do (1) Chart 6China Has More Catching Up To Do (2) Unfortunately, one can have too much of a good thing. The fact that China's capital stock-to-output ratio has risen dramatically in recent years means that the economy is already investing too much. And the optimal amount of investment will only fall over time as potential GDP growth continues to decelerate. Unless savings come down, China will find itself increasingly awash in excess capacity. Chart 7If Only GDP Growth Did Not ##br## Decelerate Over The Past Ten Years Slower trend growth will also make deleveraging more difficult to achieve. The overall stock of nonfinancial debt grew at an annualized rate of 18.8% between 2008 and 2017. Notably, this growth rate was not much higher than the one of 16.5% between 2003 and 2007 - a period when the debt-to-GDP ratio was broadly stable. The main difference between the two periods lies in the denominator of the debt-to-GDP ratio, not in the numerator: Nominal GDP expanded at an annualized rate of 11.2% between 2008 and 2017, a sizable retreat from the pace of 18.4% between 2003 and 2007. Chart 7 shows that the debt-to-GDP ratio today would be virtually identical to its end-2007 level had nominal GDP continued to grow at its 2003-2007 pace over the past ten years. Financial Deregulation Has Exacerbated The Debt Problem The Chinese government's reluctance to crack down on credit growth was motivated by the desire to support aggregate demand. However, in turning a blind eye to what was happening in credit markets, a lot of debt was generated that was not directly tied to the intermediation of savings into investment. Chart 8Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Debt can be created when someone borrows money to finance the purchase of goods or services. Debt can also be created when someone borrows money to finance the purchase of pre-existing assets. Crucially, while the former typically requires additional "savings" (i.e., someone needs to reduce their spending relative to their income), the latter does not.1 Granted, savings can still play an indirect role in facilitating debt-financed asset purchases. Financial assets are typically backed by something of value. A mortgage is backed by a piece of property. A corporate bond is backed by both the tangible and intangible capital that a firm possesses. The more a country has been able to save over time, the larger its capital stock will be. China, of course, has been saving like crazy for years. It is thus no surprise that its debt-to-GDP ratio has soared as its capital stock has expanded (Chart 8). Financial deregulation in China has allowed a large share of its capital stock to repeatedly shift hands. Debt has often been created in the process. The problem is that debt-financed asset purchases drive up asset prices, sometimes to unsustainable levels. And the higher the price of the asset, the greater the risk that it will not yield enough income to cover the borrowing costs. When asset prices are rising, borrowers and lenders are apt to disregard this risk, figuring that they can always sell the asset at a high enough price to pay back the loan. But once prices start falling, reality sets in very quickly. Stability begets instability. Consumers Need To Step Up The authorities are keenly aware of the risks discussed above. This is the key reason why they are clamping down on the shadow banking system, which has increasingly become the main source of speculative lending in China. We expect the pressure on shadow banks to persist in 2018. This will continue to weigh on credit growth. The more vexing challenge is how to reduce excessive household savings. The government's current strategy of cramming down the capital stock by taking out excess capacity from sectors such as steel, coal, and solar may be better than nothing, but it still pales in comparison to a strategy of encouraging consumer spending. Higher consumer spending would obviate the need for state-owned companies and local governments to keep people employed in make-work projects. The good news is that there are plenty of ways that China can boost household consumption. Government spending on education, health care, and pensions as a share of GDP is close to half of the OECD average (Chart 9). Increasing social transfer payments would give households the wherewithal to spend more. Unlike in most countries, the poor in China are net savers (Chart 10). Expanding the social safety net would discourage precautionary savings. Chart 9Chinese Social Welfare Spending ##br##Is Lagging The OECD Average Chart 10Low Income Households Are Net ##br##Savers In China The Chinese income tax structure is fairly regressive. Poor households face an effective income tax rate exceeding 40%. This is well above OECD norms (Chart 11).2 A more progressive tax system would boost spending among poorer households. It would also curb inequality, which has increased sharply over the past few decades (Chart 12). The saving rate among the richest 10% of Chinese earners is close to 50%. Policies that shift income from the rich to the poor would reduce overall household savings. Chart 11High Tax Burden For ##br##Low Income Households In China Chart 12Shifting Income To Poorer Households Would Reduce ##br##China's Household Savings Rate Debt Nationalization Is Inevitable Chart 13Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Peaking,##br## And China Is No Exception Realistically, reforms aimed at encouraging consumption will take a while to implement. In the meantime, debt levels are likely to keep rising. Much of China's debt burden remains on the books of state-owned companies and local governments. At some point over the next few years, the central government will transfer a large fraction of this debt onto its own balance sheet. This would ease concerns about a mass wave of defaults. The key question for investors is whether this de facto "debt nationalization" is done proactively or reactively in response to a crisis. If the latter occurs, investors should steer clear of Chinese assets, as well as China-related plays such as commodities and commodity currencies. If the former pans out, global risk assets could rally. While the truth will fall somewhere between those two extremes, our bet is that the proactive view will prove closer to the mark, at least relative to market expectations (keep in mind that Chinese banks are trading below book value, so a lot of bad news has already been priced in). The Chinese authorities talk a lot about the importance of reducing moral hazard, but in practice, they have shown very little tolerance for defaults. Just as they did in the early 2000s, government leaders could commission state-owned asset management companies to purchase distressed debt from banks and other lenders at inflated prices. Chinese financials, which are nearly 70% of the H-share index, will benefit. Will investors balk at the prospect of the Chinese government blowing out the budget deficit in order to rescue insolvent borrowers? There might be some short-term panic, but as has been the case with Japan, as long as there are plenty of excess domestic savings to go around, the risk of a debt crisis will remain minimal. Indeed, the issuance of more government debt would help alleviate what has become a critical problem for Chinese savers: The lack of safe, liquid domestic assets available for purchase. What is true, from a longer-term perspective, is that the combination of higher debt and slower growth will eventually create a strong incentive for the Chinese government to inflate away debt. As in many other countries, China's "support ratio" -- broadly defined as the ratio of workers-to-consumers -- has peaked (Chart 13). As the growth of output and income falls behind consumption growth, China's savings glut will become a thing of the past. Rather than raising rates, the PBOC will just let the economy overheat. Such a day of reckoning is probably still at least five years away, but eventually inflation will return to China. Concluding Thoughts On The Current Market Environment A true "Minsky moment" in China - one where the financial sector seizes up due to spiraling fears of bankruptcies and defaults - is not in the cards. Nevertheless, China's economy is slowing, and growth is likely to decelerate further over the next few quarters as the authorities restrain credit growth and the property market continues to cool. The slowdown in Chinese growth is occurring at the same time as the economic data has been deteriorating around the world. The equity component of our MacroQuant model - which is highly sensitive to changes in the direction of growth - has been in bearish territory for two straight months (Chart 14). Our base case remains that global growth will stabilize over the next few months at an above-trend pace. Global bond yields are still near record-low levels and fiscal policy is moving in a more stimulative direction (Chart 15). It would be odd for the global economy to deteriorate sharply in such an environment. Chart 14MacroQuant Model Suggests Caution Is Warranted Trade protectionism is an obvious risk to this sanguine cyclical view. BCA has long argued that globalization is under threat from the combination of rising populism and the end of America's role as the world's sole superpower. However, the retreat from globalization will occur in fits and starts. Just as investors were overly complacent about protectionism a few months ago, they have become overly alarmist now. Both the U.S. and China have a strong incentive to reach a mutually-satisfying agreement over trade. President Trump has been able to shrug off the decline in equities because his approval rating has actually risen during the selloff (Chart 16). However, if the problems on Wall Street begin to show up on Main Street - as is likely to happen if stocks continue to fall - Trump will change his tune. Chart 15Global Economy Buttressed By ##br##Accommodative Fiscal And Monetary Policy Chart 16Trump's Approval Rating Has ##br##Actually Risen During Equity Selloff For its part, the Chinese government is also looking to strike a deal. The U.S. exported only $131 billion in goods to China last year. This is already less than the $150 billion in Chinese goods that Trump has targeted for tariffs. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. Bottom Line: The near-term picture for global equities and other risk assets is murky, but the 12-month cyclical outlook is still reasonably upbeat. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 For instance, if someone buys stock on margin or takes out a second mortgage on their house, new debt is created without anyone having to cut back on spending. In the context of China, imagine a financial institution which funds the purchase of a building by issuing a certificate of deposit or by selling a "wealth management" product. Both the asset and liability side of the financial institution's balance sheet go up (i.e., new debt is created). Suppose further that the company that sold the building puts the proceeds into a certificate of deposit or wealth management product. The entire transaction is self-financing. The example above illustrates that debt can go up in some situations even if everyone's spending habits remain the same. The need to intermediate savings is one source of debt growth, but it does not have to be the only one. 2 Please see "People's Republic Of China: Selected Issues," IMF Country Report, dated August 15, 2017.

