大中華
Highlights While bullish sentiment for copper remains high, concerns that policymakers' attempts at a managed slowdown in China this year goes too far will weigh on the market. Fundamentally, support for copper prices from potential supply shortfalls at both the mining and refining levels will be offset by a stronger USD and slower growth in China this year (Chart of the Week). Despite our expectation a slight physical supply deficit will emerge this year, we remain neutral copper. We do not believe this will be enough to rally prices in a meaningful way. Energy: Overweight. Ministers from Saudi Arabia and Russia confirmed OPEC 2.0 - the oil-producer coalition led by these states - will survive beyond the expiry of their production-management deal at the end of this year. What and how they will manage the production of coalition members, however, remains unknown. Base Metals: Neutral. Positive fundamentals for copper are at risk if the USD rallies on the back of Fed tightening this year or China's managed economic slowdown is too severe (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices remained well bid, despite expectations for three or four Fed rate hikes this year, suggesting the market is pricing in either fewer rate hikes and lower real rates, or geopolitical risk - most prominently in Venezuela or North Korea. We remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Soybean has been gaining ground on concerns about yield damage due to droughts in parts of Argentina. Expectations of a bumper year for Brazil will mitigate the impact on global supply. Feature Bullish copper sentiment is at a multi-year high, with four bulls for every bear in the market (Chart 2). The strong global economy, weak USD, and elevated risk of further supply-side disruptions - at mines as well as at the refining level - are feeding into buyers' optimism. Chart of the WeekChina Fears Weighing##BR##On Copper Prices Chart 2Bullish Sentiment Remains##BR##At Multi-Year Highs Our outlook for 2018 calls for another, albeit smaller, refined copper deficit (Chart 3). This will come on the back of escalated risks from supply side disruptions at mines in Chile and Peru, and potential constraints on primary and secondary refined output from China, the largest refined copper producer (Table 1). Chart 3A (Smaller) Deficit##BR##In 2018 Table 1China Is Significant For##BR##Copper Supply And Demand China also is the world's largest refined-copper consumer, which makes the risk of a more severe downturn in China arising from too much policy-driven restraint in the metal's top consumer acute. In the following sections, we present our expectations for the fundamentals: copper mine output, refined copper production, and refined copper consumption. Industrial Action Will Threaten Mine Output Again In 2018 Copper had an exceptional year in 2017. The synchronized global upturn and weak USD set the stage for a memorable performance. On the supply-side, disruptions at some of the world's largest mines pushed prices up 8% in 1H17. Although the risk of further production shocks had subsided by 2H17, copper gained another 22% on the back of restrictive Chinese scrap import policies and better than expected demand fundamentals. Last year, the copper market registered a physical deficit, mainly on the back of a decline in copper mine supply. A 0.3% yoy fall in copper ores and concentrate output in the first eleven months of the year kept production broadly unchanged compared to the same period last year. In fact, this was the first yoy decline for that period since 2002, and contrasts with an average 5% expansion in ore and concentrate output for that period since 2012 (Chart 4). The most notable supply side disruptions last year were: Chart 4Supply Disruptions Put##BR##Copper In Deficit Last Year A 9% yoy decline in output from top producer Chile in 1H17. Chile accounts for more than a quarter of global ore & concentrate supply. The decline is a result of strikes at the Escondida mine as well as lower output from Codelco mines. The Indonesian government's ban on exports of copper ores in the first four months of the year led to a 6% yoy decline in production in the first eleven months. U.S. output, which accounts for~7% of global copper ores & concentrates supply is down 12% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017. In fact, the last time the U.S. recorded a positive yoy growth rate was in October 2016. The decline in U.S. output came mainly on the back of lower grade ores, a fall in mining rates, and poor weather conditions. The majority of these disruptions occurred in 1H17 - the first five months of the year witnessed a 1.6% yoy fall in output, while the Jun-Oct period experienced a 0.7% yoy increase. Nonetheless, the ramp up in second part of the year is significantly slower than the 6% yoy and 5% yoy increases in the same period in 2015 and 2016. Global supply was partially supported by Peruvian and European production. Peruvian output grew 3.6% yoy in the first eleven months of the year. However this rate is dwarfed in comparison to previous years. Output grew almost 40% yoy in 2016 and 23% yoy in 2015. Similarly, European output - which accounts for 8% of global supply - seems to be continuing its uptrend. It expanded by 2.4% in the first eleven months of 2017 to record the highest level of output for that period. In fact, growth in output is above the average 0.8% yoy pace in the same period in 2014-2016. We expect a small rebound in mine production in 2018. According to the International Copper Study Group, temporarily shut down capacity in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia will resume operations, supporting mine supply this year. Supply-side disruptions pose a significant risk to mine supply again this year. An estimated more than 30 labor contracts, representing ~5mm MT of mined copper - a quarter of global production - will expire this year.1 While surely not all of these negotiations will result in strikes and supply disruptions, the figure is noteworthy as it is significantly above the average 1.7mm MT worth of annual copper supply at risk from contract renewal between 2011 and 2016. The most significant of these renewals is that which was most damaging last year. The 44-day strike at BHP Billiton's Escondida mine in Chile last year, which resulted in a 7.8% yoy fall at the world's most productive copper mine, ended without agreement. Although the contracts were extended, they are due for renegotiation in June. In fact, one of the unions at Escondida held a day long "warning strike" in November, an indication that they do not intend to back down from their demands. Unless management gives in, this implies a heightened risk of disruptions. Bottom Line: Supply disruptions negatively impacted mine supply in some of the world's top producers in 1H17. Although European and Peruvian supply has been somewhat supportive, global supply stagnated in 2017. Industrial action remains the major risk to mined copper this year. 5mm MT worth of copper ores and concentrates are at risk of supply side disruptions in 2018 - the highest figure since 2010. Environmental Reforms Limit Refined Production From China Chart 5China's Scrap Imports Cushion##BR##Against High Prices World refined production grew 1.3% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017, the slowest growth rate for that period since 