大中華
Highlights The risk/reward balance for risk assets remains unappealing this month, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The number of items that could take equity markets to new highs appears to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have eased, but the U.S./China trade war is heating up. Trump's voter base and many in Congress want the President to push China harder. Eurozone "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. The Italian President is trying to install a technocratic government, but the interim between now and a likely summer election will extend the campaign period during which the two contending parties have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. The next Italian election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked, especially since Italy's economic growth appears set to slow. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. One reason for the economic "soft patch" is that the Chinese economy continues to decelerate. Our indicators suggest that growth will moderate further, with negative implications for the broader emerging market complex. Dearer oil may also be starting to bite, although prices have not increased enough to derail the expansion in the developed economies. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. While the U.S. economy will enjoy a strong rebound in the second quarter, leading economic indicators in most of the other major countries have rolled over. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. U.S. inflation is almost back to target and the FOMC signaled that an overshoot will be tolerated. Policymakers will likely transition from "normalizing" policy to targeting slower economic growth once long-term inflation expectations return to the 2.3%-2.5% range. The advanced stage of the U.S. business cycle, heightened geopolitical risks and our bias for capital preservation keep us tactically cautious on risk assets again this month. Feature The major stock indexes are struggling, even though 12-month forward earnings estimates continue to march higher (Chart I-1). One problem is that a lot of good earnings news was discounted early in the year. The number of items that could take markets to new highs appear to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Not the least of which is ongoing pain in emerging markets and the return of financial stress in Eurozone debt markets. Last month's Overview highlighted the unappealing risk/reward balance for risk assets, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The advanced stage of the business cycle and our bias for capital preservation motivated us to heed the recent warnings from our growth indicators and 'exit' timing checklist. We also were concerned about a raft of geopolitical tensions. Fast forward one month and the backdrop has not improved. Our Equity Scorecard Indicator edged up, but is still at a level that historically was consistent with poor returns to stocks and corporate bonds (see Chart I-1 in last month's Overview). Our 'exit' checklist is also signaling that caution is warranted (Table I-1). Meanwhile, the "global synchronized expansion" theme that helped to drive risk asset prices higher last year is beginning to unravel and trade tensions are escalating. Chart I-1Struggling To Make Headway Table I-1Exit Checklist For Risk Assets U.S./Sino Trade War Is Back? The "on again/off again" trade war between the U.S. and China is on again as we go to press. Investors breathed a sigh of relief in mid-May when the Trump Administration signaled that China's minor concessions were sufficient to avoid the imposition of onerous new tariffs. However, the proposed deal did not go down well with many in the U.S., including some in the Republican Party. The President was criticized for giving up too much in order to retain China's help in dealing with North Korea. Trump might have initially cancelled the summit with Kim in order to send a message to China that he is still prepared to play hard ball on trade, despite the North Korean situation. We expect that U.S./North Korean negotiations will soon begin, and that Pyongyang will not be a major threat to global financial markets for at least the near term. It is a different story for U.S./China relations. Trump's voter base and many in Congress on both sides of the isle want the President to push China harder. This is likely to be a headwind for risk assets at least until the U.S. mid-term elections. The Return Of Eurozone Breakup Risk Turning to the Eurozone, "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. Italian President Sergio Mattarella's decision to reject a proposed cabinet minister has led to the collapse of the populist coalition between the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the euroskeptic League. President Mattarella's choice for interim-prime minister, Carlo Cottarelli, is unlikely to last long. It is highly unlikely that he will be able to receive parliamentary support for a technocratic mandate, given the fact that he cut government spending during a brief stint in government from 2013-14. As such, elections are likely this summer. Chart I-2Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Investors continue to fret for two reasons. First, the interim period will extend the campaign period during which both M5S and the League have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. Second, M5S has suggested that it will try to impeach Mattarella, a long and complicated process that would heighten political risk, though it will likely fail in our view. As our geopolitical strategists have emphasized throughout 2017, Italy will eventually be the source of a major global risk-off event because it is the one outstanding major European country capable of reigniting the Euro Area break-up crisis.1 While a majority of Italians support the euro, they are less supportive than any other major European country, including Greece (Chart I-2). Meanwhile a plurality of Italians is confident that the future would be brighter if Italy were an independent country outside of the EU. That said, the next election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. The current conflict arises from the coalition wanting to run large budget deficits in violation of Europe's Stability and Growth Pact fiscal rules. Given that the costs of attempting to exit the Euro Area are extremely severe for Italy's households and savers, and that even the Five Star Movement has moderated its previous skepticism about the euro for the time being, it is likely going to require a recession or another crisis to cause Italy seriously contemplate an exit. We are still several steps away from such a move. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked. Italy's leading economic indicator points to slowing growth, which will intensify the populist push for aggressive fiscal stimulus. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. Global Growth Has Peaked Chart I-3Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum, as highlighted by the indicators shown in Chart I-3. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. What is behind this year's loss of momentum? First, growth in 2017 was flattered by a rebound from the oil-related manufacturing recession of 2015/16. That rebound is now topping out, while worries regarding a trade war are undoubtedly weighing on animal spirits and industrial activity. Second, the Eurozone economy was lifted last year by the previous recapitalization of parts of the banking system, which allowed some pent-up credit demand to be satiated. This growth impulse also appears to have peaked, which helps to explain the sharp drop in some of the Eurozone's key economic indicators. Still, we do not expect European growth to slip back below a trend pace on a sustained basis unless the Italian situation degenerates so much that contagion causes significantly tighter financial conditions for the entire Eurozone economy. The third factor contributing to the global growth moderation is China. The Chinese economy surged in 2017 in a lagged response to fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2016, as highlighted by the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) and import growth (Chart I-4). Both are now headed south as the policy backdrop turned less supportive. Downturns in China's credit and fiscal impulses herald a deceleration in capital spending and construction activity (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The LKI has a strong correlation with ex-tech earnings and import growth. In turn, the latter is important for the broader EM complex that trade heavily with China. Weaker Chinese import growth has also had a modest negative impact on the developed world (Chart I-5). We estimate that, for the major economies, the contribution to GDP growth of exports to China has fallen from 0.3 percentage points last year to 0.1 percentage points now.2 Japan and Australia have been hit the hardest, but the Eurozone has also been affected. Interestingly, U.S. exports to China have bucked the trend so far. Chart I-4China Growth Slowdown... Chart I-5...Is Weighing On Global Activity China is not the only story because the slowdown in global trade activity in the first quarter was broadly based (Chart I-5). Nonetheless, softer aggregate demand growth out of China helps to explain why manufacturing PMIs and industrial production growth in most of the major developed economies have cooled. Our model for the LKI is still moderating. We do not see a hard economic landing, but our analysis points to further weakening in Chinese imports and thus softness in global exports and manufacturing activity in the coming months. Oil's Impact On The Economy... Finally, oil prices are no doubt taking a bite out of consumer spending power as Brent fluctuates just below $80/bbl. Our energy experts expect the global crude market to continue tightening due to robust growth and ongoing geopolitical tensions. Chief among these are the continuing loss of Venezuelan crude production and the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we expect OPEC 2.0 to keep its production cuts in place in the second half of the year. Increasing shale output will not be enough to prevent world oil prices from rising in this environment, and we expect oil prices to continue to trend higher through 2018 and into early 2019 (Chart I-6). Brent could touch $90/bbl next year. There are a few ways to gauge the size of the oil shock on the economy. Chart I-7 shows the U.S. and global 'oil bill' as a share of GDP. We believe that both the level and the rate of change are important. Price spikes, even from low levels, do not allow energy users the time to soften the blow by shifting to alternative energy sources. Chart I-6Oil: Stay Bullish Chart I-7The Oil Bill The level of the oil bill is not high by historical standards. The increase in the bill over the past year has been meaningful, both for the U.S. and at the global level, but is still a long way from the oil shocks of the 1970s. U.S. consumer spending on energy as a share of disposable income, at about 4%, is also near the lowest level observed over the past 4-5 decades (Chart I-8). The 2-year swing in this series shows that rapid increases in energy-related spending has preceded slowdowns in economic growth, even from low starting points. The swing is currently back above the zero line but, again, it is not at a level that historically was associated with a significant economic slowdown. Chart I-8Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Moreover, the mushrooming shale oil and gas industry has altered the calculus of oil shocks for the U.S. The plunge in oil prices in 2014-16 was accompanied by a manufacturing and profit mini recession in the developed countries, providing a drag on overall GDP growth. Chart I-9 provides an estimate of the contribution to U.S. growth from the oil and gas industry. We have included capital spending and wages & salaries in the calculation, and scaled it up to include spillover effects on other industries. Chart I-9Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale The oil and gas contribution swung from +0.5 percentage points in 2012 to -0.4 percentage points in 2016. The contribution has since become only slightly positive again, but it is likely to rise further unless oil prices decline in the coming months. We have included the annual swing in consumer spending on energy as a percent of GDP in Chart I-9 (inverted) for comparison purposes. At the moment, the impact on growth from the shale industry is roughly offsetting the negative impact on consumer spending. The bottom line is that the rise in oil prices so far is enough to take the edge off of global growth, but it is not large enough to derail the expansion in the developed countries. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. ...And Asset Prices As for the impact on asset prices, it is important to ascertain whether rising oil prices represent more restrictive supply or expanding demand. A mild rise in oil prices might simply be a symptom of increased demand caused by accelerating global growth. Higher oil prices are thus reflective of robust demand, and thus should not be seen as a threat. In contrast, the 1970s experience shows that supply restrictions can send the economy into a tailspin. In order to separate the two drivers of prices, we regressed WTI oil prices on global oil demand, inventories and the U.S. dollar. By excluding supply-related factors such as production restrictions, the residual of the regression model gives an approximate gauge of supply shocks (panel 2, Chart I-10). This model clearly has limitations, but it also has one key benefit: it estimates not just actual disruptions in supply, but also the premium built into prices due to perceived or expected future supply disruptions. For example, the 1990 price spike appears as quite a substantial deviation from what could be explained by changes in demand alone. Similar negative supply shocks are evident in 2000 and 2008. Chart I-10Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market We then examined the impact that supply shocks have on subsequent period returns for both Treasury and risk assets. We divided the Supply Shock Proxy into four quartiles corresponding to the four zones shown in Chart I-10: strong positive shock, mild positive shock, mild negative shock and strong negative shock; the last of these corresponds to the region above the upper dashed line, which we have shaded in the chart. The performance of risk assets does not vary significantly across the bottom three quartiles of the supply shock indicator (Chart I-11). However, performance drops off precipitously in the presence of a strong negative supply shock. This is consistent with the "choke point" argument: investors are initially unconcerned with a modest appreciation in oil prices. It is only when prices are driven sharply above the level consistent with the current demand backdrop that risk assets begin to discount a more pessimistic future. The total returns to the Treasury index behave in the opposite manner (Chart I-12). Treasury returns are below average when the oil shock indicator is below one (i.e. positive supply shock) and above average when oil prices rise into negative supply shock territory. In other words, an excess of oil supply is Treasury bearish, as it would tend to fuel more robust economic growth. Conversely, a supply shock that drives oil prices higher tends to be Treasury bullish. This may seem counterintuitive because higher oil prices can be inflationary and thus should be bond bearish in theory. However, large negative oil supply shocks have usually preceded recessions, which caused Treasurys to rally. Chart I-11Effect On Risk Assets Chart I-12Effect On Treasurys The model clearly shows that the drop in oil prices in 2014/15 was a positive supply shock, consistent with the oil consumption data that show demand growth was fairly stable through that period. The model indicator has moved up toward the neutral line in recent months, suggesting that the supply side of the market is tightening up, but it is still in "mild positive supply shock" territory. The latest data point available is April, which means that it does not capture the surge in oil prices over the past month. Some of the recent jump in prices is clearly related to the cancelled Iran deal and other supply-related factors, although demand continues to be supportive of prices. The implication of this model is that it will probably require a significant further surge in prices, without a corresponding ramp up in oil demand, for the model to signal that supply constraints are becoming a significant threat for risk assets. A rise in Brent above US$85 would signal trouble according to this model. As for government bonds, rising oil prices are bearish in the near term, irrespective of whether it reflects demand or supply factors. This is because of the positive correlation between oil prices and long-term inflation expectations. The oil bull phase will turn bond-bullish once it becomes clear that energy prices have hit an economic choke point. Desynchronization Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. First quarter U.S. GDP growth was underwhelming, but the long string of first-quarter disappointment points to seasonal adjustment problems. Higher frequency data are consistent with a robust rebound in the second quarter. Forward looking indicators, such as the OECD and Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicators, continue to climb. This is in contrast with some of the other major economies, such as the Eurozone, U.K., Australia and Japan (Chart I-13). First quarter real GDP growth was particularly soft in Japan and the Eurozone, and one cannot blame seasonal adjustment in these cases. Chart I-13Growth & Inflation Divergences The divergence in economic performance likely reflects Washington's fiscal stimulus that is shielding the U.S. from the global economic soft patch. Moreover, the U.S. is less exposed to the oil shock and the China slowdown than are the other major economies. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. While U.S. inflation continues to drift higher, it has lost momentum in the euro area, Japan and the U.K. (Chart I-13). Renewed stresses in the Italian and Spanish bond markets have sparked a flight-to-quality in recent trading days, depressing yields in safe havens such as U.S. Treasurys and German bunds. Nonetheless, prior to that, the divergence in growth and inflation was reflected in widening bond yield spreads as U.S. Treasurys led the global yields higher. Long-term inflation expectations have risen everywhere, but real yields have increased the most in the U.S. (prior to the flight-to-quality bond rally at the end of May). This is consistent with the growth divergence story and with our country bond allocation: overweight the U.K., Australia and Japan, and underweight U.S. Treasurys within hedged global portfolios. The dollar lagged earlier this year, but is finally catching up to the widening in interest rate spreads. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. Expect More Pain In EM Dollar strength and rising U.S. bond yields are a classic late-cycle combination that often spells trouble for emerging market assets. We do not see the recent selloff across EM asset classes as a buying opportunity since markets have only entered the first stage of the classic final chapter; EM assets underperform as U.S. bond yields and the dollar rise, but commodity prices are resilient. In the second phase, U.S. bond yields top out, but the U.S. dollar continues to firm and commodity prices begin their descent. If the current slowdown in Chinese growth continues, as we expect, it will begin to weigh on non-oil commodity prices. Thus, emerging economies may have to deal with a deadly combination of rising U.S. interest rates, a stronger greenback, falling commodity prices and slowing exports to China (Chart I-14). Which countries are most exposed to lower foreign funding? BCA's Emerging Market Strategy services has ranked EM countries based on foreign funding requirements (Chart I-15). The latter is calculated as the current account balance plus foreign debt that is due in the coming months. Chart I-14EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown Chart I-15Vulnerability Ranking: Dependence On Foreign Funding Turkey, Malaysia, Peru and Chile have the heaviest foreign funding requirements in the next six months. These mostly stem from foreign debt obligations by their banks and companies. Even though most companies and banks with foreign debt will not default, their credit spreads will likely widen as it becomes more difficult to service the foreign debt.3 It is too early to build positions even in Turkish assets. Our EM strategists believe that it will require an additional 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with 200-250 basis points hike in the policy rate, and a 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms, to create a buying opportunity in Turkish financial instruments. FOMC Expects Inflation Overshoot Escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could potentially lead the Federal Reserve to put the rate hike campaign on hold. However, that would require some signs of either domestic financial stress or slowing growth. The FOMC is monitoring stress in emerging markets and in the Eurozone, but is sticking with its "gradual" tightening pace for now (i.e. 25 basis points per quarter). May's FOMC minutes signaled a rate hike in June. However, the minutes did not suggest that the Fed is getting more hawkish, despite the Staff's forecast that growth will remain above trend and that the labor market will continue to tighten at a time when core inflation is already pretty much back to target. Some inflation indicators, such as the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, suggest that core inflation will overshoot. The minutes signaled that policymakers are generally comfortable with a modest overshoot of the 2% inflation target because many see it as necessary in order to shift long-term inflation expectations higher, into a range that is consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target on a "sustained" basis (we estimate this range to be 2.3-2.5% for the 10-year inflation breakeven rate). The fact that the FOMC took a fairly dovish tone and did not try to guide rate expectations higher contributed to some retracement of the Treasury selloff in recent weeks. Nonetheless, an inflation overshoot and rising inflation expectations will ultimately be bond-bearish, especially when the FOMC is forced to clamp down on growth as long-term inflation expectations reach the target range. As discussed in BCA's Outlook 2018, one of our key themes for the year is that