特別レポート

Highlights Slower nominal GDP growth explains virtually all of the increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past ten years. The authorities were unwilling to restrain debt growth as it became obvious that nominal income was decelerating because this would have only exacerbated the economic downturn. Excess private-sector savings forced the Chinese government to rely on debt-financed investment by state-owned companies (SOE) and local governments in order to keep aggregate demand elevated. Financial deregulation also encouraged debt accumulation. Debt growth linked to speculative activity can be curbed without endangering the economy, but a lasting solution to the surplus savings problem will require consumers to spend more. This will take a while. At some point over the next few years, the central government will transfer a large fraction of SOE and local government debt onto its own balance sheet. The risk to investors is that this "debt nationalization" happens reactively rather than proactively. Feature If there are too many pro-cyclical factors in the economy, cyclical fluctuations are magnified and there is excessive optimism during the period, accumulating contradictions that could lead to the so-called Minsky Moment. - Zhou Xiaochuan, Former Governor of the People's Bank of China, October 19, 2017 The Calm Before The Storm? Stability begets instability. That is the nature of business cycles, Hyman Minsky famously argued. Rising confidence leads to excessive risk-taking, higher asset prices, and mounting economic imbalances. Eventually the mood sours. Like Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff, investors look down and see that there is nothing but thin air between them and the ground below. Panic ensues. Is China on the verge of its own Minsky Moment? A glance at the evolution of its debt-to-GDP ratio would certainly say so. But before running towards the exit door, consider the following: People have been fretting about spiraling Japanese government debt levels for over twenty years now. And yet, interest rates remain at rock-bottom levels in Japan. China's Savings Glut In many respects, China finds itself facing similar problems to those that have haunted Japan. The simultaneous bust in equity and real estate prices in 1990 sent Japan's private sector into a prolonged deleveraging cycle (Chart 1). In order to prop up demand, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government had to absorb the excess savings of the private sector with its own dissavings. The abundance of domestic private-sector savings forestalled a financial crisis, but it also led to today's gross government debt-to-GDP ratio of 240%. Like Japan, China suffers from a dearth of spending, or equivalently, an abundance of savings. The IMF estimates that Chinese gross national savings reached 46% of GDP in 2017. While this is down from a peak of 52% of GDP in 2008, it is still abnormally high for any major economy, even by emerging market standards (Chart 2). Chart 1 Japan Relied On Large Fiscal Deficits And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 2China's Savings Rate Stands Out Even By EM Standards By definition, whatever a country saves must either be invested domestically or channeled abroad via a current account surplus. China's savings rate has edged lower over the past ten years, but its current account surplus has dropped even more, falling from nearly 10% of GDP in 2007 to 1.4% of GDP at present. As a result, investment as a share of GDP has actually risen to 44%, a three-point increase since 2007 (Chart 3). The decline in China's current account surplus was inevitable (Chart 4). In 2007, China accounted for 6% of global GDP in dollar terms. Today it accounts for 15%. Having a massively undervalued currency, as China had in 2007, is just not politically tenable anymore, especially with Donald Trump in the White House. Simply put, China has become too big to continue exporting its way out of its problems. Chart 3Since The Great Financial Crisis, Chinese Savings Have Been Channeled Into Domestic Investment, Not Funneled Abroad Chart 4Undervalued Currency And Massive Current Account Surplus: Modus Operandi Of The Past Debt As The Conduit Between Savings And Investment How does a country transform savings into investment? In an economy like China where the stock market at times appears to be little more than a casino, the answer is that credit markets must play the dominant role. Households or firms with surplus savings park their funds in banks or other financial institutions. These institutions channel the savings to willing borrowers. Debt ends up being the natural byproduct of surplus savings. China is still a relatively poor country with a lot of catch-up potential. Capital-per-worker is a fraction of what it is among advanced economies (Chart 5). Even with its bleak demographics, China would need to grow by around 6% per year over the next few years just to converge with South Korea in output-per-worker by 2050 (Chart 6). All this means that China needs to invest more than most other economies, which is only possible if it saves more than other economies. Chart 5China Has More Catching Up To Do (1) Chart 6China Has More Catching Up To Do (2) Unfortunately, one can have too much of a good thing. The fact that China's capital stock-to-output ratio has risen dramatically in recent years means that the economy is already investing too much. And the optimal amount of investment will only fall over time as potential GDP growth continues to decelerate. Unless savings come down, China will find itself increasingly awash in excess capacity. Chart 7If Only GDP Growth Did Not ##br## Decelerate Over The Past Ten Years Slower trend growth will also make deleveraging more difficult to achieve. The overall stock of nonfinancial debt grew at an annualized rate of 18.8% between 2008 and 2017. Notably, this growth rate was not much higher than the one of 16.5% between 2003 and 2007 - a period when the debt-to-GDP ratio was broadly stable. The main difference between the two periods lies in the denominator of the debt-to-GDP ratio, not in the numerator: Nominal GDP expanded at an annualized rate of 11.2% between 2008 and 2017, a sizable retreat from the pace of 18.4% between 2003 and 2007. Chart 7 shows that the debt-to-GDP ratio today would be virtually identical to its end-2007 level had nominal GDP continued to grow at its 2003-2007 pace over the past ten years. Financial Deregulation Has Exacerbated The Debt Problem The Chinese government's reluctance to crack down on credit growth was motivated by the desire to support aggregate demand. However, in turning a blind eye to what was happening in credit markets, a lot of debt was generated that was not directly tied to the intermediation of savings into investment. Chart 8Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Debt can be created when someone borrows money to finance the purchase of goods or services. Debt can also be created when someone borrows money to finance the purchase of pre-existing assets. Crucially, while the former typically requires additional "savings" (i.e., someone needs to reduce their spending relative to their income), the latter does not.1 Granted, savings can still play an indirect role in facilitating debt-financed asset purchases. Financial assets are typically backed by something of value. A mortgage is backed by a piece of property. A corporate bond is backed by both the tangible and intangible capital that a firm possesses. The more a country has been able to save over time, the larger its capital stock will be. China, of course, has been saving like crazy for years. It is thus no surprise that its debt-to-GDP ratio has soared as its capital stock has expanded (Chart 8). Financial deregulation in China has allowed a large share of its capital stock to repeatedly shift hands. Debt has often been created in the process. The problem is that debt-financed asset purchases drive up asset prices, sometimes to unsustainable levels. And the higher the price of the asset, the greater the risk that it will not yield enough income to cover the borrowing costs. When asset prices are rising, borrowers and lenders are apt to disregard this risk, figuring that they can always sell the asset at a high enough price to pay back the loan. But once prices start falling, reality sets in very quickly. Stability begets instability. Consumers Need To Step Up The authorities are keenly aware of the risks discussed above. This is the key reason why they are clamping down on the shadow banking system, which has increasingly become the main source of speculative lending in China. We expect the pressure on shadow banks to persist