2009. This reflects significant declines in refined copper production in Chile and the U.S. Supply disruptions at mines in Chile - the world's second-largest producer of refined copper - led to a 182k MT fall in refined output in the first eleven months of 2017, compared to the same period in 2016. Refined output from the U.S. fell by 91.4k MT in that period. However, the downside pressure on refined output from lower ore production was mitigated by increased secondary production from scrap, which accounts for ~20% of global refined copper production. Chinese copper producers took advantage of the oversupply in global scrap and ramped up their production. According to the ICSG global secondary output expanded by almost 10% yoy in the first ten months of last year. China's copper scrap imports increased 9% yoy in the first eleven months of last year, following four years of declines (Chart 5). China makes up less than 10% of global mined copper, but it is the largest producer of refined copper in the world, accounting for 36% of the global production. China is expected to remain the main contributor to world refined production growth (Chart 6). However, Beijing's environmental reforms, and measures to curb the imports of "foreign trash" will limit secondary refined production. Chart 6China Remains Most Significant Factor In Refined Production Growth New policies affecting refined output in China are supportive of copper prices this year: 1. In relation to scrap copper, Beijing recently imposed two policy changes, in line with its environmental reforms. First, since the start of 2018, only copper scrap end-users and processors will be granted import licenses. Second, a proposal to limit the hazardous impurity levels in scrap copper imports to 1% by March. Both these policies will curtail China's scrap copper imports. China imports an estimated 3mm MT of scrap copper annually, accounting for roughly half of its total scrap copper supply. Such limitations would severely dent China's scrap supply. Furthermore, scrap copper imports play a significant role in China. They act as a buffer against high prices, soaring during periods of high prices and dwindling when prices are low - as they were between 2013 and 2016. If China does in fact go through with the tighter regulations on scrap imports, Chinese copper consumers would not be able to fall back on the secondary metal when prices rise - as they have been over the past year - leading to greater demand for imports of primary products, chasing prices higher. However, over the long term, we are likely to see Chinese scrap traders move their businesses offshore, notably in Southeast Asia, where they will process the scrap until it meets the regulations necessary to be imported by China.2 In fact, this has already started to happen in the case of the category 7 scrap - derived from end-of-life electronics, households, cars and industrial products - which is widely believed will be banned by year-end. Nevertheless, these recycling plants do not yet exist. Thus, the transition cannot occur overnight, and we expect the tighter policies on scrap imports to support prices in the interim as China increases its imports of ores and refined copper in order to fill the supply gap. 2. China's environmental reforms also pose a risk on refined supply this year. Smelters and refiners risk being shut down if they do not comply with tighter pollution controls. This could limit copper output this year. Similar to the winter production cuts occurring at steel and aluminum producers, China's second largest copper smelter - Tongling Nonferrous Metals Group - announced plans to reduce its smelter capacity by up to 30% during the winter.3 In addition, late last month, China's largest smelter - Jiangxi Copper Co. - was forced to curb output while local pollution levels were assessed.4 The extent to which these measures are adopted by other producers will interrupt refined output this year. Given the more elevated pollution levels during the winter months, this risk is most notable in the November to March period. Bottom Line: The major risk to refined copper supply is China's environmental reforms which will likely constrain copper scrap imports, and could lead to temporary shutdowns of polluting smelters and refineries. If Beijing tightens these regulations, we are likely to witness disruptions in both primary and secondary refined output, while the copper supply chain readjusts to be able to comply with these policies. Slowdown In China Would Temper Copper World refined copper consumption grew 0.8% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017. Weaker consumption was mainly in the 1H17, during which global consumption fell 1.8% yoy, whereas consumption in the July-to-November period accelerated by 3.9% yoy. Weaker demand in the first half of the year came on the back of weaker demand from China, which accounts for half of global consumption. China recorded a 7.7% yoy fall in consumption of refined copper in the January-to-April period. However, Chinese copper demand subsequently strengthened, accelerating by 7.4% yoy in the May-to-November period. While demand from the rest of the world muted the impact of weaker Chinese consumption in the first half of the year, it weakened in the second half of the year, falling 3.3% yoy in the May-to-October period. This fall in copper demand was driven by a 5.5% yoy fall in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, a 2.0% yoy fall in demand in Japan in the May-to-November period. According to China Customs data, China's refined copper imports fell 5.1% in 2017 after growing 3.7% in 2016 (Chart 7). However, what is noteworthy is that while imports fell 18.3% yoy in H1, they picked up in H2, increasing by 11.3% yoy, mainly on the back of strong demand in Q3. This is in line with strong economic performance in China in 2H17 - an upside surprise which supported copper prices. Going into 2018, we expect a managed deceleration in China - and in China's demand for copper - to be mitigated by stronger demand from the rest of the world. In fact, the IMF revised up its 2018 and 2019 global growth forecasts in the latest WEO Update earlier this week (Table 2). Global growth is now forecast to reach 3.9% in 2018, up from the estimated 3.7% last year. Chart 7China's Q4 Imports Were Strong Table 2Upward Revisions To IMF Growth Projections Chart 8Speed Bump Ahead For China? That said, our China construction Indicator - which includes several variables measuring construction activity in China - shows strong growth in the main end-user for copper (Chart 8). Given that building construction accounts for 43% of copper end-use in China, this indicates demand for copper should remain healthy in the near term. Furthermore, despite concerns of a slowdown, China's manufacturing PMI still points to a healthy economy. Even so, a decline in the Li Keqiang Index, which tracks industrial activity, warrants caution and could be signaling trouble ahead for the Chinese economy. In addition, government spending has decelerated significantly from its mid-2017 peak. Against these risks, the global economy is expected to remain strong. Thus the biggest risk to our assessment is a pronounced deceleration in China which would hit demand for the red metal. Bottom Line: The major risk to refined copper demand this year is a slowdown from China. Downside Risk From