risk assets are on a collision course with monetary policy because the FOMC will eventually have to transition from simply removing accommodation to targeting slower growth. Timing that transition will be difficult, and depends importantly on how much of an inflation overshoot the FOMC is prepared to tolerate. Is 2½% reasonable? Or could inflation go to 3%? The makeup of the FOMC has changed, but we expect Janet L. Yellen4 to shed light on this question when she speaks at the BCA Annual Investment Conference in September. Investment Conclusions The risks facing investors have shifted, but we do not feel any less cautious than we did last month. Geopolitical tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have perhaps eased. But trade tensions are escalating and investors are suddenly faced with another chapter in the Eurozone financial crisis. The major fear in the first and second chapters was that bond investors would attack Italy, given the sheer size of that economy and the size of Italian government debt. That dreadful day has arrived. The profit backdrop in the major economies remains constructive for equity markets. However, even there, the bloom is coming off the rose. Global growth is no longer synchronized and the advanced economies have hit a soft patch with the possible exception of the U.S. While far from disastrous, our short-term profit models appear to be peaking across the major countries (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking The typical U.S. late cycle dynamics are also threatening emerging markets, at a time when investors are generally overweight and many EM countries have accumulated a pile of debt. U.S. inflation is set to overshoot the target, the FOMC is tightening and the dollar is rising. Throw in slowing Chinese demand and the EM space looks highly vulnerable. If the global economic slowdown is pronounced and drags the U.S. down with it, then bonds will rally and risk assets will take a hit. If, instead, the soft patch is short-lived and growth re-accelerates, then the U.S. Treasury bear market will resume. Stock indexes and corporate bond excess returns would enjoy one last upleg in this scenario, but downside risks would escalate once the Fed begins to target slower economic growth. Either way, EM assets would be hit. Our base case remains that stocks will beat government bonds and cash on a 6-12 month horizon. However, the risk/reward balance is unattractive given the geopolitical backdrop. Thus, we remain tactically cautious on risk assets for the near term. We still expect that the 10-year Treasury yield will peak at close to 3½% before this economic expansion is over. Nonetheless, this would require a calming of geopolitical tensions and an upturn in the growth indicators in the developed world. The risk/reward tradeoff for corporate bonds is no better than for equities and we urge caution in the near term. On a 6-12 month cyclical horizon, we still expect corporate bonds to outperform government bonds, at least in the U.S. European corporates are subject to the ebb and flow of the Italian bond crisis, and face the added risk that the ECB will likely end its QE program later this year. Looking further ahead, this month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, analyzes the Eurozone corporate sector's vulnerability to the end of the cycle that includes rising interest rates and, ultimately, a recession. We find that domestic issuers into the Eurozone market are far less exposed than are foreign issuers. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 31, 2018 Next Report: June 28, 2018 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 This underestimates the impact on the major countries because it does not account for third country effects (i.e. trade with other countries that trade with China). 3 For more information, please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports," dated May 24, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Janet L. Yellen, Chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (2014-2018). II. Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. We previously identified the U.S. corporate bond market as a definite candidate. This month we look at European corporates. European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. Foreign issuers are much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond relative returns this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program. We recommend an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Risk assets remain on a collision course with monetary policy, which is the main reason why the "return of vol" is a key theme in the BCA 2018 Outlook. In the U.S., rising inflation is expected to limit the FOMC's ability to cushion soft patches in the economic data or negative shocks from abroad. We expect that ECB tapering will add to market stress, especially now that Eurozone breakup risks are again a concern. We also believe that geopolitics will remain a major source of uncertainty and volatility. All this comes at a time when corporate bond spreads offer only a thin buffer against bad news. On a positive note, we remain upbeat on the earnings outlook in the major countries. The U.S. recession that we foresaw in 2019 has been delayed into 2020 by fiscal stimulus. The longer runway for earnings to grow keeps us nervously overweight corporate bonds, at least in the U.S. That said, corporates are no more than a carry trade now that the lows in spreads are in place for the cycle. We are keeping a close eye on a number of indicators that will help us to time the next downgrade to our global corporate bond allocation. Profitability is just one, albeit important, aspect of the financial backdrop. What about the broader trend in financial health? Does the trend justify wider spreads even if the economy and profits hold up over the next year? We reviewed U.S. corporate financial health in the March 2018 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, using our bottom-up sample of companies. We also stress-tested these companies for higher interest rates and a medium-sized recession. We concluded that the U.S. corporate sector's heavy accumulation of debt in this expansion will result in rampant downgrade activity during the next economic downturn. As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. The U.S. corporate bond market is a definite candidate. This month we extend the analysis to the European corporate sector. The European Corporate Health Monitor The bottom-up version of the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a complement to our top-down CHM, which uses macro data from the ECB to construct an index of six financial ratios for the non-financial corporate sector. While useful as an indicator of the overall trend in corporate financial health, it does not shed light on underlying trends across credit quality, countries and sectors. It also fails to distinguish between domestic versus foreign issuers in the Eurozone market. A number of features of the European market limit the bottom-up analysis to some extent relative to what we are able to do for the U.S.: the Eurozone market is significantly smaller and company data typically do not have as much history; foreign issuers comprise almost 50% of the market, a much higher percentage than in the U.S.; and the Financial sector features more prominently in the Eurozone index, but we exclude it because our CHM methodology does not lend itself well to this sector. We analyzed only domestic issuers in our study of U.S. corporate health. However, we decided to include foreign issuers in our Eurozone analysis in order to maximize the sample size. Moreover, it is appropriate for some bond investors to consider the whole picture, given that important benchmarks such as Barclay's corporate indexes include both foreign and domestic issuers. The relative composition of domestic versus foreign, investment-grade versus high-yield, and industrial sectors in our sample are comparable with the weights used in the Barclay's index. The CHM is calculated using the median value for each of six financial ratios (Table II-1). We then standardize1 the median values for the six ratios and aggregate them into a composite index using a simple average. The result is an index that fluctuates between +/- 2 standard deviations. A rising index indicates deteriorating health, while a downtrend signals improving health. We defined it this way in order to facilitate comparison with trends in corporate spreads. Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs One has to be careful in interpreting our Eurozone Monitor. The bottom-up version only dates back to 2005. Thus, while both the level and change in the U.S. CHM provide important information regarding balance sheet health, for the Eurozone Monitor we focus more on the change. Whether it is a little above or below the zero line is less important than the trend. Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Chart II-1 compares the top-down and bottom-up Eurozone CHMs for the entire non-financial corporate sector.2 The levels are different, although the broad trends are similar. Key differences that help to explain the divergence include the following: the top-down CHM defines leverage to be total debt as a percent of the market value of equity, while our bottom-up CHM defines it to be total debt as a percent of the book value of the company. The second panel of Chart II-1 highlights that the two measures of leverage have diverged significantly since 2012; the top-down CHM defines profit margins as total cash flow as a percent of sales. For data-availability reasons, our bottom-up version uses operating income/total sales; and most importantly, the top-down CHM uses ECB data, which includes only companies that are domiciled in the Eurozone. Thus, it excludes foreign issuers that make up a large part of our company sample and the Barclay's index. When we recalculate the bottom-up CHM using only domestic investment-grade issuers, the result is much closer to the top-down version (Chart II-2). Both CHMs have been in 'improving health' territory since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. The erosion in the profitability components during this period was offset by declining leverage, rising liquidity and improving interest coverage for domestic issuers. Chart II-1Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Chart II-2Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up It has been a different story for foreign IG issuers (Chart II-3). These firms have historically enjoyed a higher return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage, debt coverage and liquidity. Nonetheless, heavy debt accumulation has undermined their interest- and debt-coverage ratios in absolute terms and relative to their domestic peers until very recently. In other words, while domestic issuers have made an effort to clean up their balance sheets since the Great Recession, financial trends among foreign issuers look more like the trends observed in the U.S. No doubt, this is in part due to U.S. companies issuing Euro-denominated debt, but there are many other foreign issuers in our sample as well. Some analysts prefer total debt/total assets to the leverage measure we use in constructing our CHMs. However, the picture is much the same; leverage among IG domestic and foreign firms has diverged dramatically since 2010 (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Chart II-4Diverging Leverage Trends Over the past year or so there has been some reversal in the post-Lehman trends; domestic health has stabilized, while that of foreign issuers has improved. Leverage among foreign companies has leveled off, while margins and the liquidity ratio have bounced. The results for high-yield (HY) issuers must be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size. Chart II-5 highlights that the HY CHM is improving for both domestic and foreign issuers. Impressively, leverage is declining for both the domestic and foreign components. The return on capital, interest coverage, and debt coverage have also improved, although only for foreign issuers. Chart II-5Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Corporate Sensitivity The bottom line is that, while there have been some relative shifts below the surface, the European corporate sector's finances are generally in good shape in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. This is particularly the case for domestic issuers that have yet to catch the equity buyback bug. However, less accommodative monetary policy and rising borrowing rates have focused investor attention on corporate sector vulnerability. Downgrade risk will mushroom if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the economy contracts. If there is a recession in Europe in the next few years it will likely be as a result of a downturn in the U.S. We expect a traditional end to the U.S. business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into a tailspin. The U.S. downturn would spill over to the rest of the world and could drag the Eurozone into a mild contraction. We estimated the change in the interest coverage ratio for the companies in our bottom-up European sample for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt (i.e. the coupons reset only for the bonds, notes and loans that mature in the next three years). We make the simplifying assumptions that all debt and loans maturing in the next three years are rolled over, but that companies do not take on net new obligations. We also assume that EBIT is unchanged in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. The 'x' in Chart II-6 denotes the result of the interest rate shock only. The 'o' combines the interest rate shock with a recession scenario, in which EBIT contracts by 15%. The interest coverage ratio declines sharply when rates rise by 100 basis points, but the ratio moves to a new post-2000 low only for foreign issuers. The ratio for domestic issuers falls back to the range that existed between 2009 and 2013. The median interest coverage ratio drops further when we combine this with a 15% earnings contraction in the recession scenario. Again, the outcome is far worse for foreign than it is for domestic issuers. Chart II-7 presents a shock to the median debt coverage ratio. Since debt coverage (cash flow divided by total debt) does not include interest payments, we show only the recession scenario result that reflects the decline in profits. Once again, foreign issuers appear to be far more exposed to an economic downturn than their domestic brethren. Chart II-6Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-7Debt Coverage Shock Indeed, the results for foreign issuers are qualitatively similar to the shocks we previous published for our bottom-up sample of IG corporates in the U.S. (Chart II-8 and Chart II-9). In both cases, higher interest rates and contracting earnings will take the interest coverage and debt coverage ratios into uncharted territory. Chart II-8U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-9U.S. Debt Coverage Shock Conclusions European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers, where balance sheet activity has focused on lifting shareholder value since the last recession. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. There has been a small convergence of financial health between Eurozone domestic and foreign issuers over the past year or so, but the latter are still much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond returns relative to European government bonds or to U.S. corporates this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program later in 2018. We expect spreads to widen as this important liquidity tailwind fades. For the moment, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service recommends an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Standardizing involves taking the deviation of the series from the 18 quarter moving average and dividing by the standard deviation of the series. 2 Note that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health to facilitate comparison with quality spreads. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in May. We remain cautious, despite the supportive profit backdrop. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio fell a bit in May, but it remains well in positive territory. Forward earnings continued their ascent, and the net earnings surprise index rose further to within striking distance of the highest levels in the history of the series. Normally, an earnings backdrop this strong would justify an overweight equity allocation within a balanced portfolio. Unfortunately, a lot of good earnings news is discounted based on our Composite Valuation Indicator and extremely elevated 5-year bottom-up earnings growth expectations (see the Bank Credit Analyst Overview, May 2018). Moreover, our equity indicators are sending a cautious signal. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator continued to decline in May. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. U.S. flows have clearly turned negative for equities, although flows into European and Japanese markets are holding up for now. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on its 'sell' signal in May, for the second month in a row. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. Moreover, our composite equity Technical Indicator is on the verge of breaking down and our Monetary Indicator moved further into negative territory in May. Meanwhile, market froth has not been completely extinguished according to our Speculation Indicator (which is a negative sign for stocks from a contrary perspective). As for bonds, the powerful rally at the end of May has undermined valuation, but the 10-year Treasury is not yet in expensive territory. Our technical indicator suggests that previously oversold conditions are easing, but bonds are a long way from overbought. This means that yields have room to fall further in the event of more bad news on Italy or on the broader geopolitical scene. The dollar has not yet reached overbought territory according to our technical indicator. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst
Dear Clients, Please note that next week's report will be a joint effort with our geopolitical team, focused on North Korea. The report will be sent to you two days later than usual, on Friday June 8. Best regards, Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports Highlights Most episodes of negative relative Chinese equity performance this year have been driven by global stock market selloffs or related to the trade dispute with the U.S. Since Chinese ex-tech stocks have continued to outperform their global peers during this period, we recommend against downgrading China for now, barring hard evidence of a pernicious global slowdown or that severe protectionist action from the U.S. will indeed occur. Our list of charts to watch over the coming months highlights, among several other important points, that monetary conditions are not overly restrictive and that financial conditions are not tightening sharply. This is in spite of a recent clustering in corporate bond defaults that has concerned some investors. Besides broad-based stimulus in response to an impactful trade shock, a sustained pickup in housing construction remains the most plausible catalyst for an acceleration in domestic demand. For now tepid sales volume casts doubt on this scenario, but investors should continue to watch Chinese housing market dynamics closely. Feature There have been several developments affecting Chinese and global stock markets over the past two weeks. On the trade front, Secretary Mnuchin's statement on May 20 that the U.S. would be "putting the trade war" with China on hold was greeted by a material pushback from Congressional Republicans, particularly the administration's plan to ease previously announced sanctions on ZTE Group. The administration's trade rhetoric has since become more hawkish, as evidenced by yesterday's statement from the White House that referenced specific dates for the imposition of tariffs and the announcement of new restrictions on Chinese investment. This uptick in tough language sets the scene for Secretary Ross' Beijing visit this weekend to continue negotiations. More recently, a political crisis in Italy has caused euro area periphery bond yields to rise sharply, roiling global financial markets. The Italian President's rejection of Paolo Savona as proposed finance minister by the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and Euroskeptic Lega has led to the installation of a caretaker government until the fall, when new elections are set to take place. The sharp tightening in financial conditions for Italy and Spain over the past week has exacerbated concerns about a potential growth slowdown in Europe, and has fed a relative selloff in emerging market equities that began in late-March. Despite the recent turmoil, our recommendation to investors is to avoid making any major changes to their allocation to Chinese ex-tech stocks within a global portfolio. Unless presented with hard evidence that the slowdown in the global economy is more than a simple deceleration from an above-trend pace, or that protectionist action from the U.S. will occur in a severe fashion, Table 1 suggests that investors should stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks (with a short leash). The table highlights that most episodes of negative relative Chinese ex-stock performance since the beginning of the year been driven by global stock market selloffs or related to the trade dispute with the U.S., despite the ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector that we have repeatedly flagged. Since Chinese ex-tech stocks have continued to outperform their global peers during this period, our interpretation is that investors are well aware of the deceleration in China's economy, but do not yet regard it as a material threat to ex-tech equity prices. Table 1YTD Weakness In Chinese Stock Prices Has Been Driven By Global Events Clearly, however, this assessment on the part of global investors can change, underscoring that the situation in China merits continual re-assessment. With the goal of providing investors with a toolkit to continually monitor the state of the Chinese economy and the resulting implications for related financial asset prices, this week's report presents a list of 11 charts "to watch" across five categories of analysis. In our view these charts span key potential inflection points for the economic and profit outlook, and will serve as an important basis for us to update our view on China over the months ahead. Monetary & Fiscal Policy Chart 1: The Policy Rate Versus Borrowing Rates Chart 1Borrowing/Policy Rate Divergence Should Not Last,##br## But