in 2018. This will continue to weigh on credit growth. The more vexing challenge is how to reduce excessive household savings. The government's current strategy of cramming down the capital stock by taking out excess capacity from sectors such as steel, coal, and solar may be better than nothing, but it still pales in comparison to a strategy of encouraging consumer spending. Higher consumer spending would obviate the need for state-owned companies and local governments to keep people employed in make-work projects. The good news is that there are plenty of ways that China can boost household consumption. Government spending on education, health care, and pensions as a share of GDP is close to half of the OECD average (Chart 9). Increasing social transfer payments would give households the wherewithal to spend more. Unlike in most countries, the poor in China are net savers (Chart 10). Expanding the social safety net would discourage precautionary savings. Chart 9Chinese Social Welfare Spending ##br##Is Lagging The OECD Average Chart 10Low Income Households Are Net ##br##Savers In China The Chinese income tax structure is fairly regressive. Poor households face an effective income tax rate exceeding 40%. This is well above OECD norms (Chart 11).2 A more progressive tax system would boost spending among poorer households. It would also curb inequality, which has increased sharply over the past few decades (Chart 12). The saving rate among the richest 10% of Chinese earners is close to 50%. Policies that shift income from the rich to the poor would reduce overall household savings. Chart 11High Tax Burden For ##br##Low Income Households In China Chart 12Shifting Income To Poorer Households Would Reduce ##br##China's Household Savings Rate Debt Nationalization Is Inevitable Chart 13Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Peaking,##br## And China Is No Exception Realistically, reforms aimed at encouraging consumption will take a while to implement. In the meantime, debt levels are likely to keep rising. Much of China's debt burden remains on the books of state-owned companies and local governments. At some point over the next few years, the central government will transfer a large fraction of this debt onto its own balance sheet. This would ease concerns about a mass wave of defaults. The key question for investors is whether this de facto "debt nationalization" is done proactively or reactively in response to a crisis. If the latter occurs, investors should steer clear of Chinese assets, as well as China-related plays such as commodities and commodity currencies. If the former pans out, global risk assets could rally. While the truth will fall somewhere between those two extremes, our bet is that the proactive view will prove closer to the mark, at least relative to market expectations (keep in mind that Chinese banks are trading below book value, so a lot of bad news has already been priced in). The Chinese authorities talk a lot about the importance of reducing moral hazard, but in practice, they have shown very little tolerance for defaults. Just as they did in the early 2000s, government leaders could commission state-owned asset management companies to purchase distressed debt from banks and other lenders at inflated prices. Chinese financials, which are nearly 70% of the H-share index, will benefit. Will investors balk at the prospect of the Chinese government blowing out the budget deficit in order to rescue insolvent borrowers? There might be some short-term panic, but as has been the case with Japan, as long as there are plenty of excess domestic savings to go around, the risk of a debt crisis will remain minimal. Indeed, the issuance of more government debt would help alleviate what has become a critical problem for Chinese savers: The lack of safe, liquid domestic assets available for purchase. What is true, from a longer-term perspective, is that the combination of higher debt and slower growth will eventually create a strong incentive for the Chinese government to inflate away debt. As in many other countries, China's "support ratio" -- broadly defined as the ratio of workers-to-consumers -- has peaked (Chart 13). As the growth of output and income falls behind consumption growth, China's savings glut will become a thing of the past. Rather than raising rates, the PBOC will just let the economy overheat. Such a day of reckoning is probably still at least five years away, but eventually inflation will return to China. Concluding Thoughts On The Current Market Environment A true "Minsky moment" in China - one where the financial sector seizes up due to spiraling fears of bankruptcies and defaults - is not in the cards. Nevertheless, China's economy is slowing, and growth is likely to decelerate further over the next few quarters as the authorities restrain credit growth and the property market continues to cool. The slowdown in Chinese growth is occurring at the same time as the economic data has been deteriorating around the world. The equity component of our MacroQuant model - which is highly sensitive to changes in the direction of growth - has been in bearish territory for two straight months (Chart 14). Our base case remains that global growth will stabilize over the next few months at an above-trend pace. Global bond yields are still near record-low levels and fiscal policy is moving in a more stimulative direction (Chart 15). It would be odd for the global economy to deteriorate sharply in such an environment. Chart 14MacroQuant Model Suggests Caution Is Warranted Trade protectionism is an obvious risk to this sanguine cyclical view. BCA has long argued that globalization is under threat from the combination of rising populism and the end of America's role as the world's sole superpower. However, the retreat from globalization will occur in fits and starts. Just as investors were overly complacent about protectionism a few months ago, they have become overly alarmist now. Both the U.S. and China have a strong incentive to reach a mutually-satisfying agreement over trade. President Trump has been able to shrug off the decline in equities because his approval rating has actually risen during the selloff (Chart 16). However, if the problems on Wall Street begin to show up on Main Street - as is likely to happen if stocks continue to fall - Trump will change his tune. Chart 15Global Economy Buttressed By ##br##Accommodative Fiscal And Monetary Policy Chart 16Trump's Approval Rating Has ##br##Actually Risen During Equity Selloff For its part, the Chinese government is also looking to strike a deal. The U.S. exported only $131 billion in goods to China last year. This is already less than the $150 billion in Chinese goods that Trump has targeted for tariffs. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. Bottom Line: The near-term picture for global equities and other risk assets is murky, but the 12-month cyclical outlook is still reasonably upbeat. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 For instance, if someone buys stock on margin or takes out a second mortgage on their house, new debt is created without anyone having to cut back on spending. In the context of China, imagine a financial institution which funds the purchase of a building by issuing a certificate of deposit or by selling a "wealth management" product. Both the asset and liability side of the financial institution's balance sheet go up (i.e., new debt is created). Suppose further that the company that sold the building puts the proceeds into a certificate of deposit or wealth management product. The entire transaction is self-financing. The example above illustrates that debt can go up in some situations even if everyone's spending habits remain the same. The need to intermediate savings is one source of debt growth, but it does not have to be the only one. 2 Please see "People's Republic Of China: Selected Issues," IMF Country Report, dated August 15, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