A Stronger USD In addition to the fundamental variables highlighted above, U.S. monetary policy - and its effect on the USD - will also be an important driver of the copper market. We expect the Fed to embark on its interest rate normalization process more aggressively this year, hiking its policy rate up to four times. This would see copper prices weaken as the red metal becomes more expensive in USD terms. The USD is significant because a weaker dollar means that dollar-based commodities are cheaper for foreign buyers. Thus, foreigners tend to buy dollar-denominated commodities when the USD is weak, and sell when the USD is strong, in order to also benefit from exchange rate differentials. Continued weakness of the USD has been supportive of copper prices since the beginning of 2017. A risk to our outlook is an unexpectedly dovish Fed, which would keep the dollar muted and be favorable to copper. Bottom Line: We expect the copper market to record a small physical deficit this year. A stronger USD and deceleration in China will prevent a repeat of 2017's performance. However supply side disruptions at the mine and refined levels will provide opportunities for some upside in the market. Synchronized global demand will be a tailwind throughout the year. In the near term, we expect copper to continue gyrating around its current level of $3.10/lb. Absent a marked slowdown in China, we expect a rally into mid-year as contract renegotiations get underway. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Copper soars to 4-year high as funds bet on shortages," dated December 28, 2017, available at reuters.com. 2 Please see "As China restricts scrap metal companies look to process copper abroad," dated January 8, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "Chinese Copper Smelter Halts Capacity to Ease Winter Pollution," dated December 7, 2017, available at Bloomberg.com. 4 Please see "Copper Rallies to Three-Year High as China Plant Halts Output," dated December 26, 2017, available at Bloomberg.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Highlights The U.S. government shutdown showed that the path of least resistance is for more fiscal spending; President Trump is turning to trade and foreign policy amid a lack of popularity at home; North Korean diplomacy is on track, but U.S.-China relations and Taiwan are potential black swans; Iran and the U.S. are playing a risky double game that will add geopolitical risk premium to oil; NAFTA will be a bellwether for Trump's future actions on issues that carry greater constraints, like Iran and China; Book profits on French vs German industrials and China volatility; close U.S. curve steepener and long PHP/TWD. Feature This weekend, investors woke up to the nineteenth government shutdown since 1976, a product of "grand standing" on both sides of the aisle. Our low-conviction view, which we elucidated last week, is that President Donald Trump will be forced to migrate to the middle on policy as the midterm election approaches.1 Chart 1Trump Hitting (And Building!) A Wall Despite a roaring stock market, strong economic fundamentals, and decade-low unemployment, President Trump's popularity continues to flounder. There is now even a perceptible decline in his support among GOP voters. Key problems for Trump have been the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the intensification of the Mueller investigation (Chart 1). We suspect that he will try to preempt an electoral disaster in November by means of bipartisan deal-making and more orthodox policies. The government shutdown, although not entirely unexpected, undermined the view that President Trump is thinking about moderating his stance. That said, the Democrats are as much, if not more, to blame. With the Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it is clear that the Democrats thought that voters would ultimately see the shutdown as the GOP's fault. This was a dangerous assumption given that current polling suggests the Democrats have more to lose. One positive about the short-lived imbroglio is that it was the first government shutdown in twenty years that had little to do with government spending, whether the appropriations bill explicitly or entitlements. While immigration is an intractable issue, the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is not about dollars. This is good news for the markets as it means that more spending will likely be necessary to grease the wheels of compromise. Our mantra continues to be that the political path of least resistance will lead towards profligacy. While the media's focus is on domestic politics, the real risks remain in the international arena. The two are connected. As political science theory teaches us, policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy. To this arena we turn, starting with China-U.S. relations and the other potential risks in Asia (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan). We also briefly turn to Iran and NAFTA. What binds all these risks is that it is essentially up to President Trump whether they become market-relevant or not. Korean Diplomacy Is On Track In mid-September North Korean tensions peaked (Chart 2).2 Leader Kim Jong Un chose to demonstrate known missile capabilities rather than escalate the crisis. Chart 2Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Chart 3North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash We expected this choice given Pyongyang's considerable military constraints. Kim is a rational actor following his father Kim Jong Il's nuclear negotiations playbook.3 Just as brinkmanship reached new highs, Kim Jong Un declared victory and offered to play nice. Specifically, he launched his most advanced missile yet on November 28 (the Hwasong-15) and immediately thereafter North Korean state media declared that North Korea has "finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force," complete with a fireworks celebration in Pyongyang.4 Kim confirmed this message personally on January 1 while offering an olive branch to South Korea for the New Year. Apparently, then, Kim is responsive to the United States' threats of devastating military retaliation against any attack. Kim is also responsive to the fact that China's President Xi Jinping has joined the U.S. coalition imposing sanctions on the North (Chart 3), squeezing North Korea's economy. The deep drop in exports to China suggests that the North will run into foreign-exchange problems if it does not adjust its posture - not to mention shortages of goods like fuel that China is gradually cutting off (Chart 4). In short, the U.S. established a credible military threat in 2017, just as it did with Iran in 2012 (Chart 5). China responded to the U.S. and established a credible economic threat of its own. Kim has de-escalated. Kim said in his New Year declaration that he would only use his nuclear deterrent if the U.S. committed an act of aggression. Rhetoric about destroying American cities is gone. Meanwhile Kim has engaged South Korea in direct negotiations, with military-to-military talks possibly to follow, and both sides will make a display of friendship at the Olympic Games in South Korea in February. Chart 4China Is Enforcing Sanctions Chart 5Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran While our view that diplomacy will reduce tensions is on track, we caution that the