Is Worth Monitoring An interesting divergence has occurred lately between the 3-month interbank repo rate (currently the de-facto policy rate) and both corporate bond yields and the average lending rate. While the repo rate fell non-trivially after it became apparent in late-March that the PBOC would extend the deadline for the implementation of new regulatory standards for asset management products, corporate bond yields have recently risen sharply and China's weighted-average lending rate ticked higher in Q1. As we highlighted in last week's Special Report, the recent clustering of corporate bond defaults does not (for now) appear to be a source of systemic risk. First, by our estimation, the recent defaults cited above account for only 0.09% of outstanding corporate bonds. Second, the latest PBOC monetary report changed the tone from emphasizing "deleveraging" to "stabilizing leverage and restructuring", which shows that regulators are as concerned about the stability of the economy as they are about reducing excessive debts. But the possibility remains that the ongoing crackdown on China's shadow banking sector will cause some degree of persistence in the recent divergence between the interbank market and actual borrowing rates, implying that investors should continue to watch Chart 1 over the months for signs of materially tighter financial conditions. Chart 2: The Correlation Between Sovereign Risk And The Repo Rate We noted in a February Special Report that investors could use the rolling 1-year correlation between the 3-month interbank repo rate and the relative sovereign CDS spread between China and Germany as a gauge of whether Chinese monetary policy has become too restrictive for its economy.1 Despite the fact that actual sovereign credit risk in China is extremely low, Chart 2 shows that the relative CDS spread has acted as a good bellwether for growth conditions in the Chinese economy. It shows that the correlation between this spread and the 3-month interbank repo rate was initially positive in late-2016 (representing concern on the part of investors that monetary policy is restrictive), but has since come back down into negative territory. Interestingly, the correlation was consistently positive from mid-2011 to mid-2014, when average lending rates averaged 7% or higher and the benchmark lending rate exceeded the IMF's Taylor Rule estimate by about 1%.2 For now the correlation remains negative (as it was when we published our February report), meaning that it currently supports our earlier conclusion that monetary conditions are not overly restrictive and that financial conditions more generally are not tightening sharply (despite the recent rise in corporate bond yields). Chart 2No Sign Yet That Monetary Policy Is Overly Restrictive Chart 3Watch For Signs Of Fiscal Stimulus Chart 3: The Fiscal Spending Impulse Chart 3 presents the Chinese government's budgetary expenditure as an "impulse", calculated as expenditure over the past year as a percent of nominal GDP. Panel 2 shows the year-over-year change in the impulse. When compared with a similar measure for private sector credit, cyclical fluctuations in China's government spending impulse are relatively small. For this reason, BCA's China Investment Strategy service has not strongly emphasized fiscal spending as a major driver of China's business cycle. However, we also noted in a recent report that fiscal stimulus stands out as one of the "least bad" options available to policymakers to combat a negative export shock from U.S. protectionism, were one to occur.3 The potential for broader stimulus from Chinese authorities in response to an impactful trade shock raises the interesting possibility of another economic mini cycle in China, since the economy accelerated meaningfully in response to the last episode of material fiscal & monetary easing. As such, investors should closely watch over the coming months for signs that fiscal spending is accelerating, particularly if combined with potential signs of easing monetary policy. External Demand Chart 4: Global Demand And Chinese Export Growth Chart 4For Now, Resilient Exports ##br##Are Supporting China's Economy We have noted in several recent reports that a resilient export sector remains the most favorable pillar of Chinese growth. Besides the clear risk to Chinese trade from U.S. protectionism, two other factors have the potential to negatively impact the trend in export growth. The first (and most important) of these risks is a reduction in global demand, which some investors have recently been concerned about given the decline in global manufacturing PMIs. However, Chart 4 highlights that our global PMI diffusion indicator has done an excellent job of leading the global PMI over the past few years, and has barely registered a decline over the past few months. From our perspective, the odds are good that the recent deceleration in the PMI has been caused by sudden caution (even in developed countries) over the Trump administration's protectionist actions, and does not reflect a material or long-lasting slowdown in the global economy. But we will be closely watching the PMI releases over the coming months to rule out a more painful slowdown in global demand. Importantly, we have also highlighted that stronger exports may actually presage a further slowdown in China's industrial sector if it emboldens policymakers to intensify their reform efforts over the coming year. We argued in our May 2 Weekly Report that China's reform pain threshold is positively correlated with global growth momentum,4 meaning that the external sector of China's economy may have less potential to counter weakness in the industrial sector than many investors believe. In this regard, extreme export readings (to the up and downside) should be regarded by investors as a potentially problematic development. Chart 5: The Competitiveness Impact Of A Rising RMB Chart 5 highlights the second non-protectionist risk to Chinese export growth, namely the significant appreciation in the RMB that has occurred since mid-2017. The chart shows the percentile rank of three different trade-weighted RMB indexes since 2014, and highlights that all three are between their 70th & 80th percentiles (with our BCA Export-Weighted RMB index having risen the most). Importantly, the 2015-high shown in Chart 5 represents the strongest point for the currency in over two decades, suggesting that further currency strength may exacerbate the significant deceleration in export prices that has already occurred. Chart 5A Surging RMB Could Undercut Competitiveness Housing Chart 6: Housing Sales Versus Starts We have presented a variation of Chart 6 several times over the past few months, but it is important enough that it deserves to be continually monitored by investors over the coming year. Chart 6 tells the story of China's housing market from the perspective of an investor who is primarily interested in the sector because of its implications for growth. The chart highlights that residential floor space started, our best proxy for the real contribution to growth from residential investment, has fallen significantly relative to sales since 2012-2014. This appears to have occurred because of a significant build up in housing inventories, which has since reversed materially (even though the level remains elevated). To us, this suggests that the gap between housing sales and construction that has persisted for the past several years may finally be over, suggesting that the latter may pick up durably if sales trend higher. For now sales volume remains tepid, but this will be a key chart for investors to watch over the coming year given our view that housing is a core pillar of China's business cycle. The Industrial Sector Chart 7: The BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator And Its Components Chart 7 presents our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index (LKI), which we developed in a November Special Report.5 There are six components of the indicator, all of which are related to changing monetary/financial conditions, and the growth in money and credit. Chart 6Housing Construction Could Accelerate##br## If Sales Pick Up Chart 7A Downtrend In Our LKI Leading Indicator, ##br##Within A Wide Component Range The indicator is at the core of our view, and we have been presenting monthly updates of the series in our regular reports since late last year. However, Chart 7 looks at the indicator from a different perspective, by showing it within a range that identifies the weakest and strongest components at any given point in time. Two points are noteworthy from the chart: While the overall LKI indicator has been trending down since early-2017, there is currently a wide range between the components. This gap is in stark contrast to the very narrow range that prevailed from 2014-2015, when the economy slowed considerably. This could mean that some of the components of the indicator are unduly weak, which in turn could imply that the severity of the slowdown in China's industrial sector will be less intense than the overall indicator would otherwise suggest. At least one component provided a lead on the subsequent direction of the overall indicator from late-2011 to late-2012, the last time that a significant gap existed between the components. This is in contrast to the situation today, in that all of the components are currently in a downtrend (albeit with differing paces as well as magnitudes). The key point for investors from Chart 7 is that all of the components of our indicator are moving in the same direction, which suggests with high conviction that China's economy is slowing. However, the wide range among the components suggests that indicator's message about the intensity of the slowdown is less uniform than it has been in the past, meaning that investors should be sensitive to a sustained pickup in the top end of the range. Equity Market Signals Chart 8: The Beta Of Our BCA China Sector Alpha Portfolio Chart 8 revisits a unique insight that we presented in our May 16 Weekly Report.6 The chart shows the rolling 1-year beta of our BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio versus the investable benchmark alongside China's performance versus global stocks, and suggests that the former may reliably lead the latter. While we noted in the report that drawing market-wide inferences from the beta characteristics of risk-adjusted performers is a not a conventional approach, finance theory is supportive of the idea. If investors are seeking to maximize their risk-adjusted returns and are engaging in tactical allocation across sectors, then it is entirely possible that beta-adjusted sector returns reflect the risk-on/risk-off expectations of market participants. For the purposes of China-related investment strategy over the coming year, our emphasis on Chart 8 will increase markedly if we see a sharp decline in the beta of our Sector Alpha Portfolio. As we noted in our May 16 report, the model is for now sending a curiously bullish signal, which we see as partial validation of our view that investors should have a high threshold to cut exposure to China within a global equity portfolio. Chart 8Watch For A Decline In The Beta Of ##br##Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Chart 9Decelerating Earnings Growth Could##br## Undermine Investor Sentiment Chart 9: Ex-Tech Earnings Versus The Li Keqiang Index We noted above that predicting the Li Keqiang index (LKI) is at the core of our view, and Chart 9 highlights why. The chart shows that a model based on the LKI closely fits the year-over-year growth rate of Chinese investable ex-tech earnings and, crucially, provides a lead. While the chart does not suggest that an outright contraction in ex-tech earnings is in the cards over the coming year, it does show that earnings growth is about to peak. This is potentially problematic, and warrants close attention, for two reasons: First, our leading indicator for the LKI suggests that it will decelerate further over the coming year, which could push our earnings growth estimate towards or below zero. Second, the peak in earnings growth could dampen investor sentiment towards Chinese ex-tech stocks, especially since bottom up analyst estimates for 12-months forward earnings growth have recently moved higher and are currently above what is predicted by our model. Chart 10: The Alpha Of Chinese Banks By now, the narrative surrounding Chinese banks is well known among global investors. The enormous leveraging of China's non-financial corporate sector is viewed by many as a clear sign of capital misallocation, meaning that a (potentially material) portion of the loan book of Chinese banks will have to be written off as bad debt. The ultimate scope of the bad debt problem in China is far from clear, but these longstanding concerns about loan quality suggest that Chinese bank stocks are likely to materially underperform their global peers if China's shadow banking crackdown begins to pose a significant threat to growth via restrictions on the provision of credit to the real economy. As such, we recommend that investors monitor Chart 10 over the coming year, which shows the rolling 1-year alpha significance for Chinese banks vs their global peers. While the rolling 1-year alpha of small banks has become less positive over the past few weeks, it remains in positive territory, similar to that of investable bank stocks. So, for now, this indicator supports our earlier conclusion that recent divergence between the interbank market and actual borrowing rates highlighted in Chart 1 is not heralding a material tightening in Chinese financial conditions. Chart 10Investors Should Monitor Chinese Bank Alpha ##br##For Significant Declines Chart 11No Technical Breakdown (Yet) In Ex-Tech Relative Performance Chart 11: The Technical Performance Of Ex-Tech Stocks BCA's approach to forecasting financial markets rests far more on top-down macroeconomic assessments than it does on technical analysis. However, technical indicators do contain important information, particularly when our top-down macro approach signals that a change in trend may be imminent. In this regard, technical indicators can provide valuable opportunities to enter or exit a position. To the extent that the technical profile of Chinese ex-tech stocks is informative in the current environment, Chart 11 shows that it is telling investors to stay invested despite the myriad risks to the economic outlook. This message is consistent with that of Table 1, namely that the negative performance of Chinese ex-tech stocks has been in response to global rather than idiosyncratic, China-specific risk. From our perspective, a technical breakdown in relative Chinese ex-tech stock performance in response to China-specific news would serve as a strong basis for a downgrade within a global equity portfolio, and we will be monitoring closely for such a development over the coming weeks and months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy", dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Tightening In China: How Much Is Too Much?" dated January 18, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Question That Won't Go Away", dated April 18, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight", dated May 2, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Three Pillars Of China's Economy", dated May 16, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Last year's broad-based global growth recovery has given way to slower growth and increasing differentiation in growth rates across economies. The U.S. has gone from laggard to leader in the global growth horse race, helping to drive the dollar to a five-month high. The biggest risk to our cautious view on emerging markets is that China stimulates the economy proactively as an insurance policy against a possible trade war. So far, there is little evidence that this is happening, but we are watching the data closely. The turmoil in Italy's bond markets is a timely reminder that if the European periphery wants more stimulus, this has to happen through a weaker euro rather than through larger budget deficits. Stay short EUR/USD. We expect to take profits at around the 1.15 level. Feature From Convergence To Divergence 2017 was the year of synchronized global growth. For the first time since 2007, all 46 countries tracked by the OECD experienced positive GDP growth. The euro area economy surprised on the upside, recording real GDP growth of 2.3%. This was slightly above U.S. levels, despite the fact that trend growth is about half a percentage point lower in the euro area. Growth in Japan nearly doubled to 1.7% from the prior year. Emerging markets, which succumbed to a broad-based slowdown starting in 2015, came roaring back. The U.S. dollar tends to perform poorly when global growth is accelerating and the composition of that growth is shifting away from the United States. This was precisely the setting that the global economy found itself in last year, which is why the greenback came under pressure. Things are looking sharply different this year. Global growth has cooled, as evidenced by both the PMIs and economic surprise indices (Chart 1). Euro area growth was sliced in half in the first quarter; U.K. growth decelerated further; and Japanese growth fell into negative territory for the first time since 2015. In contrast, the U.S. has held up relatively well. While growth did dip to 2.3% in Q1, the latest tracking estimates suggest a rebound in the second quarter. Retail sales accelerated in April. The Philly Fed PMI also surprised on the upside, with the new orders component reaching the highest level since 1973. The New York's Fed model is pointing to growth of 3.2% in Q2, while the Atlanta Fed's Nowcast is signaling growth of 4.1%. The divergence in growth rates between the U.S. and most major economies has been mirrored in recent inflation prints. U.S. core inflation has moved higher, but has stumbled elsewhere (Chart 2). Chart 1Global Growth Has Cooled With The U.S.##br## Faring Best Chart 2Inflation Is Accelerating In The U.S., ##br##Decelerating Elsewhere The relatively strong pace of U.S. growth has led to a widening in interest-rate differentials between the United States and its peers. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has risen by 95 basis points since its September lows, compared to 20 points for German bunds, 47 points for U.K. gilts, and 4 points for JGBs. With the exception of the U.K., the increase in spreads has been dominated by the real rate component (Chart 3). Chart 3Widening Interest Rate Differentials Between The U.S. And Its Peers ##br##Have Been Driven By The Real Component King Dollar Reigns Supreme Conceptually, it is real, rather than nominal, interest rate differentials that ought to move currencies. We noted earlier this year that the dollar's failure to strengthen on the back of rising Treasury yields was an anomaly that was unlikely to persist. Sure enough, the dollar has now begun to recouple with real interest rate differentials (Chart 4). Our sense is that this year's trends can last a while longer. Leading Economic Indicators have continued to move in favor of the U.S., suggesting that U.S. outperformance is not likely to end anytime soon (Chart 5). Fiscal policy should also help prop up U.S. aggregate demand. The U.S. structural budget deficit is set to widen much more than elsewhere over the next few years (Chart 6). Chart 4Dollar Is Recoupling With Rate Differentials Chart 5U.S. Is Outshining Its Peers Chart 6U.S. Fiscal Policy Is More Stimulative The U.S. economy is now back to full employment. For the first time in the 17-year history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), the number of job openings exceeds the number of unemployed workers (Chart 7). Our composite labor survey indicator has continued to move higher (Chart 8). Core PCE inflation has already accelerated to 2.3% on an annualized 6-month basis and 2.6% on a 3-month basis. The New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, which leads inflation by about 18 months, is pointing to higher inflation over the coming quarters (Chart 9). This means that the bar for further gradual rate hikes is quite low. Chart 7There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers Chart 8U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Grind Higher Chart 9U.S. Inflation: Upside Risks Recent revelations by Kevin Warsh - who was once the favorite to lead the Federal Reserve - that Trump was dismissive of the Fed's historic independence during their interview, is only likely to strengthen Jay Powell's resolve to avoid being seen as a Trump flunky.1 China: Shifting Into The Slow Lane? Of course, the outlook for the dollar and bond spreads will also hinge on what happens in the rest of the world. We are watching two economies especially closely: China and Italy. The latest data suggest that China has lost some growth momentum. Retail sales and fixed asset investment decelerated in April. Property sales also declined from an elevated level. Sales tend to lead prices. Home prices were flat in most tier 1 cities over the prior year, reflecting elevated inventory levels, tighter lending standards, and stricter administrative controls (Chart 10). Further price weakness is likely, which could dampen construction activity in the months ahead. Industrial production beat expectations in April, but the overall trend in industrial activity remains to the downside. Electricity production, freight traffic, and excavator sales have all been decelerating (Chart 11). Import growth has also come down, which is one reason why GDP growth in the rest of the world has moderated (Chart 12). Chart 10China: Housing Has Cooled Chart 11China: Industrial Activity Is Slowing Chart 12China: Import Growth Has Decelerated Trade War Fears: Will China Overcompensate? In addition to the regular cyclical growth risks, concerns about a trade war loom in the background. The Trump Administration's decision last weekend to defer imposing tariffs on China caused investors to breathe a sigh of relief, but much remains unresolved, including ongoing allegations that China is stealing intellectual property from the U.S. and other countries. Trump's decision to pull out of June's summit with North Korea will only strain America's relationship with China. Considering the damage to China that a full-out trade war would cause, it would be sensible for the government to take out some insurance against a possible downturn. Thus far, any evidence that the authorities are trying to stimulate the economy through either fiscal or monetary means is sketchy (Chart 13). Reserve requirements were cut by 100 basis points in April, but corporate borrowing costs remain elevated. Fiscal outlays are growing at broadly the same pace as last year. The trade-weighted RMB has