ハイライト ビットコインの「合成」供給が金融デリバティブを通じて増加し、大手既存テクノロジー企業によるビットコイン類似の代替通貨の立ち上げが加わると、暗号通貨市場は自らの重みで崩壊するでしょう。 今後数年で供給増に起因する圧力を受け得る他の分野としては、原油、ハイイールド債、世界の不動産、低ボラティリティ取引が挙げられます。 対照的に、米国株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の減少が観察されています。 投資家はハイイールド債に対して米国株をロングすることを検討しつつ、ボラティリティ上昇に備えるべきです。 このような結果は1990年代後半に起きた状況に類似している可能性があり、その期間はVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向にある一方で株式は史上最高値を更新し続けました。 NAFTA交渉の決裂はカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソにとって依然として主要なリスクです。 特集 供給過剰でバブルが崩壊する 価格上昇の「治療法」はさらなる価格上昇である。ドットコムと住宅バブルは完全に自然消滅したわけではない。その崩壊は市場に新たな供給が波のように押し寄せたことで促進された。ドットコム・バブルの場合、2000年には新規公開（IPO）や二次公募による株式の洪水が投資家を圧倒し（チャート1）、インターネット株の価格に大きな下押し圧力を与えた。住宅ブームも同様に新規建設の急増によって覆された。住宅投資は2006年にGDP比6.6%と55年ぶりの高水準に達した（チャート2）。 チャート1 供給過剰による崩壊：例1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 チャート2 供給過剰による崩壊：例2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 ビットコインは同様の運命をたどろうとしているのだろうか？表面的には「いいえ」のように見えるかもしれない。より多くのビットコインが「マイニング」されるにつれ、追加生産の計算上のコストは指数関数的に上昇する。理論上、流通可能なビットコインは2100万枚に制限され、その約80%は既に生成されている（チャート3）。しかし、表面の下を見れば、ビットコインはさまざまな「供給側」要因に脆弱である可能性がある。 チャート3 ビットコイン：大部分は既に採掘済み ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み まず第一に、ビットコインの価値に連動する金融デリバティブの拡大は、暗号通貨の「合成」供給を生み出す脅威となる。 株式のコールオプションを売る（ライトする）とき、オプションの売り手は実質的に弱気の賭けをし、買い手は強気の賭けをしている。オプションを売るという行為自体が追加のロング・ポジションを生み、それは追加のショート・ポジションによってちょうど相殺される。さらに、特定のコールオプションを売る決定が類似のコールオプションの価格を押し下げる程度に、基礎となる株価も押し下げられるだろう。これは単純に、株式に対するロングエクスポージャーは現物株を保有するかそのコールオプションを保有することで得られるからである。後者の価格を傷つけるものは前者の価格も傷つける。 ビットコイン先物が取引され始めると、ビットコインに対して弱気の投資家はショートポジションを作り、結果として流通するビットコインの実質的な数量を増加させることができる。これは公式の発行枚数が同じままであっても起こり得る。 模倣は最大の賛辞 ビットコインの合成的な供給増はビットコイン投資家の懸念の一つである。もう一つの懸念は、ビットコイン類似の代替通貨からの競争の増大である。現在、数百もの暗号通貨が存在し、その多くはビットコインを支えるブロックチェーン技術のわずかな変形を使用している。 チャート4 政府は取り分を要求するだろう 政府は取り分を求めるだろう 政府は取り分を求めるだろう これまで新通貨の拡散は主に寝室やガレージで働く技術に精通した起業家によって牽引されてきた。しかし今や企業も参入している。営業しているらしいコダックの株価は、今週自社の暗号通貨を発表したことで3倍になった。これはこれから起こることのほんの一例に過ぎない。 フェイスブック、アマゾン、ネットフリックス、グーグルのような巨大企業が自社の暗号通貨を発行するのを妨げるものは何だろうか。彼らはすでに安全なグローバルネットワークを持っている。アマゾンは販売ごとに数コインを配り始め、消費者が新通貨で同社のオンラインストアから商品を購入できるようにすることもできる。やり方は簡単だ。1 唯一のもっともらしい制約は法的なものである：政府が自国の法定通貨への需要が落ちることを恐れて新興の暗号通貨を潰す脅威だ。数週間前に述べたように、米政府は通貨を印刷しその資金で財やサービスを購入する能力から年間約$100 billion、約1000億ドルのシニョレッジ収入を得ている（チャート4）。2 大企業が暗号通貨分野に参入すると、政府は遅かれ早かれ厳しい対応を取る可能性が高い。今週の韓国政府が取引所での暗号通貨取引禁止を検討するという報道は、その兆候である。 他にどの分野が？ 新規供給の津波に脆弱な他の分野はどこか？四つが思い浮かぶ： 原油：BCAの強気の原油見通しは大当たりだった。ブレントは昨年6月の44ドルから現在の69ドルまで上昇した。しかし今後の追加上昇はそれほど容易ではないかもしれない。当社のエネルギー・ストラテジストは米国シェール生産者の損益分岐点を50ドル台前半と見積もっている。3 現在はその水準を大きく上回っており、シェール供給は加速するだろう。これは短期的に価格がさらに上昇し得ないという意味ではないが、原油の長期的な上昇余地を制限する。 不動産：世界の多くで超低金利が住宅価格の急増を後押しした。カナダ、オーストラリア、ニュージーランド、および欧州の一部では、インフレ調整後の住宅価格は大不況前の水準を大きく上回っている（チャート5）。米国の実質住宅価格はまだ2006年のピークを下回っているが、商業用不動産（CRE）価格は新高値に達している（チャート6）。米国のCREセクター内の賃料上昇は鈍化し始めており、供給が徐々に需要に追いつきつつあることを示唆している（チャート7）。 チャート5 低金利が##br##住宅価格を押し上げた地域 低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域 低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域 チャート6 商業用不動産価格が##br##不況前の水準を上回った 商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている 商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている チャート7 賃料の伸びは鈍化している 家賃の伸びが鈍化している 家賃の伸びが鈍化している 企業債務：低金利は企業にクレジットを活用させた。米国および多くの国で企業債務の対GDP比はほぼ過去最高水準にある（チャート8A およびチャート8B）。クレジットスプレッドは依然として非常にタイトだが、これも企業債が市場に出てくるにつれて変わる可能性がある。 チャート8A 企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い 企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている 企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている チャート8B 企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い 企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている 企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている 低ボラティリティ取引：最近のブルームバーグの見出しは「ショート・ボラティリティ・ファンドに史上最多の資金が流入」と叫んでいた。4 Cboeで取引されるボラティリティ契約の数は2012年以降で10倍以上に増加した。ネットのショート投機ポジションは現在史上最高水準にある（チャート9）。トレーダーはここ数年、ボラティリティが低下することに賭けて巨額の利益を上げてきた。問題は、ボラティリティが上昇し始めると、同じトレーダーがポジションを一斉に手放す可能性があり、さらにボラティリティが高まる懸念があることだ。 前掲の分野とは対照的に、株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の侵食を受けている。S&Pの除数（ディバイザー）は2005年以降8%以上低下している。米国の上場企業数は1990年代後半以降ほぼ半減している（チャート10）。この傾向がすぐに逆転する可能性は低く、利益率の高止まりと多くの企業が法人税減税を利用して自社株買いを加速させる誘惑があることを考えれば、なおさらである。 チャート9 低ボラティリティへの需要が高い 低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている 低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている チャート10 株式市場における供給の減少 株式市場における供給の侵食 株式市場における供給の侵食 株価上昇に賭ける一方、ボラティリティとクレジットスプレッドの上昇も見込む 前述の議論は、今後数か月で株価とボラティリティ、クレジットスプレッドの関係が変化する可能性を示唆している。これは初めてのことではない。チャート11は、1990年代後半にVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向に転じた一方でS&P500は史上最高値を更新し続けたことを示している。今、我々は類似の局面に入る可能性がある。 米国でのトレンド超過の成長継続とインフレ上昇は米国債利回りを押し上げるだろう。我々は2016年7月5日に「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉」と宣言したが、これはちょうど10年物米国債利回りが終値で史上最安の1.37%を記録したその日だった。5 利上げは資金繰りに苦しむ借り手を苦しめ、クレジットスプレッドを拡大させる。企業の業況が悪化し次の景気後退の時期が近づくにつれて株式のボラティリティも上昇するだろう。我々の基本シナリオでは、米国および世界は2019年後半に景気後退に陥ると見ている。 金融市場は景気後退を実際に起こる前に嗅ぎつける。ただし歴史が示すように、それは景気後退開始の約6か月前にしか起こらないことが多い（表1）。これは、世界の株式は今後12か月程度は上昇を続け得ることを示唆する。これを念頭に、我々はS&P500のロング対ハイイールド債を新規トレードとして開始する。 チャート11 株価が上昇する中でもボラティリティは上昇し、スプレッドは##br##拡大し得る 株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。 株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。 表1 手仕舞いにはまだ早い ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？ ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？ 通貨に関するクイック・ヒット（4点） 今週は4つの項目が通貨およびフィクスト・インカム市場を揺るがした。第一は中国が米国債の購入を減速または停止するという報道だ。中国の国家外為管理局（SAFE）はその報道を「フェイクニュース」と非難した。 騒ぎの中で見落とされがちなのは、中国の保有する米国債残高が2011年以降ほぼ横ばいで推移しているという事実である（チャート12）。中国は依然として高度に管理された通貨を持つ。資本流出がもはや発生していないため、中国人民銀行（PBoC）は外貨準備の再構築を始めるだろう。米国債市場が世界で最大かつ最も流動的であることを考えれば、中国が余剰外貨の多くを米国に置かざるを得ないのは避けがたいように思える。 第二は日本銀行が保有する国債の買入目標を引き下げると発表したことだ。これは既に1年以上続いている動きを形式化したに過ぎない。日本銀行のJGB買入は過去12か月で急減しており、主因は80兆円という目標が国債の年間ネット発行額30〜35兆円のほぼ2倍であるためだ（チャート13）。 チャート12 中国の米国債保有：##br##2011年以降ほぼ横ばい 中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい 中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい チャート13 日銀は国債買入を##br##削減している 日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している 日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している 最終的には、これらはそれほど重要ではないはずだ。日本銀行は価格（JGBの利回り）をターゲットにすることも、数量（保有国債の枚数）をターゲットにすることもできるが、両方を同時にターゲットにすることはできない。日銀がすでに前者を行っているという事実は後者を無意味にする。そして長期インフレ期待が日銀の目標からほど遠い現状では、前者が変わる見込みは低い。 では円には何を意味するのか。円は割安であり、経常収支の黒字はGDP比で4%に膨らんでいる（チャート14）。投機筋の円ショートも非常に大きい（チャート15）。これは短期的な上昇の可能性を高めるが、同僚のMathieu Savaryが今週指摘したように、6世界の国債利回りが上昇する一方で日本の利回りが据え置かれる場合、円が大きく上昇して持続するのは難しい。総合的には、今年はUSD/JPYがやや強含むと予想している。 チャート14 円は既に割安... 円はすでに安い… 円はすでに安い… チャート15 ...かつ不人気 ...そして愛されない ...そして愛されない 第三の項目はECBの12月議事録で、中央銀行が2018年初めにコミュニケーション方針を見直すと示唆された点だ。市場が織り込んでいるより速くECBが金融政策を正常化するという憶測がある。もしそうなればEUR/USDはさらに強含むだろう。 もちろんこれは起こり得るが、それにはユーロ圏の成長が上振れサプライズを出す必要があるだろう。それは決して確実ではない。ユーロ圏の経済サプライズ・インデックスは下落に転じ始めており、相対的には米国に対して急落している（チャート16）。米国とは異なり、ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスは現在マイナスである（チャート17）。ユーロ圏の金融環境も米国に比べて大幅に引き締まっている（チャート18）。 チャート16 ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが##br##下落に転じ始めている ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下 ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下 チャート17 ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスのマイナスは##br##成長の重しとなる ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう チャート18 金融環境の乖離は##br##米国をユーロ圏より有利にする 金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする 金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする 一方で、EUR/USDは2016年以降、金利差の変化から予想される以上に上昇している（チャート19）。ユーロに対する投機的ポジショニングも、2017年初頭の大幅ショートから今日では大幅ロングへと変化している（チャート20）。妥当な割安感と健全な経常収支の黒字はユーロに有利に働くが、我々の最良の見立てはEUR/USDが今後数か月で上昇分の一部を手放すだろうというものである。 チャート19 金利差で説明される以上にユーロは##br##強含んだ ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している チャート20 ユーロのポジショニング：大幅ショートから##br##史上最高のロングへ ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ 最後に、今週は米国がNAFTA交渉から撤退するという報道を受けてカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソが圧迫された。ここで述べた4項目のうち、これが我々にとって最も懸念材料である。グローバルなサプライチェーンは高度に統合されている。それを破壊するものは大きな混乱を招くであろう。ある程度、トランプはこれを理解しているが、支持基盤は貿易に厳しくあってほしいと望んでおり、そうしなければ再選の見込みはさらに厳しくなることも彼は知っている。最終的には新たなNAFTA合意が成立すると期待しているが、そこに至る道のりはでこぼこだろう。 事務連絡 当社のグローバル・インダストリアルのロング／ユーティリティのショートのトレードは、9月29日に開始して以来12.4%の利益が出ている。利益保護のためストップを10%に引き上げる。2年物USD/サウジ・リヤルのフォワード契約のロングは損失2.9%で満了とし、サウジアラビアの財務状況が最近改善していることを踏まえ、同トレードは再導入しない。 ピーター・ベレジン, チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 本トピックに関する貴重な示唆を頂いたSHIG Partners LLC代表イゴール・ヴァッセルマン氏に感謝する。 2 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・レポート「ビットコインのマクロ的影響（Bitcoin's Macro Impact）」、2017年9月15日付；およびグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「フラット化したイールドカーブを恐れるな（Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve）」、2017年12月22日付を参照されたい。 3 エネルギー・セクター・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「損益分岐点分析：シェール企業が自立するには約50ドルの原油が必要（Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient）」、2017年3月15日付を参照。 4 Dani Burger, "Short-Volatility Funds Are Being Flooded With Cash," Bloomberg, 2017年11月6日。 5 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・アラート「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉（End Of The 35-year Bond Bull Market）」、2016年7月5日付を参照。 6 フォーリン・エクスチェンジ・ストラテジー「円：QQEは死んだ！YCC万歳！（Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!）」、2018年1月12日付を参照。 タクティカル・グローバル・アセット・アロケーションの推奨 ストラテジー & マーケット・トレンド タクティカル・トレード 戦略的推奨 クローズド・トレード