underlying disagreement is driven by North Korea's weapon capabilities and remains unresolved. The North Korean issue is not a red herring and the diplomatic route may continue to be bumpy from time to time.5 Markets could still be rattled by surprise North Korean provocations. Nevertheless, we do not expect a replay of the 2017 level of "fire and fury" that caused the U.S. 10-year treasury yield to drop from 2.31% to 2.05% between June and September 2017. If the North should jerk back toward a belligerent posture and decisively throw away this opportunity for diplomacy, then we will watch closely to determine whether its provocations truly alter the status quo and whether the U.S. shows any sign of greater willingness to respond with force. Otherwise we will simply monitor the diplomatic talks and watch for any signs of internal stress in North Korea as global sanctions tighten.6 Bottom Line: Korean risks remain market-relevant as the crisis is not resolved and talks are just beginning. Nevertheless, diplomacy is taking shape. We remain long the Korean two-year government bond versus the ten-year on the back of global trends and continued de-escalation. China-U.S. Relations May Sour Anyway Over the past year we have warned clients that U.S.-China tensions are the fundamental source of geopolitical risk globally and in Asia Pacific; that North Korea is a derivative of this fact; and that China's cooperation in policing North Korea would only temporarily dissuade the Trump administration from imposing punitive measures on China over trade. Despite China's assistance with North Korea, Trump will be driven by domestic American politics to slap tariffs on China in addition to those levied on January 22.7 First, Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and to economic nationalist voters. Thus he may need to show more muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections. This is particularly true for the key rust-belt states that handed him the election in 2016, where four Democratic senators' seats are in competition in November (not to mention nine other senate seats that could be swayed for similar reasons) (Chart 6). It is politically embarrassing to Trump that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in his first year in office and is on track to continue racking up surpluses (Chart 7). While Beijing has vowed to open up market access and import more goods and services, these promises have yet to impress (Chart 8). Chart 6Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Chart 7China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... Administrative rulings on several trade disputes early this year will give Trump ample opportunity to take additional trade action against China. The critical question, however, is whether Trump will continue to focus on item-by-item trade remedies (perhaps at an accelerated pace), or whether he goes beyond previous administrations and demands that China make progress on structural and systemic issues. The latter is more politically difficult and would have greater macro consequences. The U.S. has recently suggested that it made a mistake by bringing China into the WTO. This comes after the December WTO meeting in which the administration was able to secure a joint statement with Japan and Europe that increased the pressure on China.8 At the same time, Trump is weighing a significant decision (due by August, but possible any day now) on China's alleged systemic intellectual property theft, which Trump says is likely to require a "fine" (penalty). And comments by White House officials suggest that the administration may be going after China's promotion of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as well as forced technology transfers (Chart 9).9 These are structural demands on China that will create much bigger frictions than tariffs on a few sub-sectors. Chart 8...While Imports Remain Tepid Chart 9Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Second, assuming that the U.S. and international community reach some kind of deal to reduce Korean tensions over the next six-to-eighteen months - for instance, a missile-test moratorium and corresponding easing of sanctions. It is likely still to be a complicated and ugly deal, as Pyongyang has no intention of giving up its nuclear and missile capabilities. The U.S. will have to make unpopular compromises with a rogue regime, comparable to the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The deal will leave a bitter taste in Trump's mouth and the administration will likely blame China for failing to prevent the North from achieving its nuclear status. It will rotate to address other long-standing disagreements with China, and may well look for compensation for Korea by taking a harder line on trade. Bottom Line: Korean diplomacy may delay or soften Trump's trade policies but cannot change his domestic political calculus. The Trump administration is more, not less, likely to impose further punitive trade measures on China as the midterm election draws near. We expect Chinese equity volatility to remain high. We are closing our recommendation to go long the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index, which has appreciated by 26.5%. This is not an investable index but an indicator of volatility in ETFs. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis? The rumor is going around that China and Taiwan are on the verge of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis." Clients all over the world - from Hong Kong to San Francisco to Toronto - are asking us about cross-strait tensions and the risk of war. As we go to press, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has just publicly acknowledged that war is possible. Taiwan could indeed be a geopolitical "black swan." It was one of our top five black swans for 2016,10 and several extraordinary events that year suggested that our concerns are warranted: China cut off all communication with the island; the Taiwanese navy accidentally fired a missile towards the mainland on the Communist Party's birthday; and a U.S. president-elect spoke directly with a Taiwanese president for the first time since 1979, creating an uproar in Beijing.11 Today, in the wake of Xi Jinping's concentration of power at the nineteenth National Party Congress,12 and Beijing's heavy-handed crackdown on Hong Kong throughout 2017,13 there is renewed concern that China is about to stage a major intervention to rein in Taiwan. There is even talk that China could be preparing to mount a surprise attack.14 The rumors are arising from a confluence of events. On the mainland side, Xi is personally powerful and has made it a priority to lead China into a "New Era" of greater Chinese influence globally. This means that a decision to take bolder action on Taiwan could come from individual whim rather than a collective decision within the party (which would tend to maintain the status quo). Xi has also taken personal control of the military through promotions, and reasserted that the "party controls the gun," making it less likely that he would meet institutional resistance in any major foreign policy initiative. Finally, Xi has hardened Communist Party policies toward Taiwan, reflected in increased military drills, controversial new air traffic routes, and tougher language in the five-year policy blueprint that he presented to the