continued to strengthen. Still, it is hard to believe that the government has not put together a contingency plan that it could roll out if circumstances warrant it. The biggest risk to our fairly cautious view on emerging markets is that China launches a stimulus package in response to a trade war that quickly ends in détente. Similar to what occurred in 2008/09, this would leave China with more stimulus than it actually needed. Italy: From Fiscal Austerity To Bunga Bunga Unlike in China, Italy's incoming coalition government - forged through an uneasy alliance between the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) and the right-leaning League - has made no secret about its desire to ease fiscal policy. The M5S wants more social spending while the League has lobbied for a flat tax. These measures, along with a host of others, would add €100 billion, or 6% of GDP, to the budget deficit. Given that the Italian unemployment rate stands at 11% - 5.3 percentage points above its 2007 low - one could make a compelling case that Italy would benefit from temporary fiscal stimulus. However, the proposed policies are being marketed as permanent in nature. Moreover, several policies, such as the proposal to roll back the planned increase in the retirement age, would actually reduce potential GDP by shrinking the size of the labor force. It is no wonder that bond markets are worried (Chart 14). Chart 13China: No Clear Evidence Of Stimulus ... Yet Chart 14Mamma Mia! Propping Up Demand In Italy Much has been written about what Italy should be doing, but the fact is that there are no simple solutions. Italy suffers from a shrinking working-age population and anemic productivity growth, both of which reduce the incentive for firms to expand capacity. Like many other European countries, Italy also suffers from a debt overhang. This is obviously true for government debt but it is also true, to some extent, for private debt. While the ratio of private debt-to-GDP is below the euro area average, it stills stands at 113%, up from 65% in the mid-1990s (Chart 15). The desire to save more in order to pay back debt, coupled with a reluctance to invest in new capacity, has left Italy with what economists call a private-sector financial surplus (Chart 16). Chart 15Italian Private Sector Has Been Taking ##br## On Less Debt Since The Crisis Chart 16Italy: The Private Sector Wants To Save If the private sector earns more than it spends, the excess savings have to be absorbed either by the government through its own dissaving or by the rest of the world through a current account surplus. Both options are problematic for Italy. Running large budget deficits for a prolonged period of time would take the level of government debt-to-GDP to stratospheric levels. Japan has been able to get away with this strategy because it issues debt in its own currency. This is a luxury that is not at Italy's disposal. Despite Mario Draghi's pledge to do "whatever it takes" to preserve the euro area, it is far from clear that the ECB would keep buying Italian debt if the country began to openly skirt the EU's deficit rules. Absent an effective lender of last resort, the Italian bond market could fall victim to a speculative attack - a process in which higher yields lead to even higher yields, and eventually a default (Chart 17). Chart 17When A Lender Of Last Resort Is Absent, Multiple Equilibria Are Possible This just leaves the option of trying to bolster aggregate demand by exporting excess production abroad via a current account surplus. To its credit, Italy has been able to shift its current account balance from a deficit of 1.4% of GDP in 2007 to a projected surplus of 2.6% of GDP this year. However, some of that surplus simply reflects the fact that a weak economy has suppressed imports. Progress in reducing unit labor costs relative to its euro area peers has been painfully slow (Chart 18). Chart 18Italy: More Work To Be Done To Improve Competitiveness If Italy had a flexible exchange rate, it could simply devalue its currency to gain competitiveness. Since it does not have one, it has to improve competitiveness by restraining wage growth and implementing productivity-enhancing structural reforms. The former requires the presence of labor market slack, while the latter, even in a best-case scenario, will take substantial time to achieve. And neither option is politically popular. Given the difficulty of raising Italy's competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area, the only realistic short-term solution is to boost it relative to the rest of the world. That requires a weak euro which, in turn, requires a dovish ECB. Investment Conclusions In our Second Quarter Strategy Outlook, published on March 30th, we predicted that the dollar was poised to experience a violent rally as short sellers rushed to cover their positions. This view has played out in spades. As we go to press, the nominal broad-trade weighted dollar has gained 4% since early April. It is up 30% since bottoming in July 2011 and is only 6% below its December 2016 peak (Chart 19). The dollar rally has brought our views closer in line with the market. Notably, EUR/USD is now less than two percent above our target of $1.15. The dollar is an ultra-high momentum currency. Chart 20 shows that a simple strategy of buying the DXY when it was above its moving average and selling it when it was below its moving average would have delivered a sizable profit over the past two decades (the exact moving average does not matter much, but the 50-day seems to work best). As such, while we intend to turn neutral on the dollar if it gains another few percent or so, an overshoot is quite probable. Chart 19The Dollar Has Bounced Back Chart 20The Dollar Trades On Momentum About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. In many cases, dollar borrowers have non-dollar revenue streams. Thus, a stronger dollar automatically hurts their businesses. In the past, this has often ignited a feedback loop where a stronger dollar triggers capital outflows from emerging markets, leading to an even stronger dollar. Our EM strategists strongly feel that such a vicious cycle is fast approaching, especially if China's economy continues to slow. In the late 1990s, brewing EM tensions triggered several brutal equity selloffs. For example, the S&P lost 22% between July 20 and October 8, 1998. However, EM stress also restrained the Fed from tightening too quickly. The resulting dose of liquidity set the stage for a massive blow-off rally between the fall of 1998 and the spring of 2000. A similar dynamic could unfold this time around. We remain overweight global equities for now, but are hedging the risk by being short AUD/JPY, a trade that has gained 5% since we initiated it on February 1st. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Ben White, "How Trump could break from the Fed's independence," Politico, May 9, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights China's industrial sector will continue decelerating, while consumer spending is so far booming. The world economy in general and EM in particular are exposed much more to China's industrial sector than to its consumer spending. The U.S. dollar will continue strengthening, regardless of the trend in U.S. bond yields. The reason is slowing global trade. The dollar rally and weakening global demand will ultimately lead to lower commodities prices. Stay put on / underweight EM financial markets. Turkey will need to hike interest rates more before a buying opportunity in its financial markets emerges. Feature The two key elements affecting the performance of EM financial markets are the U.S. dollar and commodities prices. The combination of a weak U.S. dollar and higher commodities prices is typically bullish for EM. The opposite also holds true: A strong dollar and lower commodities prices are bearish for EM. But what about the recent dynamics - the rally in the greenback and strong commodities prices? This combination is unlikely to be sustained. Historically, the divergence between the dollar's exchange rate and commodities prices has never lasted long (Chart I-1). The fundamental linkage between the U.S. dollar and commodities prices is global growth: improving global growth is positive for resource prices, and the U.S. currency has historically been negatively correlated with global trade - the trade-weighted dollar is shown inverted in this chart (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Commodities And The Dollar Chart I-2Global Growth And The Dollar Hence, if global growth stays strong, the U.S. dollar will pare its recent gains and commodities prices will stay well-bid. Conversely, if global trade decelerates commodities prices will inevitably have to change direction. We expect the dollar to stay well-bid because the current phase of dollar rally will at some point be followed by a second phase where the greenback's strength is driven by a slowdown in global trade. In this phase, commodities prices and U.S. bond yields will drop alongside a strengthening U.S. dollar. Weaker growth in China and in other EMs is the key reason we expect global trade volumes to slow. Is China Slowing? Making sense of growth conditions in China is never easy, but it is particularly confusing these days. We maintain that there is growing evidence that China's industrial segment is slowing and will continue doing so, yet consumer spending is still booming. The basis for the industrial slowdown is a deceleration in both money and credit growth, which has been taking place over the past 18 months or so. With respect to households, the borrowing binge continues. The unrelenting 20%+ annual growth in household credit continues to fuel the property bubble. In turn, a rising wealth effect from real estate as well as decent income growth are the underpinnings behind the booming consumer sector. The main and relevant point for investors from the perspective of China's impact on broader EM is as follows: the drop in the credit and fiscal impulse is heralding a deceleration in capital expenditures/construction. That, in turn, will lead to fewer imports of commodities and materials. Imports are the main transmission mechanism from China's economy to the rest of the world. Mainland imports in RMB terms have indeed decelerated meaningfully, yet import values in U.S. dollar terms have not (Chart I-3). So, what explains the recent gap between imports in yuan and dollar terms? The RMB's rally versus the U.S. dollar in the past 15 months has been responsible for this gap between import values. As one would expect, the spending power of mainland industrial companies has moderated because less credit and fiscal expenditures are being injected into the system (Chart I-4). Yet because the RMB now buys 10% more U.S. dollars than it did a year ago, mainland buyers' purchasing power of foreign goods that are priced in dollars has improved. As a result, the pace of growth of the value of U.S. dollar imports has remained buoyant. Chart I-3Chinese Imports In RMB & USD Terms Chart I-4Weaker Purchasing Power ##br##In China Will Hurt Imports If the RMB's exchange rate versus the dollar remains flat over the next 12 months, the growth rates of both imports in RMB and dollar terms will converge. In this case, a further slowdown in import spending in RMB terms will translate into considerable deceleration in mainland imports in U.S. dollar terms. In brief, the exchange rate is important because the U.S. dollar's depreciation versus the RMB since January 2017 has prevented the spillover from a slowdown in China's imports in local currency terms to the rest of the world in general and EM in particular. Chart I-5Goods And Services Imports: China And U.S. If and as the dollar continues to rally versus the majority of currencies, China could allow its currency to slip versus the greenback to assure a flat trade-weighted exchange rate and preserve its competitiveness. In such a scenario, China's purchasing power of goods and services from the rest of world will be impaired - which in turn means this economy will be remitting fewer dollars to the rest of the world. This will reduce the flow of U.S. dollars from China to EMs, adversely impacting the latter's financial markets and economies. Chart I-5 illustrates that China's imports of goods and services amount to $2.3 trillion compared with U.S. imports of goods and services of $3.1 trillion. Therefore, in terms of importance in global imports, China is not too far behind America. This holds true with respect to remitting dollars to the rest of the world. Provided that China imports more from EM - both from Asian manufacturing economies and commodities producers - than the U.S. does, then less mainland imports will entail fewer dollars flowing to EM. In short, the continued slowdown in China's purchasing power in U.S. dollar terms will negatively affect the rest of EM. This rests on our baseline view that mainland credit growth will continue slowing and the RMB will weaken against the dollar, albeit modestly for now. Mirroring the divergence between industrial sectors and consumers in the Middle Kingdom, there has been an equally clear divergence within imports: Imports of industrial supplies excluding machinery have slumped, while imports of household goods have continued to flourish. Chart I-6 demonstrates that imports have decelerated for base metals, chemicals, wood, mineral products and rubber. Even oil and petroleum products imports have slowed (Chart I-7). Yet imports of consumer goods are roaring (Chart I-8). Chart I-6China: Industrial Imports Are Slowing Chart I-7Chinese Fuel Imports Are Slowing Chart I-8Chinese Consumer Goods Imports Are Robust Which one is more important for EM: the industrial sector or consumer spending? Many developing economies in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East as well as countries such as Russia, Indonesia and Malaysia are very dependent on their commodities exports. These economies do not benefit much from booming Chinese consumers. For them, the critical variable is the mainland's industrial sector and its absorption of minerals and resources. In terms of size, Table I-1 illustrates that non-food commodities, industrial goods, machinery, equipment and transportation make up overwhelming majority of China's total imports. Meanwhile, consumer goods imports, excluding autos, comprise 15% of total imports. Hence, their impact on the rest of the world is small. Table I-1Structure Of Chinese Imports Further, most of consumer goods that households in China consume are produced locally rather than imported. That is why the world economy at large and EM in particular are more exposed to the mainland's industrial sector than its consumer one. Aside from imports, there are several other variables that validate our thesis of an ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector. In particular: Total floor space sold (residential plus non-residential) has rolled over, heralding weakness in floor space started and, eventually, construction activity (Chart I-9). Growth rates of total freight traffic, diesel consumption, electricity and plate glass output have slumped (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Slowdown In Chinese Real Estate Chart I-10China: Industrial Economy Is Weakening Nominal manufacturing production is decelerating in response to a weaker broad money impulse (Chart I-11). The Komatsu Komtrax index - which measures average hours of machine use per unit of construction equipment (excluding mining equipment) - has begun contracting (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China: Downside Risks In Manufacturing Chart I-12China: Sign Of Construction Slump Even though China's spending on tech products has been vibrant, the global semiconductor cycle - a harbinger of overall tech industry growth - is clearly downshifting as evidenced by declining semiconductor prices (Chart I-13). Finally, narrow money (M1) growth has historically correlated with Chinese H-share prices, and is currently pointing to considerable downside risk for Chinese equity prices (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Semiconductor Prices Are Falling Chart I-14Chinese Share Prices Are At Risk Bottom Line: China's industrial sector has been decelerating, a trend that will persist. Meanwhile, consumer spending is so far booming. The former is more important to the rest of the world in general and EM in particular than the latter. EM Selloff: Two Phases While it is impossible to forecast the timing and character of market dynamics and mini-cycles with precision, our assessment is that two phases of an EM selloff are likely. Phase 1: A relapse in EM financial markets occurs on the back of rising U.S. bond yields, a strong dollar, amid resilient commodities prices. This phase is currently underway. Phase 2: U.S. bond yields peter out and drift lower, yet the U.S. dollar continues to firm up, commodities prices relapse and the EM selloff progresses. This stage has not yet commenced. The driving force behind these dynamics would be slower global demand growth emanating from China and spreading to other developing countries. In between Phases 1 and 2, it is possible that EM will stage a temporary rebound. Yet the duration and magnitude of such a rebound are impossible to gauge. Because of its transient nature, barring precise timing, the rebound will be very difficult to play profitably. It is not impossible to envision that the escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could at some point lead the Federal Reserve to sound less hawkish. That could mark a top in U.S. bond yields. In such a scenario, will a peak in U.S. bond yields mark a bottom in EM currencies? It may do so temporarily, but the sustainability of a rally in EM currencies and risk assets would be contingent on global growth in general and commodities prices in particular. Chart I-15An Unsustainable Rebound ##br##In EM Stocks In 2014 As a matter of fact, a similar two-phase selloff with a rebound in between occurred in 2013-'15. Chart I-15 illustrates that EM currencies and stocks staged a short-lived rebound after U.S. bond yields peaked in late 2013. Yet this rally proved transient. The underlying impetus behind the resumption in the EM downtrend back in 2014-'15 was weakening growth in China, falling commodities prices and poor domestic fundamentals. Similar to the 2013-'15 episode, any rebound in EM risk assets resulting from lower U.S. bond yields will likely be fleeting if commodities prices drop, the dollar continues to firm up and global growth disappoints. To sum up, a potential rollover in U.S. bond yields in the coming months will not automatically entail an ultimate bottom in EM risk assets. Trends in global growth - particularly in China - and commodities prices will be critical to the outlook for EM. As per our themes and discussion above, we maintain that China's industrial growth and construction will surprise on the downside. Consequently, China's commodities imports will moderate, which will weigh on commodities prices. In the interim, weak global trade dynamics stemming from EM/China will benefit the dollar, which is a countercyclical currency. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar will continue strengthening regardless of the trend in U.S. bond yields because of slowing global trade. The dollar rally and weakening global demand will ultimately lead to lower commodities prices. EM financial markets will remain under selling pressure as long as global growth continues slowing. EM Foreign Funding Vulnerability Ranking Which countries are most exposed to lower foreign funding? Chart I-16 presents ranking of EM countries based on foreign funding requirements. The latter is calculated as the current account balance plus foreign debt that is due in the coming months. Chart I-16Vulnerability Ranking: Dependence On Foreign Funding Turkey, Malaysia, Peru and Chile have the heaviest foreign funding requirements in the next six months. Mostly, these stem from foreign debt obligations by their banks and companies. Even though most companies and banks with foreign debt will not default, their credit spreads will likely widen. The basis for this is depreciating currencies will make their foreign debt liabilities more expensive to service. Besides, as these debtors allocate more resources to service foreign debt, their spending will be negatively impacted and their domestic economies will weaken. Investment Conclusions Chart I-17Downside Risks In EM Share prices The dollar's strength will be lasting. Stay short a basket of select currencies such as the BRL, TRY, ZAR, CLP, IDR, KRW and MYR versus the U.S. dollar. For portfolios that need to overweight some EM currencies relative to the rest, our favorites are MXN, RUB, PLN, CZK, TWD, THB and SGD. CNY will for now modestly weaken versus the dollar but outperform many other EM peers. The biggest risk to the U.S. dollar in our opinion is the Trump administration's preference for a weaker greenback. Therefore, "open-mouth" operations by the U.S. administration to weaken the dollar are possible, and the dollar could experience temporary setbacks. Yet the path of least resistance for the dollar remains up, for now. There is considerable downside in EM share prices. Stay put and underweight EM versus DM in general and the S&P 500 in particular. Chart I-17 illustrates that rising EM sovereign bond yields and U.S. corporate bond yields (both shown inverted on the chart) herald a further selloff in EM stocks. Our equity overweights are Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, India, central Europe, Chile and Mexico, and our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Peru, Malaysia and Indonesia. For fixed-income investors, defensive positioning is warranted. As EM currencies continue to depreciate, sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen further. Credit portfolios should continue underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit relative U.S./DM corporate credit. Foreign holdings of EM local currency bonds remain massive. EM currency depreciation versus DM currencies will erode returns for foreign investors and could spur some bond selling, exerting upward pressure on local yields as well.1 Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Is The Worst Over? After having dropped 30% in U.S. dollar terms since their peak in late January, Turkish equity prices are beginning to look depressed, begging the question whether a buying opportunity is in the cards. Our assessment is as follows: the nation's financial markets are not yet at the point to warrant an upgrade (Chart II-1). Judgment on Turkish markets is contingent on three questions: Has the lira become cheap? Are real interest rates sufficiently high to depress domestic demand and reduce inflationary pressures? Are equity valuations cheap enough to warrant buying despite the poor cyclical profit outlook? First, the lira needs to get cheaper. Our favorite measure of currency valuation is the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. This takes into account both wages and productivity. Hence, it gauges competitiveness much better than the measures of real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices. Using this measure, as of May 23 the lira is one standard deviations below its historical mean (Chart II-2). For it to reach one-and-half or two standard deviations below its fair value, it would roughly take another 10%-20% depreciation, versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro. Chart II-1Turkish Financial Markets ##br##Have More Downside Chart II-2The Turkish Lira Is Not That Cheap Second, in regard to monetary policy, our view is that it would take an increase of around 200-250bps in the policy rate in addition to yesterday's hike of 300bps to stabilize financial markets. Core inflation will likely rise to at least 14-15% from the current level of 12% in response to the ongoing currency depreciation. With the effective policy rate (the late liquidity window rate) now at 16.5%, another 200-250 basis points hike would push the nominal rates to 18.5-19% and real policy rate to 3.5-4%, a minimum level that is likely required to depress excessive domestic demand growth. Finally, equity valuations are reasonably appealing but not cheap enough to put a floor under share prices given the outlook for contracting corporate and bank profits. Chart II-3 demonstrates that the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for Turkish stocks is now about 6, compared with the historical average of 8. Although this bourse is already one standard deviation cheap, the outlook for profit recession likely warrants even lower valuation to justify buying. Chart II-3Turkish Equities Could Get Cheaper An approximate 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms will bring the CAPE to 4.8, one-and-half standard deviation below the fair value. On the whole, an additional 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with 200-250 basis points hike in the policy rate, and a 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms will likely create a buying opportunity in Turkish financial markets. That said, it is doubtful whether there is the political will - to tolerate another 15% drop in the currency from current levels or more tightening in monetary conditions in the very near run ahead of the upcoming June parliamentary elections. Given the authorities' tolerance for higher borrowing costs is low, investors should not rule out the potential for capital controls to be imposed. In fact, to protect assets against possible capital control, we would recommend investors who are short to consider booking profits if the exchange rate surpasses 5 USDTRY in a rapid manner. Our open directional trades at the moment remain: Short Turkish bank stocks Short TRY / long USD Non-dedicated long-only investors should for now stay clear of Turkish financial markets. As to dedicated EM equity and fixed income portfolios (both credit and local currency bonds), we continue recommending underweight positions in Turkey. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 We discussed EM currencies and bonds in details in May 10, 2018; the link is available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights China-U.S. trade détente goes against our alarmist forecast, prompting us to reassess the view; We do not expect the truce to last long, as China has not given the U.S. what we believe the Trump administration wants; Instead, we see the truce lasting until at least the completion of the North Korea - U.S. summit, at most early 2019; Market is correct to fret about Italy, as the populist agenda will be constrained by the bond market in due course; Stay long DXY, but close our recommendations to short China-exposed S&P 500 companies. Feature Our alarmist view on trade wars appears to be in retreat, or at least "on hold," following the conclusion of the latest trade talks between U.S. and Chinese officials. Global markets breathed a sigh of relief on Monday, after a weekend of extremely positive comments from President Trump's advisers and cabinet members. Particularly bullish were the comments from Trump's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, who claimed that China had agreed to reduce its massive trade surplus with the U.S. by $200 billion (Chart 1). Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, Is The Problem The official bilateral statement, subsequently published by the White House, was vague. It claimed that "there was a consensus" regarding a substantive - but unquantifiable - reduction in the U.S. trade deficit.1 The only sectors that were mentioned specifically were "United States agriculture and energy exports." China agreed to "meaningfully" increase the imports of those products, which are low value- added commodity goods. With regard to value-added exports, China merely agreed that it would encourage "expanding trade in manufactured goods and services." The two sides also agreed to "attach paramount importance to intellectual property protections," with China specifically agreeing to "advance relevant amendments to its laws and regulations in this area." Subsequent to the declaratory statement, China lowered tariffs on auto imports from 25% to 15%. It will also cut tariffs on imported car parts, to around 6%, from the current average of about 10%. Is that it? Was the consensus view - that China would merely write a check for some Boeings, beef, and crude oil - essentially right? The key bellwether for trade tensions has been the proposed tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of goods, set to come in effect as early as May 21. According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, this tariff action is now "on hold." Mnuchin was also supposed to announce investment restrictions by this date, another bellwether that is apparently on hold. This is objective evidence that trade tensions have probably peaked for this year.2 On the other hand, there are several reasons to remain cautious: Section 301 Investigation: Robert Lighthizer, the cantankerous U.S. Trade Representative who spearheaded the Section 301 investigation into China's trade practices that justified the abovementioned tariffs and investment restrictions, immediately issued a statement on Sunday dampening enthusiasm: "Real work still needs to be done to achieve changes in a Chinese system that facilitates forced technology transfers in order to do business in China." In the same statement, Lighthizer added that China facilitates "the theft of our companies' intellectual property and business know-how." In other words, Lighthizer does not appear to be excited by the prospect of trading IP and tech protection for additional exports of beef and crude oil. Political Reaction: The reaction from conservative circles was less than enthusiastic, with both congressional officials and various Trump supporters announcing their exasperation with the supposed deal over the weekend.3 The Wall Street Journal claimed that China refused to put a number - such as the aforementioned $200 billion - in the final statement.4 The implication is that Beijing won this round of negotiations. But President Trump will not want to appear weak. If a narrative emerges that he "lost," we would expect President Trump to pivot back to tariffs and confrontation. Support for free trade has recently rebounded among Republican voters but remains dramatically lower among them than among Democrats (Chart 2). As such, it is a salient issue for the president politically. Chart 2Support For Free Trade Recovering, ##br##But Republicans Still Trail Democrats Chart 3China Already ##br##Imports U.S. Commodities... Investment Restrictions: Senator Cornyn's (Texas, Republican) bill to strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process continues to move through the Senate.5 The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act Of 2017 (FIRRMA) is currently being considered by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and should be submitted to a vote ahead of the November election. Congress is also looking to pass a bipartisan bill that would prevent President Trump from taking it easy on Chinese telecommunication manufacturer ZTE. Chart 4U.S. Commodity Export Growth Is Solid Chart 5... But Impedes Market Access For Higher Value-Added Goods Beef And Oil Is Not Enough: The U.S. already has a growing market share in China's imports of commodities and crude materials, although it could significantly increase its exports in several categories (Chart 3). As the Chinese people develop middle-class consumption habits, the country was always going to import more agricultural products. And as their tastes matured, the U.S. was always going to benefit, given the higher quality and price point of its agricultural exports. In fact, China's imports of U.S. primary commodity exports have been increasing faster than imports of U.S. manufacturing goods (Chart 4). As such, the statement suggests that the U.S. and China have opted for the easiest compromises (commodities) to grant U.S. greater market access; the U.S. may have fallen short on market access for value-added manufacturing (Chart 5). In addition, there was little acknowledgment of the American demands that China cease forced tech transfers, cut subsidies for SOEs, reduce domestic content requirements under the "Made in China 2025" plan, and liberalize trade for U.S. software and high-tech exporters (Chart 6). Given these outstanding and unresolved issues, there are three ways to interpret the about-face in U.S. trade demands: Geopolitical Strategy is wrong: One scenario is that we are wrong, that the Trump administration is not focused on forced tech transfers and IP theft in any serious way.6 On the other hand, if that is true, the U.S. is also not serious about significantly reducing its trade deficit with China, since structurally, IP theft and non-tariff barriers to trade of high-value exports are a major reason why China has a massive surplus. Instead, the U.S. may only be focused on reducing the trade deficit through assurances of greater market access - a key demand as well, but one that could prove temporary or un-strategic, especially if access is only granted for commodities.7 If this is true, it suggests that President Trump's demands on China are transactional, not geopolitical, as we asserted in March.8 Midterms matter: Another scenario is that President Trump does not want to do anything that would hurt the momentum behind the GOP's polling ahead of the November midterms (Chart 7). The administration can always pick up the pressure on China following the election, given that 2019 is not an election year. Trump's political team may believe that Beijing concessions on agriculture, autos, and energy will be sufficient to satisfy the base until then. By mid-2019, the White House can also use twelve months of trade data to assess whether Beijing has actually made any attempt to deliver on its promises of increased imports from the U.S. Chart 6China's High-Tech Protectionism Chart 7Republicans Are Gaining... North Korea matters: Along the same vein as the midterms, there is wisdom in delaying trade action against China given the upcoming June 12 summit between President Trump and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore. President Trump's approval ratings began their second surge this year following the announced talks (Chart 8), and it is clear that the administration has a lot of political capital invested in the summit's success. Recent North Korean statements, suggesting that they are willing to break off dialogue, may have been the result of the surprise May 8 meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Kim, the second in two months. As such, President Trump may have had to back off on the imposition of tariffs against China in order to ensure that his summit with Kim goes smoothly. At this point, it is difficult to gauge whether the decision to ease the pressure against China was due to strategic or tactical reasons. We expect that the market will price in both, easing geopolitical risk on equity markets. However, if the delay is tactical - and therefore temporary - then the risk premium would remain appropriate. We do not think that we are wrong when it comes to U.S. demands on China. These include greater market access for U.S. value-added exports and services (not just commodities), as well as a radical change in how China awards such access (i.e., ending the demand that technology transfers accompany FDI and market access). In addition, China still massively underpays for U.S. intellectual property (IP) rights and has been promising to do more on that front for decades (Chart 9). Given that China has launched some anti-piracy campaigns, and given its recent success in other top-down campaigns like shuttering excess industrial capacity, it is hard to believe that Beijing could not crack down on IP theft even more significantly. Chart 8...Thanks To Tax Cuts And Kim Jong-un Chart 9What Happened To ~$100 Billion IP Theft? Furthermore, U.S. demands on China are not merely about market access and IP. There is also the issue of aggressive geopolitical footprint in East Asia, particularly the South China Sea. The U.S. defense and intelligence establishment is growing uneasy over China's pace of economic and technological development, given its growing military aggressiveness. In fact, over the past two weeks, China has: Landed the Xian H-6K strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons on disputed "islands" in the South China Sea; Installed anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as surface-to-air missiles, on three of its outposts in disputed areas. Of course, if we are off the mark on our view of Sino-American tensions, it would mean that the Trump administration is willing to make transactional economic concessions for geopolitical maneuvering room. In other words, more crude oil and LNG exports in exchange for better Chinese positioning in vital sea and air routes in East Asia. We highly doubt that the Trump administration is making such a grand bargain, even if the rhetoric from the White House often suggests that the "America First" agenda would allow for such a strategic shift. Rather, we think the Trump administration, like the Obama administration, put the South China Sea low on the priority list, but will focus greater attention on it when is deemed necessary at some future date. Bottom Line: Trade tensions between China and the U.S. have almost assuredly peaked in a tactical, three-to-six month timeframe. While still not official, it appears that the implementation of tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of imports from China, set for any time after May 21, is now on hold. As such, a trade war is on hold. We are closing our short China-exposed S&P 500 companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms, a trade that has returned 3.94% and long European / short U.S. industrials, which is down 2% since inception. This greatly reduces investment-relevant geopolitical risk this summer and makes us far less confident that investors should "sell in May and go away." Our tactical bearishness is therefore reduced, although several other geopolitical risks - such as Iran-U.S. tensions, Italian politics, and the U.S. midterm election- remain relevant.9 We do not think that Sino-American tensions have peaked cyclically or structurally (six months and beyond). The Trump Administration continues to lack constraints when it comes to acting tough on China. As such, investors should expect tensions to renew either right after the summit between Trump and Kim in early June or, more likely, following the November midterm elections. Italy: The Divine Comedy Continues Since 2016, we have noted that Italy remains the premier risk to European markets and politics.10 There are two reasons for the view. First, Italy has retained a higher baseline level of Euroskepticism relative to the rest of Europe (Chart 10). While support for the common currency has risen in other member states since 2013, it has remained between 55%-60% in Italy. This is unsurprising given the clearly disappointing economic performance in Italy relative to that of its Mediterranean peers (Chart 11). Chart 10Italy Remains A Relative Euroskeptic Chart 11Lagging Economy Explains Cyclical Euroskepticism Italy's Euroskepticism, however, is not merely a product of economic malaise. Chart 12 shows that a strong majority of Europeans are outright pessimistic about the future of their country outside of the EU. But when Italians are polled in that same survey, the population is increasingly growing optimistic about the option of exit (Chart 13). The only other EU member state whose citizens are as optimistic about a life outside the bloc is the U.K., where population obviously voted for Brexit. Chart 12Europeans Are Pessimists About EU Exit... Chart 13...But Italians Are More Like Brits Furthermore, Italian respondents have begun to self-identify as Italian only, not as "European" also, which breaks with another long-term trend in the rest of the continent (Chart 14) and is also reminiscent of the U.K. The second reason to worry about Italy is its economic performance. Real GDP is still 5.6% below its 2008 peak, while domestic demand continues to linger at 7.9% below its pre-GFC levels (Chart 15). As we posited at the end of 2017, the siren song of FX devaluation would become a powerful political elixir in the 2018 election, as populist policymakers blame Italy's Euro Area membership for the economic performance from Chart 15.11 Chart 14Italians Feel More Italian Chart 15Italian Demand Never Fully Recovered Is the Euro Area to blame for Italy's ills? No. The blame lies squarely at the feet of Italian policymakers, who flubbed efforts to boost collapsing productivity throughout the 1990s and 2000s (Chart 16). There was simply no pressure on politicians to enact reforms amidst the post-Maastricht Treaty convergence in borrowing costs. Italy punted reforms to its educational system, tax collection, and corporate governance. Twenty years of complacency have led to a massive loss in global market share (Chart 17). Chart 16Italy Has A Productivity Problem Chart 17Export Performance Is A Disaster While it is difficult to prove a counterfactual, we are not sure that even outright currency devaluation would have saved Italy from the onslaught of Asian manufacturing in the late 1990s. Euro Area imports from EM Asia have surged from less than 2% of total imports to nearly 10% in the last twenty years. Italy began losing market share to Asia well before the euro was introduced on January 1, 1999, as Chart 18 illustrates. The incoming populist government is unfortunately coming to power with growing global growth headwinds (Chart 19), with negative implications for Italy (Chart 20). These are likely to act as a constraint on plans by the Five Star Movement (M5S) and Lega coalition to blow out the budget deficit in pursuit of massive tax cuts, reversals of pension reforms, minimum wage hikes, and a proposal to increase spending on welfare. Our back-of-the-envelope calculation sees Italy's budget deficit growing to over 7% in 2019 if all the proposed reforms were enacted, well above the 3% limit imposed by the EU on its member states. Chart 18Italy Lost Market Share Amid Globalization Chart 19Tepid Global Growth... Chart 20...Is Bad News For Italy How would the EU Commission react to these proposals, given that Italy would break the rules of the EU Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)? We think the question is irrelevant. The process by which the EU Commission enforces the rules of the SGP is the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), which would take over a year to put into place.12 First, the Commission would have to review the 2019 budget proposed by the new Italian government in September 2018. It would likely tell Rome that its plans would throw it into non-compliance with SGP rules, at which point the EU Commission would recommend the opening of a Significant Deviation Procedure (SDP). If Italy failed to follow the recommendations of the SDP, the Commission would then likely throw Italy into EDP at some point in the first quarter of 2019, or later that year.13 And what happens if Italy does not conform to the rules of the EDP? Italy would be sanctioned by the EU Commission by forcing Rome to make a non-interest-bearing deposit of 0.2% GDP.14 (Because it makes perfect sense to force a country with a large budget deficit to go into an even greater budget deficit.) Even if Rome complied with the sanctions, the punishment would only be feasible at the end of 2019, most likely at the end of Q1 2020. The point is that the above two paragraphs are academic. The Italian bond market would likely react much faster to Rome's budget proposals. The EU Commission operates on an annual and bi-annual timeline, whereas the bond market is on a minute-by-minute timeline. Given the bond market reaction thus far, it is difficult to see how Rome could be given the benefit of the doubt from investors (Chart 21). Investors have been demanding an ever-greater premium on Italian bonds, relative to their credit rating, ever since the election (Chart 22). Chart 21Uh Oh Spaghettio! Chart 22Bond Vigilantes Are Coming As such, the real question for investors is not whether the EU Commission can constrain Rome. It cannot. Rather, it is whether the bond market will. Rising borrowing costs would obviously impact the economy via several transmission channels, including overall business sentiment. But the real risk is Italy's banking sector. Domestic financial institutions hold 45% of Italian treasury bonds (BTPs) (Chart 23), which makes up 9.3% of all their assets, an amount equivalent to 77.8% of their capital and reserves (Chart 24). Foreign investors own 32%, less than they did before the Euro Area crisis, but still a significant amount. Chart 23Foreign Investors Still Hold A Third Of All Italian Debt Chart 24Italian Banks Also Hold Too Many BTPs In 2011, when the Euro Area crisis was raging, Italian 10-year yields hit 7%, or a spread of more than 500 basis points over German bunds. This was equivalent to an implied probability of a euro area breakup of 20% over the subsequent five years (Chart 25).15 What would happen if the populists in Rome followed through with their fiscal plans by September 2018 by including them in the 2019 budget? The bond market would likely begin re-pricing a similar probability of a Euro Area breakup, if not higher. In the process, Italian bonds could lose 20%-to-30% of their value - assuming that German bunds would rally on risk-aversion flows - which would result in a potential 15%-to-25% hit to Italian banks' capital and reserves. With the still large overhang of NPLs, Italian banks would be, for all intents and purposes, insolvent (Chart 26). Chart 25In 2011, Italian Spreads Signal Euro Break-Up Chart 26Italian Banks Still Carry Loads Of Bad Loans The populist government in Rome may not understand this dynamic today, but they will soon enough. This is perhaps why the leadership of both parties has decided to appoint a relatively unknown law professor, Guiseppe Conte, as prime minister. Conte is, according to the Italian press, a moderate and is not a Euroskeptic. It will fall to Conte to try to sell Europe first on as much of the M5S-Lega fiscal stimulus as he can, followed by the Italian public on why the coalition fell far short of its official promises. If the coalition pushes ahead with its promises, and ignores warnings from the bond market, we can see a re-run of the 2015 Greek crisis playing out in Italy. In that unlikely scenario, the ECB would announce publicly that it would no longer support Italian assets if Rome were determined to egregiously depart from the SGP. The populist government in Rome would try to play chicken with the ECB and its Euro Area peers, but the ATM's in the country would stop working, destroying its credibility with voters. In the end, the crisis will cause the populists to mutate into fiscally responsible Europhiles, just as the Euro Area crisis did to Greece's SYRIZA. For investors, this narrative is not a reassuring one. While our conviction level that Italy stays in the Euro Area is high, the scenario we are describing here would still lead to a significant financial crisis centered on the world's seventh-largest bond market. Bottom Line: Over the next several months, we would expect bond market jitters concerning Italy to continue, supporting our bearish view on EUR/USD, which we are currently articulating by being long the DXY (the EUR/USD cross makes up 57.6% of the DXY index). Given global growth headwinds, which are already apparent in the European economic data, and growing Italian risks, the ECB may also turn marginally more dovish for the rest of the year, which would be negative for the euro. Our baseline expectation calls for the new coalition government in Rome to back off from its most populist proposals. We expect that Italy will eventually flirt with overt Euroskepticism, but this would happen after the next recession and quite possibly only after the next election. If we are wrong, and the current populist government does not back off, then we could see a global risk-off due to Italy either later this summer, or in 2019. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Joint Statement of the United States and China Regarding Trade Consultations," dated May 19, 2018, available at whitehouse.gov. 2 President Trump later tweeted that the announced deal was substantive and "one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" 3 The most illustrative comment may have come from Dan DiMicco, former steel industry CEO and staunch supporter of President Trump on tariffs, who tweeted "Did president just blink? China and friends appear to be carrying the day." 4 Please see Bob Davis and Lingling Wei, "China Rejects U.S. Target For Narrowing Trade Gap," The Wall Street Journal, dated May 19, 2018, available at wsj.com. 5 Please see "S. 2098 - 115th Congress: Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act Of 2017," dated May 21, 2018, available at www.govtrack.us. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'" dated May 16, 2018; and "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see, The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, "Excessive deficit procedure (EDP)," available at eur-lex.europa.eu. 13 Have you been missing the European alphabet soup over the past three years? 14 The EU Commission can also suspend financing from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), but Italy has never participated in a bailout and thus could not be sanctioned that way. 15 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Threats And Opportunities In The Bond Market," dated April 7, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights The Swan Diagram depicts four different "zones of economic unhappiness," each one corresponding to a case where unemployment and inflation is either too high or too low, and the current account position is either too large or too small. The global economy has made significant progress in moving towards both internal and external balance over the past few years, but shortfalls remain. A number of large economies, including Japan, China, and Italy, continue to need stimulative fiscal policy to prop up domestic demand. In Italy's case, investor unease about the country's fiscal outlook is likely to raise borrowing costs for the government, curb capital inflows into the euro area, and push the ECB in a more dovish direction. All this will weigh on the euro. The U.S. should be tightening fiscal policy at this stage in the cycle. Instead, President Trump has pushed through significant fiscal easing. This is the main reason the 10-year Treasury yield hit a seven-year high this week. An overheated U.S. economy will pave the way for further Fed hikes, which will likely result in a stronger dollar. Rising U.S. rates and a strengthening dollar will hurt emerging markets. Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia are among the most vulnerable. Feature The Dismal Science, Illustrated Last week's report discussed the market consequences of the tug-of-war that policymakers often face in trying to achieve a variety of economic objectives with a limited set of policy instruments.1 In passing, we mentioned that some of these trade-offs can be depicted using the so-called Swan Diagram, named after Australian economist Trevor Swan. This week's report delves further into this topic by estimating where various economies find themselves inside the Swan Diagram, and what this may mean for their currency, equity, and bond markets. True to the reputation of economics as the dismal science, the Swan Diagram depicts four "zones of economic unhappiness" (Chart 1). Each zone represents a different way in which an economy can deviate from "internal balance" (low and stable unemployment) and "external balance" (an optimal current account position). This amounts to saying that an economy can suffer from one of the following: 1) high unemployment and an excessively large current account deficit; 2) high inflation and an excessively large current account surplus; 3) high unemployment and an excessively large current account surplus; and 4) high inflation and an excessively large current account deficit. Box 1 describes the logic behind the diagram. Chart 1Four Zones Of Unhappiness BOX 1 The Logic Behind The Swan Diagram As noted in the main text, the Swan Diagram depicts four different "zones of economic unhappiness," each one corresponding to a case where unemployment and inflation are either too high or too low, and the current account balance is either too large or too small. A rightward movement along the horizontal axis can be construed as an easing of fiscal policy, whereas an upward movement along the vertical axis can be thought of as an easing in monetary policy. All things equal, easier monetary policy is assumed to result in a weaker currency. The internal balance schedule, which corresponds to the ideal state where the economy is at full employment and inflation is stable, is downward sloping because an easing in fiscal policy must be offset by a tightening in monetary policy in order to keep the economy from overheating. The external balance schedule is upward sloping because easier fiscal policy raises aggregate demand, which results in higher imports, and hence a deterioration in the trade balance. A depreciation of the currency via an easing in monetary policy is necessary to bring imports back down. Any point to the right of the internal balance schedule represents too much inflation; any point to the left represents too much unemployment. Likewise, any point to the right of the external balance schedule represents a larger-than-acceptable current account deficit, whereas any point to the left represents an excessively large current account surplus. Note that according to the Swan Diagram, an economy that suffers from high unemployment may still need a weaker currency even if it already has a current account surplus. Intuitively, this is because a depressed economy suppresses imports, leading to a "stronger" current account balance than would otherwise be the case. We use two variables to estimate the degree to which an economy has diverged from internal balance: core inflation and the output gap (Chart 2). If the output gap is negative, the economy is producing less output than it is capable of. If the output gap is positive, the economy is operating beyond full capacity. All things equal, high core inflation and a large and positive output gap is symptomatic of an economy that is showing signs of overheating. Chart 2The Two Dimensions Of Internal Balance When it comes to estimating the extent to which an economy is deviating from external balance, we include both the current account position and the net international investment position (NIIP) in our calculations (Chart 3). The NIIP is the difference between an economy's external assets and its liabilities. If one were to sum all current account balances into the distant past and adjust for valuation effects, one would end up with the net international investment position. If a country has a positive NIIP, it can run a current account deficit over time by running down its accumulated foreign wealth.2 Chart 3The Two Dimensions Of External Balance Policy And Market Outcomes Within The Swan Diagram Chart 4 shows our estimates of where the main developed and emerging markets fall into the Swan Diagram. The top right quadrant depicts economies that need to tighten both monetary and fiscal policy. The bottom left quadrant depicts economies that need to ease both monetary and fiscal policy. The other two quadrants denote cases where either tighter fiscal/looser monetary policy or looser fiscal/tighter monetary policy are appropriate. In order to gauge progress over time, we attach an arrow to each data point. The base of the arrow shows where the economy was five years ago and the tip shows where it is today. Chart 4Policy Prescription Arising From The Swan Diagram From a market perspective, an economy's currency is likely to weaken if it finds itself in one of the two quadrants requiring easier monetary policy. Among developed economies, the best combination for equities in local-currency terms is usually an easier monetary policy and a looser fiscal policy. That is also the configuration that results in the sharpest steepening of the yield curve. Conversely, the worst outcome for developed market stocks in local-currency terms is tighter monetary policy coupled with fiscal austerity. That is also the policy package that is most likely to result in a flatter yield curve. In dollar terms, a stronger local currency will typically boost returns. This is particularly the case in emerging markets, where stock markets are likely to suffer in situations where the home currency is under pressure. A few observations come to mind: The global economy has made significant progress in restoring internal balance over the past five years. That said, negative output gaps remain in nearly half of the countries in our sample. And even in several cases where output gaps have disappeared, a shortfall in inflation suggests the presence of latent slack that official estimates of excess capacity may be missing. External imbalances have also declined over time. Since earth does not trade with Mars, the global current account balance and net international investment position must always be equal to zero. Nevertheless, the absolute value of current account balances, expressed as a share of global GDP, has fallen by half since 2006 (Chart 5). Chart 5Shrinking Global Imbalances The decline in China's current account balance has played a key role in facilitating the rebalancing of demand across the global economy. The current account showed a deficit in Q1 for the first time in 17 years. While several technical factors exacerbated the decline, the current account will probably register a surplus of only 1% of GDP this year, down from a peak of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The Chinese economy also appears to be close to internal balance. However, maintaining full employment has come at the cost of rapid credit growth and a massive quasi-public sector deficit, which the IMF estimates currently stands at over 12% of GDP (Chart 6). Thus, one could argue that a somewhat weaker currency and less credit expansion would be in China's best interest. Similar to China, Japan has been able to reach internal balance only through lax fiscal policy (Chart 7). The lesson here is that economies such as China and Japan which have a surfeit of savings - partly reflecting a very low neutral real rate of interest - would probably be better off with cheaper currencies rather than having to rely on artificial means of propping up demand. Chart 6China's 'Secret' Budget Deficit Chart 7The Cost Of Propping Up Demand Germany has overtaken China as the biggest contributor to current account surpluses in the world. Germany's current account surplus now stands at over 8% of GDP, up from a small deficit in 1999, when the euro came into inception. In contrast to China and Japan, Germany is running a fiscal surplus. Solely from its perspective, Germany would benefit from more fiscal stimulus and a stronger euro. The problem, of course, is that a stronger euro would not be in the best interest of most other euro area economies. While external imbalances within the euro area have decreased markedly over the past decade, they have not gone away (Chart 8). Investors also remain wary of fiscal easing in Southern Europe. This week's spike in Italian bond yields - fueled by speculation that a Five-Star/League government will abandon plans for fiscal consolidation - is a timely reminder that the bond vigilantes are far from dead (Chart 9). The Italian government's borrowing costs are likely to rise over the coming months, which will curb capital inflows into the euro area and push the ECB in a more dovish direction. All this will weigh on the common currency. Chart 8The Euro Club: Imbalances Have Been Decreasing Chart 9Uh Oh Spaghettio! The U.S. is the opposite of Germany. Unlike Germany, it has a large fiscal deficit and a current account deficit. The Swan Diagram says that the U.S. would benefit from tighter fiscal policy and a weaker dollar. President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have other plans, however. They have pushed through large tax cuts and significant spending increases (Chart 10). This will likely prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than the market is currently discounting, leading to a stronger dollar. Chart 10The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Rising U.S. rates and a strengthening dollar will hurt emerging markets, particularly those with current account deficits and negative net international investment positions. High levels of external debt could exacerbate any problems (Chart 11). On that basis, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia are among the most vulnerable. Chart 11External Debt And Debt Servicing Across EM Investment Conclusions Chart 12The U.S. Economy Is Doing ##br##Better Than Its Peers The global economy is approaching internal balance, but this may produce some unpleasant side effects. Productivity growth is anaemic and the retirement of baby boomers from the workforce will reduce the pace of labor force growth. In such a setting, potential GDP growth in many countries is likely to remain subpar. If demand growth continues to outstrip supply growth, inflation will rise. Heightened stock market volatility this year has partly been driven by the realization among investors that the Goldilocks environment of above-trend growth and low inflation may not last as long as they had hoped. The U.S. economy has now moved beyond full employment, and bountiful fiscal stimulus could lead to further overheating. This is the main reason the 10-year Treasury yield reached a seven-year high this week. Continued above-trend growth is likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more than the market expects, which should result in a stronger dollar. The fact that the U.S. economy is outperforming the rest of the world based on economic surprise indices and our leading economic indicators could give the dollar a further lift (Chart 12). A resurgent dollar will help boost competitiveness in developed economies such as Japan and Europe. Emerging markets will also benefit in the long run from cheaper currencies, but if the adjustment happens rapidly, as is often the case, this could exact a short-term toll. For the time being, investors should overweight developed over emerging markets in equity portfolios. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tinbergen's Ghost," dated May 11, 2018. 2 To keep things simple, we assume that a country's Net International Investment Position (NIIP) shrinks to zero over 50 years. Thus, if a country has a positive NIIP of 50% of GDP, we assume that it should target a current account deficit of 1% of GDP; whereas if it has a negative NIIP of 50% of GDP, it should target a current account surplus of 1% of GDP. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Copper has been stuck in the $2.90-$3.30/lb trading range since late August, 2017. Offsetting supply- and demand-side effects are keeping us neutral: Concerns over restrictions on China's scrap imports and possible industrial action in Chile, along with continued worries over a slow-down in China will keep prices range-bound until we see a fundamental catalyst on one side of the market. Our updated balances model shows a physical surplus in 2018, followed by a deficit in 2019. Energy: Overweight. Rising crude oil prices and steepening backwardation in Brent and WTI, to a lesser extent, will be supportive of our energy-heavy S&P GSCI recommendation, as we expected. The position is up 17.1% since it was initiated on December 7, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Our updated balances model points to a physical surplus in the copper market by year end (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. A stronger USD and higher real rates are pressuring precious metals lower. Our long gold and silver positions are down 1.8% and 0.8%, respectively, over the past week. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA expects Brazil to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest soybean producer in the upcoming crop year, for the first time in history. Nevertheless - and despite U.S.-Sino trade tensions - the report also predicts record U.S. exports of the bean in the 2018/19 crop year. Feature Chart of the WeekStuck In A Trading Range Copper on the COMEX averaged $3.12/lb since the beginning of the year - slightly higher than our $3.10/lb expectation published in January (Chart of the Week).1 Fears of a slowdown in China -suggested by weaker readings of the Li Keqiang Index - as well as a stronger dollar have been headwinds to further upside. On the flip side, upcoming contract renegotiations at Escondida, China's ongoing environmental efforts, and global PMI readings above the 50 boom-bust line have kept bulls interested in the red metal. Our estimate of the refined copper balance is for a physical surplus this year (Chart 2). Strong demand from Asia, and to a lesser extent North America, will support a moderate pickup in consumption this year. This will be met by greater refined output - a ramp in primary refined output will more than offset the expected decline in secondary production (i.e. refined copper produced from the scrap metal). Upside risk to this outlook comes from supply-side disruptions at the ore mines - particularly in Chile - and at refined levels. The biggest downside risk remains China's growth trajectory: If policymakers are unable to manage the transition to sustainable, consumer- and services-led growth in the market that accounts for 50% of global demand, prices will fall. Longer term, our models point to a physical refined-copper deficit on the back of stronger consumption growth vis-à-vis output growth. The key to a breakout - up or down -lies in the evolution of financial and fundamental factors. On the financial side, the USD has been edging higher since mid-April. Absent an upward copper price catalyst, a continuation in the USD's path will prevent the metal from booking strong gains. On the fundamental side, we expect copper markets to be in surplus this year. However, downside risks from a greater-than-expected slowdown in China could easily tilt the balance. Ongoing Chinese tightening of scrap copper imports will resist sharp moves to the downside. Chart 2Updated Balances: Expect A Refined Copper Surplus This Year Any of these factors may emerge as a catalyst for a breakout or a breakdown in the copper market this year. Yet for now our model is pointing to a physical surplus and we are comfortable with our neutral outlook. We expect near term prices to trade in the $2.90 to $3.15/lb range. Nevertheless, the evolution of these known unknowns may tilt our balances to either side. A break lower would be reason to sell, while a break above the upper bound would support an outlook for higher prices. Geopolitical Risks On The Horizon Political tensions are spilling into the copper market, threatening supplies, and bringing with them the prospect of higher prices. This is not without reason: Supply-side shocks to mined output have historically been a source of upside risk to prices. Foremost among the potential shocks is labor action at the Escondida mine in Chile, the world's largest. June 4 is the deadline for contract renegotiations to begin. These talks will follow last year's contract renewal efforts, which led to a 44-day strike, a 63% y/y decline in the mine's copper output in 1Q17, and eventually, an 18-month contract extension. As the world's largest mine, Escondida accounts for 1.27mm MT out of the 22mm MT of world capacity, and contributes ~5% of global supply. Efforts to lock in an advance deal ended late last month to no avail.2 Nevertheless, Escondida's production in 1Q18 has been exceptional - more than triple the same period last year. Furthermore, copper was among the metals that caught a bid last month amid fears of further rounds of U.S. sanctions on Russian companies. Russian oligarch Vladimir Potanin has a 33% stake in Norilsk, one of the world's largest copper mines - accounting for 388k MT of output last year. While sanctions against Potanin have not been announced, he was named in the U.S. Section 241 Foreign Asset Control filing, suggesting that he may be targeted in future sanctions, putting Norilsk's future at risk, à la Rusal. While fears of U.S. sanctions on Russia appear to have eased, the risk of such action on global copper supply was a tailwind to the copper market last month. In addition to the upside from these potential supply-side shocks, ongoing environmental reform efforts in China remain a theme in metals markets globally. In the case of the red metal, restrictions on Chinese access to "foreign waste" will curtail scrap shipments going forward. World secondary refined production from scrap accounts for almost 20% of global refined copper. China produces more than half of the world's secondary refined copper. This means that China's secondary output makes up 10% of all world refined copper production (Chart 3). Chart 3China's Secondary Output Important To Refined Copper Supply... As such, scrap copper imports play an important role in China - they act as a buffer against high prices, rising when prices lift, and dwindling in times of low prices. Among the measures implemented to gain more control over scrap markets in China are the following: 1. For the period between May 4 and June 4, the Chinese customs inspection firm - China Certification and Inspection Group North America - announced it would suspend the issuance of export certificates for scrap material shipments, including scrap copper.3 The aim of the suspension is to inspect the waste material and ensure it complies with China's new environmental regulations. In general China imports 15% of its copper scrap from the U.S. - purchasing more than 500k MT of scrap copper from the U.S. last year (Chart 4). Since the U.S. is China's top supplier of scrap copper, this specific initiative and China's ongoing efforts for environmental reform could be consequential to secondary refined output. 