Recommended Allocation Highlights We are late cycle. Strong growth could turn in 2018 from a positive for risk assets into a negative. More risk-averse investors may thus want to turn cautious. But the last year of a bull run can be profitable, and we don't expect a recession until late 2019. For now, therefore, our recommendations remain pro-risk and pro-cyclical. We may turn more defensive in 2H 2018 if the Fed tightens above equilibrium. We expect inflation to pick up in 2018, which will lead the Fed to hike maybe four times. This will push long rates to 3%, and strengthen the U.S. dollar. Equities should outperform bonds in this environment. We prefer euro zone and Japanese equities over U.S., and remain underweight EM. Late-cycle sectors such as Financials and Industrials, should do well. We also favor corporate bonds and private equity. Feature Overview Fin de cycle Global economic growth in 2017 was robust for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 1). Forecasts for 2018 put growth slightly lower, but are likely to be revised up. However, as the year rolls on, the strong economic momentum may turn from being a positive for risk assets into a negative. U.S. output is now above potential, according to IMF estimates. As Chart 2 shows, historically recessions - and consequently equity bear markets - have usually come within a year or two of the output gap turning positive. With the economy operating above capacity, inflation pressures force the Fed to tighten monetary policy, which eventually causes a slowdown. Chart 1Growth Finally On A Firm Footing Global Growth Has Accelerated Chart 2Recessions Follow Output Gap Closing That is exactly how BCA sees the next couple of years panning out, leading to a recession perhaps in the second half of 2019. U.S. inflation was soft in 2017, but underlying inflation pressures are picking up, with core CPI inflation having bottomed, and small companies saying they are raising prices (Chart 3). Add to that wage pressures (with unemployment heading below 4% in 2018), tax cuts (which might boost growth by 0.2-0.3% points in their first year) and a higher oil price (we expect Brent to average $67 a barrel during the year), and core PCE inflation is likely to rise to 2%, in line with the Fed's expectations. This means the market is too sanguine about the risk of monetary tightening in the U.S. It has priced in less than two rates hikes in 2018, compared to the Fed's three dots, and almost nothing after that (Chart 4). If inflation picks up as we expect, four rate hikes in 2018 could be on the cards. Chart 3Inflation Pressures Picking Up Chart 4Market Still Underpricing Fed Hikes The consequences of this are that bond yields are likely to rise. Despite a significant market repricing since September of Fed behavior, long-term rates have not risen much, leading to a flattening yield curve (Chart 5). The market has essentially priced in that inflation will not rebound and that, consequently, the Fed will be making a policy mistake by hiking further. If, therefore, we are correct that inflation does reach 2%, the yield curve would be likely to steepen over the next six months, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield reaching 3% by mid-year. Other developed economies, however, have less urgency to tighten monetary policy and we, therefore, see the U.S. dollar appreciating. The only other major economy with a positive output gap currently is Germany (Chart 6). However, the ECB will continue to set policy for the weaker members of the euro area, and output gaps in France (-1.8% of GDP), Italy (-1.6%) and Spain (-0.7%) remain significantly negative. In the absence of inflation pressures, the ECB won't raise rates until late 2019. Japan, too, continues to struggle to bring inflation up the BOJ's 2% target and the Yield Curve Control policy will therefore stay in place, meaning that a rise in global rates will weaken the yen. Chart 5Is Fed Making A Policy Mistake? Chart 6Still A Lot Of Negative Output Gaps This sort of late-cycle environment is a tricky one for investors. The catalysts for strong performance in equities that we foresaw a few months ago - U.S. tax cuts and upside surprises in earnings - have now largely played out. Global earnings will probably rise next year by around 10-12%, in line with analysts' forecasts. With multiples likely to slip a little as the Fed tightens, high single-digit performance is the best that investors should expect from equities. The macro environment which we expect, would be more negative for bonds than positive for equities. That argues for the stock-to-bond ratio to continue to rise until closer to the next recession (Chart 7). And, for now, none of the recession indicators we have been consistently monitoring over the past months is flashing a warning signal (Chart 8). Chart 7Stock-To-Bond Ratio Likely To Rise Further Chart 8Recession Warning Signals Still Not Flashing More risk-averse investors might chose to reduce their exposure to risk assets now, given how close we are to the end of the cycle. But this would be at the risk of leaving some money on the table, since the last year of a bull run can often be the most profitable (remember 1999?). We, therefore, maintain our recommendation for pro-cyclical and pro-risk tilts: overweight equities versus bonds, overweight credit, overweight higher-beta equity markets and sectors, and a preference towards riskier alternative assets. We may move towards a more defensive stance in mid to late 2018, when we see clearer signs that the Fed has tightened above equilibrium or that the risk of recession is rising. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking What Will Be The Impact Of The U.S. Tax Cuts? It is not a done deal, but it still seems likely (notwithstanding the Democratic victory in Alabama) that the U.S. House and Senate will agree a joint tax bill to pass before the end of the year. Since the two current bills have only minor differences, it is possible to make some estimates of the macro and sector impacts of the tax reform. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the cuts will reduce government revenue by $1.4 trillion over 10 years - or $1 trillion (5% of GDP) once positive effects on growth are accounted for. The Treasury argues that tax reform (plus deregulation and infrastructure development) will push GDP growth to 2.9% and therefore government revenues will increase by $300 billion. BCA's estimate is that GDP growth will be boosted by 0.2-0.3% in 2018 and 2019.1 For businesses, the key tax changes are: 1) a reduction in the headline corporate rate from 35% to 21%; 2) immediate expensing of capital investment; 3) a limit to deduction of interest expenses to 30% of taxable income; 4) a move to a territorial tax system from a worldwide one, with a 10% tax on repatriation of past profits held overseas; 5) curbs for some deductions, such as R&D, domestic production and tax-loss carry-forwards. Corporate tax cuts will give a one-off boost to earnings, since the effective tax rate is currently over 25% (Chart 9, panel 1), with telecoms, utilities and industrials likely to be the biggest beneficiaries. This is not fully priced into stocks, since companies with high tax rates have seen their stock prices rise only moderately (Chart 9, panel 2). BCA's sector strategists expect that capex will especially be boosted: they estimate that the one-year depreciation increases net present value by 14% (Table 1).2 This should be positive for the Industrials sector (supplying the capital goods) and for Financials (which will see increased demand for loans). We are overweight both. Chart 9Tax Cuts Should Boost Earnings Table 1 Is Bitcoin A Bubble, And What Happens When It Bursts? The recent surge in prices (Chart 10) of virtual currencies has pushed Bitcoin and aggregate cryptocurrency market cap to $275 billion and $500 billion respectively. The recent violent run-up certainly bears a close resemblance to classic bubbles, but the impact of a sharp correction should be minimal on the real economy and traditional capital markets. As mentioned above, the market cap of cryptocurrencies has reached $500 billion. Globally, there is about $6 trillion in currency3 outstanding, so the value of virtual currencies is now 8% that of traditional fiat currency. Additionally, an estimated 1000 people own about 40% of the world's total bitcoin, for an average of about $105 million per person. At the moment, the macro impact has been constrained by the fact that most people are buying bitcoins as a store of value (Chart 11) or vehicle for speculation, rather than as a medium of exchange. However, when the public begins to regard them as legitimate substitutes for traditional fiat currencies, their impact will be felt on the real economy. Chart 10A Classic Bubble Chart 11Bitcoin Trading Volume By Top Three Currencies That would raise the issue of regulation. The U.S. government generates close to $70 billion per year as "seigniorage revenue." Governments across the world have no intention of losing this revenue, and would most likely introduce their