party congress. On the Taiwanese side, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the party that leans toward independence from the mainland, dominates the country's politics. The DPP not only won the presidency but also won legislative control for the first time in the January 2016 election.15 The DPP is also the leading party on lower levels of government. And young Taiwanese people increasingly identify as exclusively Taiwanese.16 While President Tsai has been relatively pragmatic so far, her party has fewer domestic political constraints than in the past - leaving room for the party's more radical side to have more influence or for Tsai to overreach. Internationally, Tsai has allies in Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan - both nationalists who favor Taiwan and harbor deep suspicions about the reviving communism emanating from Beijing. Hence we still see Taiwan as a potential black swan event in the coming years. However, we would put a near 0% subjective probability on the likelihood that China will spring a massive surprise attack in the near future. Why? Xi is not yet breaking the status quo: Xi has not yet shown himself to be a reckless revisionist. China's foreign policy assertiveness is a gradual process that began in the mid-2000s - it traces the country's growing economic importance and need for supply-line security (Chart 10). Xi has trod carefully in both the East and South China Seas, and both of these strategic thrusts are connected with China's security vis-à-vis Taiwan, as well as vis-à-vis the U.S. and Japan. There is no reason to think that China is ready to launch a multi-front attack against the combined forces of the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the American alliance system. North Korea's new missile capabilities do not tip the scales in China's favor either. Incidentally, even Xi's tougher rhetoric at the party congress echoed the 2005 "Anti-Secession" law, so that more evidence would be needed to conclude that a drastic policy shift is under way.17 China may even want to avoid antagonizing the Taiwanese ahead of local elections later this year. Trump is not yet breaking the status quo: Trump's Asia policy has been consistent with that of previous administrations.18 And Trump's moves to assure Taiwan of U.S. commitment to its defense are status quo. After all, the Democratic Party is historically more enthusiastic about supplying Taiwan with arms (Chart 11). Trump has assured Xi Jinping he will adhere to the "One China" policy; and it is rarely observed that Trump's controversial phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai followed the first-ever tête-à-tête between a Chinese president and his Taiwanese counterpart.19 As long as Trump upholds the norm, the U.S. remains committed to Taiwan's defense yet will refuse to let Taiwan lock it into excessive tensions with China. This policy actually reduces the probability of a miscalculation by Beijing or Taipei. By contrast, the probability would rise if China and Taiwan perceived that the U.S. was withdrawing from its commitments, as Taiwan might want to suck the U.S. back in, or China might see Taiwan as vulnerable. Incidentally, if the Trump administration is not rushing into conflict over Taiwan, then Japan's Abe administration certainly is not. Tsai is not yet breaking the status quo: President Tsai has so far played a pragmatic role. While she is dissatisfied with the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two different interpretations of it, she has not rejected the status quo, and she has not implied that Taiwan should be its own state (either of which would cause a huge reaction from the mainland). And there is no serious prospect of a popular independence referendum ("Twexit"?) on the horizon, which would assuredly prompt Beijing to aggressive measures. Chart 10China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade Chart 11Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo In order for us to increase the probability of a Taiwanese war, we would have to see one of these three players start behaving in a way that truly violates the status quo that has prevailed since the U.S. and China normalized relations in 1979. The real risk for Taiwan comes if the U.S. and China fail to arrest the secular decline in relations that began in the mid-2000s. A serious misunderstanding between these two would have a range of global repercussions, and could lead to miscalculation over Taiwan. Unfortunately, a miscalculation is conceivable within Trump's and Tsai's terms, which last until 2020. Consider the following scenario as an example. The U.S. is currently demanding that China assist with the North Korean problem, and may believe that it can compensate China by delaying any punitive trade measures. However, China may be expecting something else - it may be expecting the U.S. to downgrade relations with Taiwan. (In other words, China says, we diminish the North Korean threat to the U.S. mainland, you diminish the Taiwanese threat to the Chinese mainland.) Instead of giving China what it wants, the U.S. may provide Taiwan with new weapon capabilities in response to China's militarization of the South China Sea. In this way, U.S.-China competition could shift to the Taiwan Strait in the aftermath of any Korean settlement. In the meantime, we see Taiwan as vulnerable to China's discrete economic sanctions, which China has not hesitated to use in this or other diplomatic spats (Chart 12).20 Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Bottom Line: What is clear to us is that U.S.-China tensions continue to grow and Taiwan could become more frightened, or more emboldened, in the "security dilemma" between them. But until we see signs that any of the relevant powers are actively attempting to break the status quo, we see war as a distant prospect. More likely, today's robust trade between China and Taiwan could suffer a hit due to politics, and tit-for-tat cross-strait sanctions could be imposed. We are closing our tactical trade of long Philippine peso / short Taiwanese dollar for a loss of 5%. This was a speculative play on the divergence in diplomatic relations with China. Taiwan has allowed its currency to rise to avoid antagonizing President Trump, while China and Taiwan have so far avoided the diplomatic crisis that we expect eventually to occur, as outlined above. Iran: Could America Pivot Back To The Middle East? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast the U.S.