2. This move comes in addition to ongoing restrictions on imported solid waste. Starting in 2019, Category 7 scrap copper imports - i.e., solid waste, which account for ~20% of all scrap - will be banned.4 Since the beginning of the year, import licenses were granted only to scrap end-users and, since March 1, hazardous impurity levels in scrap copper imports were limited to 1% by weight. A Metal Bulletin report late last month estimated import quotas for scrap copper were 84% lower so far this year.5 As such, Jiangxi Copper - the largest copper refinery in the world - estimates that these restrictions will culminate in a 500k MT decline in scrap copper imports this year. In fact, scrap copper imports have already been falling significantly, with Chinese purchases down 40% y/y in 1Q18. The near-term implication of these restrictions on China's scrap copper imports would be to raise imports of refined copper, or of ores and concentrates. Scrap copper displaced from these restrictions will likely be diverted to other countries where they will be refined and shipped to China for final consumption. While an eventual move by Chinese companies to Southeast Asian countries in a bid to set up processing facilities there would eliminate the long term price impact, there may be some upside to prices during the transition phase. As such, China's imports of copper ores and concentrates, and of the refined metal, have been strong. During the first four months of the year, imports of ores and concentrates were up almost 10% y/y, while inflows of the refined metal are 15% above last year's levels (Chart 5). Chart 4...But Scrap Imports Are Restrained Chart 5China's Copper Imports Still Going Strong As these policy measures have been known to the public for quite some time, we suspect they are already priced into markets, and do not foresee further upside risk arising from this source. Nevertheless, their impact will remain significant, given that limited ability to produce scrap copper, which will restrict supply, will keep the market resistant to significant downward price pressure. Moderate Consumption Growth This Year Our updated balances model does not include any significant changes to our demand outlook from our January estimate. This is consistent with our consumption estimates for other industrial commodities that share strong co-movement properties with copper demand. We expect lower global consumption and growth than what's being projected by the International Copper Study Group (ICSG) and the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in its Resources & Energy Quarterly report. While China will remain the world's major copper consumer, a slowdown in its economy remains the foremost demand-side concern for us this year. DM economies appear to be comfortably perched at an above trend level. Fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and solid growth figures from the rest of the world will help keep demand in DM economies supported (Table 1). Table 1Strong Global Growth Will Support##BR##Copper Consumption However, Chinese demand growth remains vulnerable to a slowdown. As we outlined in our March 29 Weekly Report, while there are fundamental reasons to be concerned about Chinese growth going forward, there are no signs of alarm just yet.6 Manufacturing PMIs have come down in recent months, but they remain above the 50 boom-bust mark. That said, it is worth pointing out that the most significant indicator of the Chinese economy we track - the Li Keqiang index -has also been slowing as of late. We continue to expect the government to be able to pull off the managed slowdown it has embarked on. However, we are alert for any sign the Chinese economy is sharply decelerating, as it would lead us to revise our consumption forecast. A Surplus...At Least This Year Our demand and supply expectations lead us to call for a surplus of refined copper this year. Further out, we expect consumption growth to outpace production next year. The upward adjustment in our balance to a surplus since January is a result of upside revisions to supply amid a stable consumption growth path (Chart 6). Copper inventories remain elevated (Chart 7). While current levels of inventories are not a predictor of future price movements, they do indicate there is sufficient cushion in the market to withstand near-term supply disruptions. Chart 6Solid Production Path Amid Stable Consumption;##BR##Surplus Will Emerge Chart 7Inventories Will Cushion##BR##Against Supply Shocks Of course, along with other commodity markets, copper prices remain vulnerable to USD movements. In fact, the red metal's performance over the past month is especially impressive given the relative strength in the USD as of late. BCA expects the USD will appreciate in the coming months. Absent fundamental changes - i.e. supply- or demand-side shocks - copper markets will likely be restrained from staging a break-out rally by a stronger USD going forward. Bottom Line: Fundamental and financial risks to the copper market are slightly skewed to the downside this year. We expect a physical surplus to emerge by year-end, given slightly higher output and slower demand growth as China slows. On the downside, prices are vulnerable to a stronger USD and muted demand growth in China. On the upside, they are supported by supply-side concerns, chiefly at the Escondida mine and due to restrictions on China's imports of scrap copper. Stay neutral the red metal. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see p.11 of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper," dated January 25, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Union at BHP's Escondida copper mine in Chile says no advance deal likely," dated April 24, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "China to suspend checks on U.S. scrap metal shipments, halting imports," dated May 4, 2018, available at reuters.com. 4 Please see "China scrap metal firms face pressure from import curbs: official", dated April 26, 2018, available at reuters.com and BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Copper Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," dated August 24, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "FOCUS: China's copper scrap import quotas down 84% so far this year," dated April 23, 2018, available at metalbulletin.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "China's Managed Slowdown Will Dampen Base Metals Demand," dated March 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in
Highlights Divergence between U.S. and global economic outcomes is bullish for the U.S. dollar and bad for EM assets; Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea, but it may not with Iran, putting upside pressure on oil; An election is the only way to resolve split over Brexit and the new anti-establishment coalition in Italy is not market positive; Historic election outcome in Malaysia and the prospect of a weakened Erdogan favors Malaysian over Turkish assets; Reinitiate long Russian vs EM equities in light of higher oil price and reopen French versus German industrials as reforms continue unimpeded in France. Feature "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900. May started with a geopolitical bang. On May 4, a high-profile U.S. trade delegation to Beijing returned home after two days of failed negotiations. Instead of bridging the gap between the two superpowers, the delegation doubled it.1 On May 8, President Trump put his Maximum Pressure doctrine - honed against Pyongyang - into action against Iran, announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal - also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These geopolitical headlines were good for the U.S. dollar, bad for Treasuries, and generally miserable for emerging market (EM) assets (Chart 1).2 We have expected these very market moves since the beginning of the year, recommending that clients go long the DXY on January 31 and go short EM equities vs. DM on March 6.3 Chart 1EM Breakdown? Chart 2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Geopolitical risks, however, are merely the accelerant of an ongoing process of global growth redistribution. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the divergent ramifications of populist stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China. This political divergence in economic outcomes has reduced growth in the latter and accelerated it in the former, a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 2).4 Data is starting to support this narrative: Chart 3Global Growth On A Knife Edge Chart 4German Data... The BCA OECD LEI has stalled, but the diffusion index shows a clear deterioration (Chart 3); German trade is showing signs of weakness, as is industrial production and IFO business confidence (Chart 4); Another bellwether of global trade, South Korea, is showing a rapid deterioration in exports (Chart 5); Global economic surprise index is now in negative territory (Chart 6). Chart 5...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks Chart 6Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the ledger, wage pressures are rising as the number of unemployed workers and job openings converge (Chart 7). Given the additional tailwinds of fiscal stimulus, which we see no real chance of being reversed either before or after the midterm election, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to surprise to the upside relative to the rest of the world, a bullish outcome for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). In this environment of U.S. outperformance and global growth underperformance, EM assets are likely to suffer. Chart 7U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD Additionally, it does not help that geopolitical risks will weigh on confidence and will buoy demand for safe haven assets, such as the U.S. dollar. First, U.S.-China trade relations will continue to dominate the news flow this summer. President Trump's positive tweets on the smartphone giant ZTE aside, the U.S. and China have not reached a substantive agreement and upcoming deadlines on trade-related matters remain a risk (Table 1). Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Second, President Trump's application of Maximum Pressure on Iran will cause further volatility and upside pressure on the oil markets. The media was caught by surprise by the president's announcement that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, which is puzzling given that the May 12 expiration of the sanctions waiver was well-telegraphed (Chart 9). It is also surprising given that President Trump signaled his pivot towards an aggressive foreign policy by appointing John Bolton and Mike Pompeo - two adherents of a hawkish foreign policy - to replace more middle-of-the-road policymakers. It was these personnel changes, combined with the U.S. president's lack of constraints on foreign policy, that inspired us to include Iran as the premier geopolitical risk for 2018.5 Chart 9Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran-U.S. Tensions: Maximum Pressure Is Real Last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast that President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine would work against North Korea. First, we noted that President Trump reestablished America's "credible threat," a crucial factor in any negotiation.6 Without credible threats, it is impossible to cajole one's rival into shifting away from the status quo. The trick with North Korea, for each administration that preceded President Trump, was that it was difficult to establish such a credible threat given Pyongyang's ability to retaliate through conventional artillery against South Korean population centers. President Trump swept this concern aside by appearing unconcerned with what were to befall South Korean civilians or the Korean-U.S. alliance. Second, we noted in a detailed military analysis that North Korean retaliation - apart from the aforementioned conventional capacity - was paltry.7 President Trump called Kim Jong-un's bluff about targeting Guam with ballistic missiles and kept up Maximum Pressure throughout a summer full of rhetorical bluster. As tensions rose, China blinked first, enforcing President Trump's demand for tighter sanctions. China did not want the U.S. to attack North Korea or to use the North Korean threat as a reason to build up its military assets in the region. The collapse of North Korean exports to China ultimately starved the regime of hard cash and, in conjunction with U.S. military and rhetorical pressure, forced Kim Jong-un to back off (Chart 10). In essence, President Trump's doctrine is a modification of President Theodore Roosevelt's maxim. Instead of "talking softly," President Trump recommends "tweeting aggressively".8 It is important to recount the North Korean experience for several reasons: Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea: It is an objective fact that President Trump was correct in using Maximum Pressure on North Korea. Our analysis last year carefully detailed why it would be a success. However, we also specifically outlined why it would work with North Korea. Particularly relevant was Pyongyang's inability to counter American economic pressure and rhetoric with material leverage. Kim Jong-un's only objective capability is to launch a massive artillery attack against civilians in Seoul. Given his preference not to engage in a full-out war against South Korea and the U.S., he balked and folded. Trump is tripling-down on what works: President Trump, as all presidents before him, is learning on the job. The North Korean experience has convinced him that his Maximum Pressure tactic works. In particular, it works because it forces third parties to enforce economic sanctions on the target nation. If China were to abandon its traditional ally North Korea and enforced painful sanctions, the logic goes, then Europeans would ditch Iran much faster. Iran is not North Korea: The danger with applying a Maximum Pressure tactic against Iran is that Tehran has multiple levers around the Middle East that it could deploy to counter U.S. pressure. President Obama did not sign the JCPOA merely because he was a dove.9 He did so because the deal resolved several regional security challenges and allowed the U.S. to pivot to Asia (Chart 11). Chart 10Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Chart 11Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative To understand why Iran is not North Korea, and how the application of Maximum Pressure could induce greater uncertainty in this case, investors first have to comprehend why the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal was concluded in the first place. Maximum Pressure Applied To Iran The 2015 U.S.-Iran deal resolved a crucial security dilemma in the Middle East: what to do about Iran's growing power in the region. Ever since the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the fulcrum of the region's disequilibrium has been the status of Iraq. Iraq is a natural geographic buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional rivals. Hussein, a Sunni, ruled Iraq - 65% of which is Shia - either as an overt client of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (1980-1988), or as a free agent largely opposed to everyone in the region (from 1990s onwards). Both options were largely acceptable to Saudi Arabia, although the former was preferable. Iran quickly seized the initiative in Iraq following the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, which created a vast vacuum of power in the country. Elite members of the country's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the so-called Quds Force, infiltrated Iraq and supplied various Shia militias with weapons and training that fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. An overt Iranian ally, Nouri al-Maliki, assumed power in 2006. Soon the anti-U.S. insurgency evolved into sectarian violence as the Sunni population revolted and various Sunni militias, supported by Saudi Arabia, rose up against Shia-dominated Baghdad. The U.S. troops stationed in Iraq quickly became either incapable of controlling the sectarian violence or direct targets of the violence themselves. This rebellion eventually mutated into the Islamic State, which spread from Iraq to Syria in 2012 and then back to Iraq two years later. The Obama administration quickly realized that a U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to be permanent if Iranian influence in the country was to be curbed in the long term. This position was untenable, however, given U.S. military casualties in Iraq, American public opinion about the war, and lack of clarity on U.S. long-term interests in Iraq in the first place. President Obama therefore simultaneously withdrew American troops from Iraq in 2011 and began pressuring Iran on its nuclear program between 2011 and 2015.10 In addition, the U.S. demanded that Iran curb its influence in Iraq, that its anti-American/Israel rhetoric cease, and that it help defend Iraq against the attacks by the Islamic State in 2014. Tehran obliged on all three fronts, joining forces with the U.S. Air Force and Special Forces in the defense of Baghdad in the fall 2014.11 In 2014, Iran acquiesced in seeing its ally al-Maliki replaced by the far less sectarian Haider al-Abadi. These moves helped ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. From Tehran's perspective, it has abided by all the demands made by Washington during the 2012-2015 negotiations, both those covered by the JCPOA overtly and those never explicitly put down on paper. Yes, Iran's influence in the Middle East has expanded well beyond Iraq and into Syria, where Iranian troops are overtly supporting President Bashar al-Assad. But from Iran's perspective, the U.S. abandoned Syria in 2012 - when President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" on chemical weapons use. In fact, without Iranian and Russian intervention, it is likely that the Islamic State would have gained a greater foothold in Syria. The point that its critics miss is that the 2015 nuclear deal always envisioned giving Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Otherwise, Tehran would not have agreed to curb its nuclear program! To force Iran to negotiate, President Obama did threaten Tehran with military force. As we have detailed in the past, President Obama established a credible threat by outsourcing it to Israel in 2011. It was this threat of a unilateral Israeli attack, which Obama did little to limit or prevent, that ultimately forced Europeans to accept the hawkish American position and impose crippling economic sanctions against Iran in early 2012. As such, it is highly unlikely that a rerun of the same strategy by the U.S., this time with Trump in charge and with potentially less global cooperation on sanctions, will produce a different, or better, deal. The recent history is important to recount because the Trump administration is convinced that it can get a better deal from Iran than the Obama administration did. This may be true, but it will require considerable amounts of pressure on Iran to achieve it. At some point, we expect that this pressure will look very much like a preparation for war against Iran, either by U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, or by the U.S. itself. First, President Trump will have to create a credible threat of force, as President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did in 2011-2012. Second, President Trump will have to be willing to sanction companies in Europe and Asia for doing business with Iran in order to curb Iran's oil exports. According to National Security Advisor John Bolton, European companies will have by the end of 2018 to curb their activities with Iran or face sanctions. The one difference this time around is Iraqi politics. Elections held on May 13 appear to have resulted in a surge of support for anti-Iranian Shia candidates, starting with the ardently anti-American and anti-Iranian Shia Ayatollah Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr is a Shia, but also an Iraqi nationalist who campaigned on an anti-Tehran, anti-poverty, anti-corruption line. If the election signals a clear shift in Baghdad against Iran, then Iran may have one less important lever to play against the U.S. and its allies. However, we are only cautiously optimistic about Iraq. Pro-Iranian Shia forces, while in a clear minority, still maintain the support of roughly half of Iraqi Shias. And al-Sadr may not be able to govern effectively, given that his track record thus far mainly consists of waging insurgent warfare (against Americans) and whipping up populist fervor (against Iran). Any move in Baghdad, with U.S. and Saudi backing, to limit Iranian-allied Shia groups from government could lead to renewed sectarian conflict. Therein lies the key difference between North Korea and Iran. Iran has military, intelligence, and operational capabilities that North Korea does not. This is precisely why the U.S. concluded the 2015 deal in the first place, so that Iran would curb those capabilities regionally and limit its operations to the Iranian "sphere of influence." In addition, Iran is constrained against reopening negotiations with the U.S. domestically by the ongoing political contest between the moderates - such as President Hassan Rouhani - and the hawks - represented by the military and intelligence nexus. Supreme Leader Khamenei sits somewhere in the middle, but will side with the hawks if it looks like Rouhani's promise of economic benefits from the détente with the West will fall short of reality. The combination of domestic pressure and capabilities therefore makes it likely that Iran retaliates against American pressure at some point. While such retaliation could be largely investment-irrelevant - say by supporting Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel or ramping up military operations in Syria - it could also affect oil prices if it includes activities in and around the Persian Gulf. Bottom Line: We caution clients not to believe the narrative that "Trump is all talk." As the example in North Korea suggests, Trump's rhetoric drove China to enforce sanctions in order to avert war on the Korean Peninsula. We therefore expect the U.S. administration to continue to threaten European and Asian partners and allies with sanctions, causing an eventual drop in Iranian oil exports. In addition, we expect Iran to play hardball, using its various proxies in the region to remind the Trump administration why Obama signed the 2015 deal in the first place. Could Trump ultimately be right on Iran as he was on North Korea? Absolutely. It is simply naïve to assume that Iran will negotiate without Maximum Pressure, which by definition will be market-relevant. Impact On Energy Markets BCA Energy Sector Strategy believes that the re-imposition of sanctions could result in a loss of 300,000-500,000 b/d of production by early 2019.12 This would take 2019 production back down to 3.3-3.5 MMB/d instead of growing to nearly 4.0 MMb/d as our commodity strategists have modeled in their supply-demand forecasts. In total, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for 2019 oil markets by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing the production that Iran has brought online since 2016 (Chart 12). Is the global energy market able to withstand this type of loss of production? First, Chart 13 shows that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been cut from 450 million barrels at its peak to less than 100 million barrels today. Surplus inventories are destined to shrink to nothing by the end of the year even without geopolitical risks. In short, there is no excess inventory cushion. Chart 12Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 13Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Second, spare capacity within the OPEC 2.0 alliance - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is controversial. Many clients believe that OPEC 2.0 could easily restore the 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. However, our commodity team has always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually has achieved (Chart 14). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are ##br##Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 15Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors"##br## Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Third, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.23 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 16). Venezuelan production declined by 450,000 b/d over the course of 21 months (December 2015 to September 2017), followed by another 450,000 b/d plunge over the past six months (September 2017 to March 2018), as the country's failing economy goes through the death spiral of its 20-year socialist experiment. The oil production supply chain is now suffering from shortages of everything, including capital. It is difficult to predict what broken link in the supply chain is most likely to impact production next, when it will happen, and what the size of the production impact will be. The combination of President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine applied to Iran, continued deterioration in Venezuelan production, and the inability of OPEC 2.0 to surge production as fast as the market thinks is unambiguously bullish for oil prices. Oil markets are currently pricing in a just under 35% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end (Chart 17).13 We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Indeed, we think that the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are much higher than the 16% chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. Chart 16Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 17Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Bottom Line: Our colleague Bob Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist, also expects higher volatility, as news flows become noisier. The recommendation by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is to go long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectations. A key variable to watch in the ongoing saga will be President Trump's willingness to impose secondary sanctions against European and Asian companies doing business with Iran. We do not think that the White House is bluffing. The mounting probability of sanctions will create "stroke of pen" risk and raise compliance costs to doing business with Iran, leading to lower Iranian exports by the end of the year. Europe Update: Political Risks Returning Risks in Europe are rising on multiple fronts. First, we continue to believe that the domestic political situation in the U.K. regarding Brexit is untenable. Second, the coalition of populists in Italy - combining the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Euroskeptic Lega - appears poised to become a reality. Brexit: Start Pricing In Prime Minister Corbyn Since our Brexit update in February, the pound has taken a wild ride, but our view has remained the same.14 PM May has an untenable negotiating position. The soft-Brexit majority in Westminster is growing confident while the hard-Brexit majority in her own Tory party is growing louder. We do not know who will win, but odds of an unclear outcome are growing. The first problem is the status of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of paramilitary conflict on the island, established an invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Membership in the EU by both made the removal of a physical border a simple affair. But if the U.K. exits the bloc, and takes Northern Ireland with it, presumably a physical barrier would have to be reestablished, either in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. The former would jeopardize the Good Friday agreement, the latter would jeopardize the U.K.'s integrity as a state. The EU, led on by Dublin's interests, has proposed that Northern Ireland maintain some elements of the EU acquis communautaire - the accumulated body of EU's laws and obligations - in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. For many Tories in the U.K., particularly those who consider themselves "Unionists," the arrangement smacks of a Trojan Horse by the EU to slowly but surely untie the strings that bind the U.K. together. If Northern Ireland gets an exception, then pro-EU Scotland is sure to ask for one too. The second problem is that the Tories are divided on whether to remain part of the EU customs union. PM May is in favor of a "customs partnership" with the EU, which would see unified tariffs and duties on goods and services across the EU bloc and the U.K. However, her own cabinet voted against her on the issue, mainly because a customs union with the EU would eliminate the main supposed benefit of Brexit: negotiating free trade deals independent of the EU. It is unclear how PM May intends to resolve the multiple disagreements on these issues within her party. Thus far, her strategy was to simply put the eventual deal with the EU up for a vote in Westminster. She agreed to hold such a vote, but with the caveat that a vote against the deal would break off negotiations with the EU and lead to a total Brexit. The threat of such a hard Brexit would force soft Brexiters among the Tories to accept whatever compromise she got from Brussels. Unfortunately for May's tactic, the House of Lords voted on April 30 to amend the flagship EU Withdrawal Bill to empower Westminster to send the government back to the negotiating table in case of a rejection of the final deal with the EU. The amendment will be accepted if the House of Commons agrees to it, which it may, given that a number of soft Brexit Tories are receptive. A defeat of the final negotiated settlement could prolong negotiations with the EU. Brussels is on record stating that it would prolong the transition period and give the U.K. a different Brexit date, moving the current date of March 2019. However, it is unclear why May would continue negotiating at that point, given that her own parliament would send her back to Brussels, hat in hand. The fundamental problem for May is the same that has plagued the last three Tory Prime Ministers: the U.K. Conservative Party is intractably split with itself on Brexit. The only way to resolve the split may be for PM May to call an election and give herself a mandate to negotiate with the EU once she is politically recapitalized. This realization, that the probability of a new election is non-negligible, will likely weigh on the pound going forward. Investors would likely balk at the possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will become the prime minister, although polling data suggests that his surge in popularity is over (Chart 18). Local elections in early May also ended inconclusively for Labour's chances, with no big outpouring for left-leaning candidates. Even if Labour is forced to form a coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP), it is unlikely that the left-leaning SNP would be much of a check on Corbyn's Labour. Chart 18Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Bottom Line: Theresa May will either have to call a new election between now and March of next year or she will use the threat of a new election to get hard-Brexit Tories in line. Either way, markets will have to reprice the probability of a Labour-led government between now and a resolution to the Brexit crisis. Italy: Start Pricing In A Populist Government Leaders of Italy's populist parties - M5S and Lega - have come to an agreement on a coalition that will put the two anti-establishment parties in charge of the EU's third-largest economy. Markets are taking the news in stride because M5S has taken a 180-degree turn on Euroskepticism. Although Lega remains overtly Euroskeptic, its leader Matteo Salvini has said that he does not want a chaotic exit from the currency bloc. Is the market right to ignore the risks? On one hand, it is a positive development that the anti-establishment forces take over the reins in Italy. Establishment parties have failed to reform the country, while time spent in government will de-radicalize both anti-establishment parties. Furthermore, the one item on the political agenda that both parties agree on is to radically curb illegal migration into Italy, a process that is already underway (Chart 19). On the other hand, the economic pact signed by both parties is completely and utterly incompatible with reality. It combines a flat tax and a guaranteed basic income with a lowering of the retirement age. This would blow a hole in Italy's budget, barring a miraculous positive impact on GDP growth. The market is likely ignoring the coalition's economic policies as it assumes they cannot be put into action. This is not because Rome is afraid to flout Brussels' rules, but because the bond market is not going to finance Italian expenditures. Long-dated Italian bonds are already cheap relative to the country's credit rating (Chart 20), evidence that the market is asking for a premium to finance Italian expenditures. This is despite the ongoing ECB bond buying efforts. Once the ECB ends the program later this year, or in early 2019, the pressure on Rome from the bond market will grow. Chart 19European Migration Crisis Is Over Chart 20Italian Bonds Still Require A Risk Premium We suspect that both M5S and Lega are aware of their constraints. After all, neither M5S leader Luigi Di Maio nor Lega's Salvini are going to take the prime minister spot. This is extraordinary! We cannot remember the last time a leader of the winning party refused to take the top political spot following an election. Both Di Maio and Salvini are trying to pass the buck for the failure of the coalition. In one way, this is market-positive, as it suggests that the anti-establishment coalition will do nothing of note during its mandate. But it also suggests that markets will have to deal with a new Italian election relatively quickly. As such, we would warn investors to steer clear of Italian assets. Their performance in 2017, and early 2018, suggests that the market has already priced in the most market-positive outcome. Yes, Italy will not leave the Euro Area. But no, there is no "Macron of Italy" to resolve its long-term growth problems. Bottom Line: The Italian government formation is not market-positive. Italian bonds are cheap for a reason. While it is unlikely that the populist coalition will have the room to maneuver its profligate coalition deal into action, the bond market may have to discipline Italian policymakers from time to time. In the long term, none of the structural problems that Italy faces - many of which we have identified in a number of reports - will be tackled by the incoming coalition.15 This will expose Italy to an eventual resurgence in Euroskepticism at the first sight of the next recession. Emerging Markets: Elections In Malaysia And Turkey Offer Divergent Outcomes As we pointed out at the beginning of this report, an environment of rising U.S. yields, a surging dollar, and moderating global growth is negative for emerging markets. In this context, politics is unlikely to make much of a difference. The recently announced early election in Turkey is a case in point. Markets briefly cheered the announced election (Chart 21), before investors realized that there is unlikely to be a consolidation of power behind President Erdogan (Chart 22). Even if Erdogan were to somehow massively outperform expectations and consolidate political capital, it is not clear why investors would cheer such an outcome given his track record, particularly on the economy, over the past decade. Chart 21Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Chart 22Is Erdogan In Trouble? Malaysia, on the other hand, could be the one EM economy that defies the negative macro context due to political events. Our most bullish long-term scenario for Malaysia - a historic victory for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition - came to pass with the election on May 9 (Chart 23).16 Significantly, outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak accepted the election results as the will of the people. He did not incite violence or refuse to cede power. Rather, he congratulated incoming Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and promised to help ensure a smooth transition. This marks the first transfer of power since Malaysian independence in 1957. It was democratic and peaceful, which establishes a hugely consequential and market-friendly precedent. How did the opposition pull off this historic upset? Ethnic-majority Malays swung to the opposition; Mahathir's "charismatic authority" had an outsized effect; Barisan Nasional "safety deposits" in Sabah and Sarawak failed; Voters rejected fundamentalist Islamism. What are the implications? Better Governance - Governance has been deteriorating, especially under Najib's rule, but now voters have demanded improvements that could include term-limits for prime ministers and legislative protections for officials investigating wrongdoing by top leaders (Chart 24). Economic Stimulus - Pakatan Harapan campaigned against some of the painful pro-market structural reforms that Najib put in place. They have promised to repeal the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) and reinstate fuel subsidies. They have also proposed raising the minimum wage and harmonizing it across the country. While these pledges will be watered down,17 they are positive for nominal growth in the short term but negative for fiscal sustainability in the long term. Chart 23Comfortable Majority For Pakatan Harapan Coalition Chart 24Voters Want Governance Improvements The one understated risk comes from China. Najib's weakness had led him to court China and rely increasingly on Chinese investment as an economic strategy. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan will seek to revise all Chinese investment (including under the Belt and Road Initiative). This review is not necessarily to cancel projects but to haggle about prices and ensure that domestic labor is employed. Mahathir will also try to assert Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. None of this means that a crisis is impending, but China has increasingly used economic sanctions to punish and reward its neighbors according to whether their electoral outcomes are favorable to China,18 and we expect tensions to increase. Investment Conclusion On the one hand, in the short run, the picture for Malaysia is mixed. Pakatan Harapan will likely pursue some stimulative economic policies, but these come amidst fundamental macro weaknesses that we have highlighted in the past - and may even exacerbate them. On the other hand, a key external factor is working in the new government's favor: oil. With oil prices likely to move higher, the Malaysian ringgit is likely to benefit (Chart 25), helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power, a key election grievance. Higher oil prices are also correlated with higher equity prices. Over the long run, we have a high-conviction view that this election is bullish for Malaysia. It sends a historic signal that the populace wants better governance. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has found that improvements in governance are crucial for long-term productivity, growth, and asset performance.19 Hence, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends clients go long Malaysian equities relative to EM. Now is a good entry point despite short-term volatility (Chart 26). We also think that going long MYR/TRY will articulate both our bullish oil story as well as our divergent views on political risks in Malaysia and Turkey (Chart 27). Chart 25Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Chart 26Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Chart 27Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY We are re-initiating two trades this week. First, the recently stopped out long Russian / short EM equities recommendation. We still believe that the view is on strong fundamentals, at least in the tactical and cyclical sense.20 Russian President Vladimir Putin has won another mandate and appears to be focusing on domestic economy and the constraints to Russian geopolitical adventurism have grown. The Trump administration has apparently also grown wary of further sanctions against Russia. However, our initial timing was massively off, as tensions between Russia and West did not peak in early March as we thought. We are giving this high-risk, high-reward trade another go, particularly in light of our oil price outlook. Second, we booked 10.26% gains on our recommendation to go long French industrials versus their German counterparts. We are reopening this view again as structural reforms continue in France unimpeded. Meanwhile, risk of global trade wars and a global growth slowdown should impact the high-beta German industrials more than the French. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Washington's demand that China cut its annual trade surplus has grown from $100 billion, announced previously by President Trump, to at least $200 billion. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: A Correction Or Bear Market?" dated May 10, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "'America Is Roaring Back!' (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?),"dated January 31, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, and "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Instead of a "big stick," President Trump would likely also recommend a "big nuclear button." 9 This is an important though obvious point. We find that many liberally-oriented clients are unwilling to give President Trump credit for correctly handling the North Korean negotiations. Similarly, conservative-oriented clients refuse to accept that President Obama's dealings with Iran had a strategic logic, even though they clearly did. President Obama would not have been able to conclude the JCPOA without the full support of U.S. intelligence and military establishment. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 While there was no confirmed collaboration between Iranian ground forces in Iraq and the U.S. Air Force, we assume that it happened in 2014 in the defense of Baghdad. The U.S. A-10 Warthog was extensively used against Islamic State ground forces in that battle. The plane is most effective when it has communication from ground forces engaging enemy units. Given that Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias did the majority of the fighting in the defense of Baghdad, we assume that there was tactical communication between U.S. and the Iranian military in 2014, a whole year before the U.S.-Iran nuclear détente was concluded. 12 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," dated May 10, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update," dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, and "Europe's Divine Comedy Party II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof)," dated March 21, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 For instance, the proposed Sales and Services Tax (SST) is more like a rebranding of the GST than a true abolition. And while fuel subsidies will be reinstated - weighing on the fiscal deficit - they will have a quota and only certain vehicles will be eligible. It will not be a return to the old pricing regime where subsidies were unlimited and were for everyone. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ranking EM Countries Based on Structural Variables," dated August 2, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.