own competitors to bitcoin. Until then, the biggest potential impact of these private currencies might be to spur inflation in the fiat currencies in which their prices are measured. That would be bad for government bonds, but potentially good for stocks. A further risk - and a similarity with the real estate bubble of 2007 - is the use of leverage. The news of a Tokyo-based exchange (BitFyler) offering up to 15x leverage for the purchase of bitcoins has spooked investors. However, the U.S. housing market is valued at $29.6 trillion, almost 60 times that of cryptocurrencies. Finally, the 19th century free banking era in the U.S., which at one point saw 8000 different currencies in circulation, experienced multiple banking crises. A world with myriad private currencies all competing with one another would be similarly unstable. Why Did The U.S. Dollar Weaken In 2017, And Where Will It Go In 2018? Chart 12Positioning And Relative Rates Supportive For USD We were wrong to be bullish on U.S. dollar at the start of 2017. We think the dollar weakness during most of the year can be attributed to the fact that investors were massively long the dollar at the end of 2016 (Chart 12, panel 2), which made the market particularly vulnerable to surprises. Several surprises did come: inflation softened in the U.S. but strengthened in the euro area. There were also positive geopolitical surprises in Europe - for example the victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French presidential election - while the failure to repeal Obamacare in the U.S. raised investors' concerns on the administration's ability to undertake fiscal stimulus. As a result, the U.S. dollar depreciated against euro despite widening interest rate differentials (Chart 12 panel 4) in 2017. Chart 13late Cycle Outperformance Since investors are now aggressively short the dollar, the hurdle for the greenback to deliver positive surprises is much lower than a year ago. Since the Senate passed the Republican tax bill in early December, we have already seen some recovery in the dollar (Chart 12, panel 1). As the labor market continues to firm, with GDP running above potential, U.S. inflation should finally start to pick up in 2018, which will allow the Fed to hike rates, possibly as many as four times during the year. This will contrast with the macro situation overseas: Japan and Europe are likely to continue loose monetary policy to maintain the momentum in their economies. All this should be supportive of the dollar. Are Convertible Bonds Attractive Over The Next 12 Months? With valuations for traditional assets expensive and investors' thirst for yield continuing, the market is in need of alternative sources of return. Convertible bonds offer a hybrid credit/equity exposure, giving investors the option to participate in rising equity markets but with less risk. An allocation to convertibles could prove attractive for the following reasons: Convertible bonds typically outperform high-yield debt in the late stages of bull markets, because of their relatively lower exposure to credit spreads. Junk spreads have a history of starting to widen before equity bear markets begin. Fifty percent of the convertibles index comprises issuance from small-cap and mid-cap firms. Although equity valuations are expensive, prices should continue to rise as long as inflation stays low. Additionally, our U.S. Investment Strategy service thinks that small-cap equities will outperform large caps in the coming months, partly because the likely cuts in U.S. corporate taxes will disproportionately benefit smaller companies. Convertible bonds do appear somewhat cheap relative to equities (Chart 13, panel 3) but, on balance, there is not a strong valuation case for the asset class. Equities appear fairly valued relative to junk bonds, and convertibles are trading at an elevated investment premium. However, valuation is not likely to be a significant headwind to the typical late-cycle outperformance of convertibles versus high yield. biggest near-term risk for convertibles relative to high yield stems from the technology sector, which makes up 35% of the convertibles index. Technology convertible bonds have strongly outperformed their high-yield counterparts in recent months (Chart 13, panel 4), and are possibly due for a period of underperformance. We recommend investors stay cautious on technology convertibles. Other Than U.S. Tips, What Other Inflation-Linked Bonds Do You Like? Our research shows that inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) are a good inflation hedge in a rising inflationary environment.4 With our house view of rising inflation in 2018, we have been overweight U.S. Tips over nominal Treasury bonds as the U.S. is the most liquid market for inflation-linked bonds, with a market cap of over US$ 1.2 trillion. Outside the U.S., we favor ILBs in Japan and Australia, while we suggest investors to avoid ILBs in the U.K. and Germany (even though the U.K. linkers' market is the second largest after the U.S.), for the following two key reasons: First, even though inflation is below target in Japan, Australia and the euro area, while above target in the U.K., in all of these markets, inflation has bottomed, as shown in Chart 14. Second, our breakeven fair-value models, which are based on trade-weighted currencies, the Brent oil price in local currencies, and stock-to-bond total-return ratios, indicate that ILBs are undervalued in Japan and Australia, while overvalued in the U.K. and Germany, as shown in Chart 15. Chart 14Inflation Dynamics Chart 15Where to Buy Inflation? The shorter duration (in real terms) of ILBs are an added bonus which fits well with our overall underweight duration positioning in the government bond universe. Global Economy Overview: Growth in developed economies remains strong and there is little in the data to suggest it will slow. This is likely to push up inflation and interest rates, especially in the U.S., over the next six to 12 months. Prospects for emerging markets, however, are less encouraging given that China is likely to slow moderately as it pushes ahead with reforms. U.S.: U.S. growth momentum remains very strong. GDP growth in the past two quarters has come in over 3%, and NowCasts for Q4 point to 2.9-3.9%. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (Chart 16, panel 1) has surged since June, and the Manufacturing ISM is at 53.9 and the Non-Manufacturing at 57.4 (panel 2). The worst that can be said is that momentum will be unable to continue at this rate but, with business confidence high, wage growth likely to pick up in 2018, and some positive impacts from tax cuts, no significant slowdown is in sight. Euro Area: Given its stronger cyclicality and ties to the global trade cycle, euro zone growth has surprised on the upside even more strongly than in the U.S. The Manufacturing PMI reached 60.6 in December (its highest level since 2000), and GDP growth in Q3 accelerated to 2.6% QoQ annualized. The euro's strength in 2017 seems to have done little to dent growth, and even weaker members of the euro zone such as Italy have seen improving GDP growth (1.7% in Q3). With the ECB reining back monetary easing only slightly, and banking problems shelved for now, growth should remain resilient in early 2018. Japan: Retail sales saw some weakness in October (-0.2% YoY), probably because of bad weather, but elsewhere data looks robust. Q3 GDP came in at 1.3% QoQ annualized and export growth remains strong at 14% YoY. There are even some signs of life in the domestic economy, with wages finally picking up a little (+0.9% YoY), driven by labor shortages among part-time workers, and consumer confidence at a four-year high. Inflation has been slow to rise, but at least core core inflation (the Bank of Japan's favorite measure) is now in positive territory at +0.2%. Emerging Markets: Chinese credit and monetary series, historically good lead indicators for the real economy, continue to decline (M2 growth in October of 8.8% was the lowest since data started in 1996). But, for now, economic growth has held up, with the Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing PMIs both stably above 50 (Chart 17, panel 3). Key will be how much the government's moves to deleverage the financial system and implement structural reform in 2018 will slow growth. Elsewhere in emerging markets, economic growth remains sluggish, with GDP growth in Brazil barely rebounding to 1.4% YoY, Russia to 1.8%, and India slowing to 6.3% (down from over 9% in early 2016). Chart 16Growth Momentum Very Strong Chart 17Will China And EM Slow in 2018? Interest rates: We expect U.S. inflation to pick up in 2018, as the lagged effects of 2017's stronger growth and