-Iran détente two years before the nuclear deal was agreed in the summer of 2015.21 At the heart of this call was our read of global forces, namely the paradigm shift in the global distribution of power away from American hegemony towards multipolarity (Chart 13). As the U.S. pivoted its geopolitical focus towards China, Iran became a thorn in its side, forcing it to maintain considerable presence in the Middle East. Without a formal détente with Iran - of which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fulcrum - such a pivot to Asia would be extremely difficult. On January 12, President Trump imperiled our forecast by threatening not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12).22 To avoid that fate, President Trump wants to see three major changes to the JCPOA: An indefinite extension of limits on Iran's uranium enrichment; Immediate access for inspectors to all nuclear sites; Adding new provisions to limit development of ballistic missiles. These additions are likely to kill the deal, although Trump appears to have directed his comments to the European signatories only. This could potentially create a loophole in the crisis, by allowing Europe to agree to new thresholds for re-imposing sanctions outside of the deal's framework. Pressure from the U.S. president comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In a surprising statement, President Rouhani said, "it would be a misrepresentation and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands ... people had economic, political, and social demands." He went on to say that "We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that ... The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours." We agree with President Rouhani. First, 49% of Iran's population is under the age of 30 (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader and the twelve members of the "Guardian Council" - which has the power to veto parliamentary legislation and to vet presidential candidates - have an average age of 73.23 As with the 2009 Green Revolution, which was brutally repressed, Iran's demographics provide the kindling for a potential regime change. Chart 13American Hegemony Ended,##br## Global Multipolarity Ascending Chart 14Iran's Youth:##br## A National Security Risk Second, Iran's economy is clearly not the main reason for the angst. While unemployment is elevated at 12%, it is only slightly above its two-decade average. Meanwhile, inflation is well below its average, with real GDP growth at 5.8% by the end of 2016 (Chart 15). Considering that inflation peaked at 44%, and real GDP growth bottomed at -16% during the most severe sanctions, the current situation is not dire. What has irked the population is that while the private sector suffered throughout the sanctions ordeal, government spending remained elevated (Chart 16). This is not merely because of automatic stabilizers amidst a deep recession. Instead, Iran has elevated its military spending as new geopolitical opportunities presented themselves in the region (Chart 17). It currently spends more on its military as a percent of GDP than any peer in the region (save for Saudi Arabia, its chief rival). It is openly engaged in military conflict in both Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while it continues to support allies militarily, economically, and diplomatically across the region, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon. Chart 15Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Chart 16Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Chart 17Iran Overspends On Military Third, Chart 18 shows that Iran is becoming "dangerously wealthy." Both the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 2009 Green Revolution occurred at, or near, the peak of Iran's wealth. The 25 years preceding each event saw the country's GDP per capita triple and double, respectively. Chart 18Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have empirically shown that wealth changes people's basic values and beliefs, from political and economic beliefs to religion and sexual mores.24 This is the process of modernization. Economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality, and even democracy likely. Iran has essentially come full circle since 1979. We suspect that the conservative hardliners in the regime understand the revolutionary context well. After all, they were themselves in their 30s when they rebelled against the old corrupt regime. As such, they will welcome President Trump's pressure as it gives them a raison d'être and an opportunity to undermine the moderate President Rouhani who staked his presidency on the success of the nuclear deal. The risk in this scenario is that the domestic arena of the ongoing "two-level game" will prevent both the U.S. and Iran from backing away from a confrontation. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by rhetorically threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz - as they did repeatedly in 2011 - or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters.25 Geopolitical tensions would therefore serve to undermine President Rouhani's embrace of diplomacy and to de-legitimize any further protests, which would be deemed treasonous. For Trump, a belligerent Iranian response to his pressure would in turn legitimize his suspicion of the nuclear deal. What about the global constraints of multipolarity that compelled the U.S. to seek a détente with Iran in order to pivot to Asia? They remain in place. As such, President Trump's simultaneous pressure on Iran and China runs counter to U.S. strategy, given its limited material resources and diplomatic bandwidth. It is therefore unsustainable. What we cannot forecast, however, is whether the White House will realize this before or after it commits the U.S. to a serious confrontation. Bottom Line: Domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. The two countries are playing a dangerous two-level game that could spiral out of control in the Middle East. For the time being, however, we expect merely a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish BCA House View on oil prices. NAFTA: Of Global Relevance On a recent client trip through Toronto and Ottawa we were unsurprisingly asked a lot of questions regarding the fate of NAFTA. The deal is not just of importance to Canada but to the world. It is a bellwether for our low-conviction view that President Trump is going to moderate to the middle on policy issues ahead of the midterm elections. We encourage clients to read our November Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism."26 In it, we cautioned clients that the probability of NAFTA being abrogated by Trump is around 50%. Why so high? Because there are few constraints: Economic: The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA (Chart 19) and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Political: Investors and the media are overstating the importance of the Midwest automotive and agricultural sectors to Trump's base. Trump's Midwest voters knew well his view on NAFTA when they voted for him. In fact, they voted for him because of his NAFTA view. Investors have to realize that Americans do not support unbridled free trade (Chart 20). Constitutional/Legal: There is an argument that Congress could stop President Trump from withdrawing from NAFTA, but the only way to do so would be to nullify his executive orders or legislate a law that prevents the president from withdrawing. However, given the point from above, Congress is afraid to go against the median voter. The immediate implications for investors are that both the CAD and MXN could face downside pressure following the Montreal round of negotiations ending January 29. Both fell by 1.2% and 1.9% respectively in the week of trading following the third round of negotiations in September (Chart 21). Chart 19U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 20America Belongs To##br## The Anti-Globalization Bloc Chart 21NAFTA Negotiations##br## Are FX-Relevant More broadly, NAFTA is an important bellwether for the direction of Trump's policy. He has practically no constraints to abrogating the deal. If his intention is to renegotiate two separate deals - or simply reactivate the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement - then it makes sense for him to end NAFTA and score political points at home. As such, if he does not, it will indicate that the White House is not truly populist but has been captured by the Republican establishment. Bottom Line: If President Trump does not abrogate NAFTA, which comes with few constraints, then he has clearly decided to throw his lot in with the U.S. establishment, which has consistently been more pro-trade than the American voter. This would be highly bullish for investors as it would suggest that the (geo)political risk premium would dissipate going forward. In fact, the decision on NAFTA could be a broad indicator for future decisions on trade relations with China, Iranian sanctions, and policy writ large. For if Trump sides with the establishment on an issue with minimal constraints, then he is more likely to do so on issues with greater constraints. This month, we are closing our 2/30 curve steepener recommendation, which is down 90bps since inception. The two alternative ways we have played rising U.S. growth and inflation prospects - shorting the 10-year Treasury vs. the Bunds and shorting the Fed Funds December 2018 futures - are in the money, 27bps and 46bs respectively. We are keeping both open for now. In addition, we are closing our long French industrial equities relative to German industrials for a gain of 10.26%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The playbook is really Nikita Khruschev's. 4 Please see "NK celebrates completion of nuke arsenal with fireworks," The Korea Herald, December 2, 2017, available at www.koreaherald.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Trump decided to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machine, mostly affecting China and South Korea, on January 22. On steel and aluminum, Trump has until late April to decide, i.e. 90 days after reports from the Commerce Department due Jan. 15 and Jan. 22. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Doug Palmer, "White House preparing for trade crackdown," Politico, dated January 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. 8 The U.S. Trade Representative's latest edition of an annual report to Congress over China's compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments declares that the U.S. "erred in supporting China's entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China's embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime." Please see "Joint Statement by the United States, European Union and Japan at MC11," December 2017, and "USTR Releases Annual Reports on China's and Russia's WTO Compliance," dated January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 9 Please see Lesley Wroughton, "Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001," Reuters, January 19, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "China cuts communication with Taiwan," Al Jazeera, June 25, 2016, available at www.aljazeera.com; "Taiwan mistakenly fires supersonic missile killing one," BBC, July 1, 2016, available at www.bbc.com; Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, An Affront To China," New York Times, December 2, 2016, available at www.nytimes.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Xi Jinping is rumored to have told Communist Party leaders in 2012 that the country would invade Taiwan by 2020. Please see Ian Easton, The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia (Project 2049 Institute, 2017). 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 National Chengchi University's long-running data series on Taiwanese identity shows that 58% of Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, and 70% under the age of 40. However, 77.5% of twenty-year olds also support the political status quo, i.e. do not seek political independence. Please see Marie-Alice McLean-Dreyfus, "Taiwan: Is there a political generation gap?" dated June 9, 2017, available at lowyinstitute.org. 17 Please see Richard C. Bush, "What Xi Jinping Said About Taiwan At The 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 19, 2017, available at www.brookings.edu. 18 Even the North Korea threat portfolio was bequeathed to him from former President Barack Obama, and it is being managed largely by the Pentagon and navy. 19 In other words, the incoming Trump administration implied that if China's leader Xi Jinping can speak directly to Taiwan's leader Ma Ying-jeou, then U.S. President Donald Trump can speak to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This is a sign that alliances are alive and well, and that there are tensions, but it is not a harbinger of war. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 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. 22 The JCPOA did not actually legislate the removal of sanctions against Iran as the Obama administration was unable to get the Republican-controlled Senate to agree. Instead, the president has to use his executive authority to continue waiving sanctions against Iran. 23 That is only two years away from the average life expectancy in Iran. 24 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 25 Iranian military personnel - almost always the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - seized British Royal Navy personnel in 2007 and U.S. Navy personnel in 2016. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights December's money and trade data releases were not positive, but they do not likely herald a more aggressive economic slowdown than our base case view would suggest. Conventional methods of gauging the tightness of China's monetary policy stance tend to ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year. Meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate are therefore unwarranted barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum. Despite several identifiable risk factors, investors should remain overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the emerging market and global benchmarks. Feature Several highly-watched Chinese data releases are being published as we go to press, including Q4 GDP growth, and December retail sales, industrial production, and fixed asset investment. We are inclined to agree with Bloomberg's consensus expectations that these series will come in flat-to-modestly down, given our base case view of a benign, controlled economic slowdown. While we cannot rule out the potential for significantly positive surprises from this data, our November 30 Special Report noted in detail that these types of activity indicators tend to lag (or are not correlated with) the Li Keqiang index, which we have shown continues to act as an important predictor of the growth in investable EPS and nominal import growth.1 As such, the series in today's release do not rank highly on our list of important data to watch over the coming 6-12 months. Instead, we remain focused on the components of our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, as well as the evolution of the relationship between the Li Keqiang index and the growth in earnings and imports. December: A Bad Month For Money & Trade Chart 1A Non-Trivial Deceleration##br## In Money Growth Among the December data released in the first half of this month, the most important series in our view have been the Caixin Manufacturing PMI, imports/exports, and the money supply. The PMI