the weak dollar start to come through, amid higher oil prices and rising wages. We, along with the Fed, expect core PCE inflation to rise to 2% during the year. This means the Fed is likely to raise rates four times, compared to market expectations of twice. Consequently, we see the 10-year Treasury yield over 3% by mid-year. In the euro zone, the still-large output gap means inflation is less likely to surprise on the upside, allowing the ECB to keep negative rates until well into 2019. The Bank of Japan is unlikely to alter its Yield Curve Control, given the signal this would send to the market when inflation expectations are still well below its 2% target (Chart 17, panel 4). Chart 18Equities: Priced for Perfection Global Equities Still Cautiously Optimistic: Our pro-cyclical equity positioning in 2017 worked very well in terms of country allocation (overweight euro zone and Japan in the DM universe) and global sector allocation (favoring cyclicals vs defensives). The two calls that did not pan out were underweight EM equities vs. DM equities, which was partially offset by our positive stance on China within the EM universe, and the overweight of Energy, which was the worst performing sector of the year. The stellar equity performance in 2017 was largely driven by strong earnings growth. Margins improved in both DM and EM; earnings grew in all sectors, and analysts remained upbeat (Chart 18). Another important contributor to 2017 performance was the extraordinary performance of the Tech sector, especially in China: globally, tech returned 41.9%, outperforming the MSCI all country index by 18.9%. GAA's philosophy is to take risk where it is mostly likely be rewarded. In July, we took profits in our Tech overweight and used the funds to upgrade Financials to overweight from neutral. Then in October we started to reduce tracking risk by scaling down our active country bets, closing our overweight in the U.S. to reduce the underweight in EM. BCA's house view is for synchronized global growth to continue in 2018, but a possible recession in late 2019. We are a little concerned that equity markets are priced for perfection, given that our earnings model indicates a deceleration in the coming months mostly due to a base effect. As such, our combination of "close to shore" country allocation and "pro-cyclical" sector allocation is appropriate for the next 9-12 months. Country Allocation: Still Favor DM Over EM Chart 19China: From Tailwind to Headwind for EM ? Our longstanding call of underweight EM vs. DM since December 2013 was gradually reduced in scale, first in March 2016 (to -5 percentage points from -9) and then in October 2017 (further to -2 points). Going forward, investors should continue to maintain this slight underweight position in EM vs. DM. First, our positive stance on China proved to be timely as shown in Chart 19, panel 4, with China outperforming EM by 54.1% since March 2016, and by 18.8% in 2017. Back then our positive stance on China was supported by attractive valuations (bottom panel) and our view that Chinese politics would be supportive for global growth in the run up to the 19th Party Congress. Now BCA's Geopolitical Strategists think that "China politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets".5 In addition, Chinese equities are no longer valued at a discount to the EM average (bottom panel). Second, BCA's currency view is for continued strength in the USD, especially against emerging market currencies. This does not bode well for EM/DM performance in US dollar terms (Chart 19, panel 1). Third, EM money growth leads profit growth by about three months (Chart 19, panel 2). The rolling over in money growth indicates that the currently strong earnings growth may lose steam going forward, while relative valuation is in the fair-value zone (Chart 19, panel 3). Sector Allocation: Stay Overweight Energy Our pro-cyclical sector positioning has worked well in aggregate as the market-cap-weighted cyclical index significantly outperformed the defensive index in 2017. This positioning is also in line with BCA's house view of synchronized global growth and higher inflation expectations, which translates into two major sector themes: capex recovery and rising interest rates. (Please see detailed sector positioning on page 24.) Within the cyclical space, however, the Energy sector did not perform as expected in 2017 (Chart 20). It returned only 3.4%, underperforming the global aggregate by 19.6%. For the next 9-12 months, we recommend investors to stay overweight this underdog of 2017. Chart 20Energy Stocks Lagging Oil Price First, the energy sector is a major beneficiary from a capex recovery. There are already signs of a recovery in basic resources investment in the U.S.6 Second, the energy sector's relative return lagged oil price performance in 2017. Given the generally close correlation between earnings and the oil price, and between analyst earnings revisions and OECD oil inventory growth, earnings in the sector should outpace the broad market. Third, based on price-to-cash earnings, the energy sector is still trading at about a 30% discount to the broad market, and offers a much higher dividend yield (about 1.2 points higher) than the broad market. Even though these discounts are in line with historical averages, they are still supportive of an overweight. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. One important theme for 2018 will be a resumption of the cyclical uptrend in inflation.7 The implications are that both nominal bond yields and break-even inflation rates will be higher in 2018. We have been underweight duration in government bonds since July 2016. Now with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield at 2.35%, much lower than its fair value of 2.81%, there is considerable upside risk for global bond yields from current low levels. Investors should continue to underweight duration in global government bonds Maintain Overweight Tips Vs. Treasuries. The base-case forecast from our U.S. bond strategists is that the Tips breakeven rate will rise to 2.4-2.5% as U.S. core PCE reaches the Fed's 2% target, probably sometime in the middle of 2018. Compared to the current level of 1.87%, 10-yr Tips would have upside of 33-38 bps, an important source of return in the low-return fixed-income space (Chart 21, bottom panel). In terms of relative value, Tips are now slightly cheaper than nominal bonds, also supportive of the overweight stance. Underweight Canadian Government Bonds. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy has taken profits in their short Canada vs. U.S. and U.K. tactical position, as the market has become too aggressive in pricing in more rate hikes in Canada. Strategically, however, the underweight of Canada (Chart 22) in a hedged global portfolio is still appropriate because: 1) the output gap has closed in Canada, according to Bank of Canada estimates, and so any additional growth will translate into higher inflation; and 2) the rising CAD will not deter the BoC from more rate hikes if the oil prices remain strong. Chart 21U.S. Bond Yields Have Further To Rise Chart 22Strategic Underweight Canadian Bonds Corporate Bonds Our overweights through most of 2017 on spread product worked well: U.S. investment grade (IG) bonds returned around 290 bps over Treasuries in the year to end-November, and high-yield bonds almost 600 bps. Returns over the next 12 months are unlikely to be as attractive. Spreads (Chart 24) are now close to historic lows: the U.S. IG bond spread, at 90 bps, is only about 30 bps above its all-time record. High-yield valuations look a little more attractive: based on our model of probable defaults over the next 12 months, the default-adjusted spread over U.S. Treasuries is likely to be around 240 bps (Chart 25). In both cases, however, investors should expect little further spread contraction, meaning that credit is now no more than a carry trade. However, in an environment where rates remain fairly low and investors continue to stretch for yield, that pick-up will remain attractive in the absence of a significant turn-down in the economic cycle. The key to watch is the shape of the yield curve. An inverted yield curve in history has been an excellent indictor of the end of the credit cycle. We expect the yield curve to steepen somewhat in H1 2018, before flattening again and then inverting late in the year. Spread product is likely, therefore, to produce decent returns until that point. Thereafter, however, the deterioration of U.S. corporate health over the past three years (Chart 23) could mean a sharp sell-off in corporate bonds. This might be exacerbated by the recent popularity of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs: a small widening of spreads could be magnified by a panicked sell-off in such funds. Chart 23Rising Leverage May Worsen Sell-Off Chart 24Credit Spreads Close To Record Lows Chart 25But Default - Adjusted, Junk Still Looks Attractive Commodities Energy: Bullish Energy prices performed strongly in H2 2017, and we expect bullish sentiment to continue. OPEC 2.0 is likely to maintain production discipline, and will maintain its promised 1.8mm b/d production cuts through the end of 2018. Our estimates for global demand growth are higher than those of other forecasters. This, along with potential unplanned production outages in Iraq, Libya and Venezuela (together accounting for 7.4mm b/d of production at present), drives our above-consensus price forecast of $67 a barrel for Brent crude during 2018. Industrial Metals: Neutral Since China accounts for more than 50% of world base-metal consumption, prices will continue to be highly dependent on developments there. (Chart 26, panel 4). Since the government is trying to accelerate environmental and supply-side reforms, domestic production capacity for base metals will shrink, which will be a positive for global metals prices. However, a focus on deleveraging in the financial sector and restructuring certain industries could slow Chinese GDP growth, reducing base-metal demand. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold has risen by 12% in 2017, supported by an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with low interest rates. We believe that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and that inflation may rise in the U.S., which would be positives for gold (Chart 26, panel 3). Based on BCA's view that stock market could be at risk from the middle of 2018,8 a moderate gold holding is warranted as a safe-haven asset. However, rising interest rate and a potentially stronger U.S. dollar are likely to limit the upside for gold. Currencies USD: The currency is down over 6% on a trade-weighted basis over the past 12 months (Chart 27). Looking into 2018, the USD is likely to perform well in the first half. U.S. inflation should gather steam in the first two to three quarters, and the Fed will be able at least to follow its dot plot - something interest rate markets are not ready for. As investors remain short the USD, upside risk to U.S. interest rates should result in a higher dollar. Chart 26Bullish Oil, Neutral Metals Chart 27Dollar Likely To Appreciate EM/JPY: Carry trades are a key mechanism for redistributing global liquidity, and they have recently begun to lose steam. A crucial reason for this has been the policy tightening in China which has been the key driver of growth in EM economies. Additionally, Japanese flows have been chasing momentum into EM assets. Further tightening in EM could reverse the flows and initiate a flight to safety, favoring the yen relative to EM currencies. CHF: The currency continues to trade at a 5% premium to its PPP fair value against the euro. However, after considering Switzerland's net international investment position at 130% of GDP, the trade-weighted CHF trades in line with fair value. The CHF will continue to behave as a risk-off currency, and so long as global volatility remains well contained, EUR/CHF will experience appreciating pressure. GBP: Sterling continues to look cheap, trading at an 18% discount to PPP against the USD. However, Brexit remains a key problem. If future immigration is limited, the U.K. will see lower trend growth relative to its neighbors, forcing its equilibrium real neutral rate downward. Consequently, it will be more difficult to finance the current account deficit of 5% of GDP. Until negotiations with the EU come closer to completion, the pound will continue to offer limited reward and plenty of volatility. Alternatives Chart 28Favor Private Equity and Farmland Alternative assets under management (AUM) have reached a record $7.7 trillion in 2017. Lower fees and a broader range of investment types have helped attract more capital. Private equity remains the most popular choice,9 driven by its strong performance and transparency. Many investors have also shifted part of their allocations toward potentially higher-return private debt programs. Return Enhancers: Favor Private Equity Vs. Hedge Funds In 2017 so far, private equity has returned 12.1%, whereas hedge funds have managed only a 5.9% return (Chart 28). We expect private-equity fund-raising to continue into 2018, but with a larger focus on niche strategies with more favorable valuations. Additionally, deploying capital gradually not only provides for vintage-year diversification, but also creates opportunities for investors to benefit from potential market corrections. We continue to favor private equity over hedge funds outside of recessions. During a recession, we recommend investors take shelter in hedge funds with a macro mandate. Inflation Hedges: Favor Direct Real Estate Vs. Commodity Futures In 2017 to date, direct real estate has returned 5.1%, whereas commodity futures are down over 3.7%. Direct real estate as an asset class continues to provide valuable diversification, lower volatility, steady yields and an illiquidity premium. However, a slowdown in U.S. commercial real estate (CRE) has made us more cautious on the overall asset class. With regards to the commodity complex, the long-term transition of the global economy to a more renewables-focused energy base will continue the structural decline in commodity demand. We continue to stress the structural and long-term nature of our negative recommendation on commodities. Volatility Dampeners: Favor Farmland & Timberland Vs. Structured Products In 2017 to date, farmland and timberland have returned 3.2% and 2.1% respectively, whereas structured products are up 3.7%. Farmland continues to outperform timberland. The slow U.S. housing recovery has added downward pressure to timberland returns. Investors can reduce the volatility of a traditional multi-asset portfolio with inclusion of farm and timber assets. For structured products, low spreads in an environment of tightening commercial real estate lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, warrant an underweight. Risks To Our View We think upside and downside risks to our central scenario for 2018 - slowing but robust economic growth, and continuing moderate outperformance of risk assets - are roughly evenly balanced. On the negative side, perhaps the biggest risk is China, where the slowdown already suggested in the monetary data (Chart 29) could be exacerbated if the government pushes ahead aggressively with structural reforms. Geopolitical risks, which the market over-emphasized in 2017, seem under-estimated now.10 U.S. trade policy, Italian elections, and North Korea all have potential to derail markets. Also, when the U.S. yield curve is as flat as it is currently, small risks can be blown up into big sell-offs. This is particularly so given over-stretched valuations for almost all asset classes. Chart 29China Monetary Conditions Suggest A Slowdown Table 2How Will Trump Try To Influence The Fed? The most likely positive surprise could come from a dovish Fed. New Fed chair Jay Powell is something of an unknown quantity, and the White House could use the three remaining Fed vacancies to push the Fed to keep rates low, so as not to offset the positive effect of the tax cuts. Without these new appointees, the Fed would have a slightly more hawkish bias in 2018 (Table 2). The intellectual argument for hiking only slowly would be, as Janet Yellen said last month: "It can be quite dangerous to allow inflation to drift down and not to achieve over time a central bank's inflation target." The Fed has missed its 2% target for five years. It is possible to imagine a situation where the Fed increasingly makes excuses to keep monetary policy easy (encouraged, for example, by a short-lived sell-off in markets or a slowdown in China) and this causes a late-cycle blow-out, similar to 1999. 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When To Get Out," dated December 8, 2017 available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Sector Implications," dated December 12, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 CBNK Survey: Monetary Base, Currency in Circulation. Source: IMF - International Financial Statistics. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Two Virtuous Dollar Circles," dated October 28, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated 20 November 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Source: BNY Mellon - The Race For Assets; Alternative Investments Surge Ahead. 10 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. GAA Asset Allocation