was a bright spot; after having decelerated since August, the index unexpectedly increased from 50.8 in November to 51.5 in December. The Caixin Services PMI also surprised to the upside. The year-over-year (YoY) growth rate of nominal imports, however, fell sharply in December, and significantly missed expectations. In addition, supply of money (measured either as M2 or BCA-defined M3) also fell on a YoY basis, with the 3-month annualized rate of change declining meaningfully (Chart 1). Given that M2 and M3 are components of our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and that nominal imports directly impact China's contribution to global growth, this raises the question of whether December's economic data suggest that China is slowing at a more aggressive pace than we expect. For now, our answer is no. Several points are worth considering: China's trade data is highly volatile, and a smoothed version of nominal import growth is behaving exactly as the Li Keqiang index suggests that it should (Chart 2). In addition, while import growth significantly missed the street's expectations, negative surprises of this magnitude have frequently occurred in the past (Chart 3). Chart 2Despite A Weak December, ##br##Smoothed Nominal Imports Look As They Should Chart 3Negative Import Surprises ##br##Are Fairly Common Money supply measures form just one-third of our Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and the other factors aren't nearly as negative as these measures imply. Chart 4 illustrates that the indicator would be considerably higher if M2 and M3 were excluded, and that the overall indicator is not falling at a sharp or aggressive pace. Even though we did not include it in our composite indicator, we noted in our November 30 Special Report that the manufacturing PMI is an important signal for the Chinese economy, so it is encouraging that it ticked higher. While 51.5 may not seem like an elevated reading when compared with developed economies, it ranks in the 91st percentile of the data since mid-2011. Export growth remained buoyant, which will provide the industrial sector with some reflationary offset. We noted in a previous report that strong export growth would likely decelerate and converge to global industrial production growth over the coming year,2 but a regression-based approach to modelling Chinese export growth suggests that it may stay strong if leading indicators of global economic activity remain robust (Chart 5). Chart 4Severely Weak Money Measures ##br##Are In Contrast To Other Indicators Chart 5Chinese Export Growth ##br##May Stay Strong Bottom Line: December's money and trade data releases were not positive, but they do not likely herald a more aggressive economic slowdown than our base case view would suggest. Some Approaches To Gauging The Stance Of Chinese Monetary Policy While we do not regard December's economic data as a deviation from our base case view, that view does acknowledge that a gradual, controlled slowdown is occurring. There are two drivers of this ongoing economic slowdown. The first is the past imposition of "supply side" constraints on some industrial sectors, which have been part of the government's efforts to cut excess capacity and reduce pollution. For example, we noted in our October 5 Special Report that coal, base metals and cement producers have chronically underperformed in recent years, and have also hurt the overall performance of the industrial sector.3 Similarly, capital spending in the mining sector, historically highly sensitive to moves in global metals prices, have continued to contract, despite the sharp increase in metals prices since 2016 (Chart 6). The more obvious catalyst for a slowdown in the economy is, however, the tightening in monetary policy that began in late-2016. We have strongly emphasized the importance of monetary conditions in our approach to tracking the end of China's mini-cycle, and part of the tightening in these conditions can be linked to the end of material RMB depreciation. But a variety of interest rates have also increased substantially over the past year, which has been worrying to some investors. These concerns have been magnified recently by quite a bit of hawkish rhetoric from the PBOC, including an ultimately retracted statement from a leading PBOC researcher last week that stronger economic conditions have created enough room for a hike in the benchmark one-year lending rate. The current environment naturally raises the question of what would constitute tight policy in China. Chart 7 presents two conventional methods of answering this question, both of which aim to compare the benchmark 1-year policy lending rate to a fair, neutral, or equilibrium level. The first method uses a Taylor Rule approach with the IMF's output gap, headline consumer price inflation, and the IMF's assumptions of a 6% nominal equilibrium interest rate and a 3% headline inflation target.4 The second method simply compares the benchmark lending rate to that prescribed by our BCA China Interest Rate Model, which is a proprietary indicator based on China's growth momentum relative to its recent average, Chinese inflation, U.S. interest rates, and the CNY/USD exchange rate. Chart 6Policy Constraints Weigh Heavily On ##br##Some Sectors Chart 7Conventional Methods Say The Benchmark##br## Lending Rate Should Rise... At first blush, Chart 7 seems to imply that a significant increase in the benchmark 1-year policy lending rate is warranted. But these approaches ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year, in some cases materially. A comprehensive understanding of the framework and mechanics of China's new monetary policy era is still elusive to many investors, and is an area of ongoing research at BCA. But for now, it is important to note that the benchmark lending rate merely acts as a reference point for Chinese banks when determining the actual interest rate charged on new loans. Chart 8 highlights that the percentage of loans issued above the benchmark rate correlates strongly with, and is led by, the 3-month interbank lending rate. Given the significant increase in 3-month SHIBOR over the past year, it is not surprising that China's weighted average lending rate has recently been increasing, even though the benchmark rate has remained constant. The rise in the average lending rate has so far been moderate, with our Q4 estimate showing only a 35% cumulative retracement of the 180bps decline that occurred from 2014 - 2016. But Chart 9 illustrates what would likely occur to the average lending rate if the PBOC were to hike the benchmark rate by 50bps over the coming year, based on two different scenarios: 1) an unchanged 3-month SHIBOR rate, and 2) a 50bps rise in 3-month SHIBOR (i.e. a parallel shift with the benchmark rate). The chart makes it clear that such a move would push average lending rates above the midpoint of the 2014-2016 range, which from our perspective is a reasonable estimate of the threshold between easy and tight monetary policy. Chart 8...But This Ignores The Recent Rise##br## In Market-Based Interest Rates Chart 9Even Modest Hikes To The Benchmark Rate ##br##Will Create Tight Policy A rise into tight monetary policy territory would be exacerbated even further if the 3-month SHIBOR rate rose disproportionately to any increase in the benchmark rate, which is not a trivial risk given the extent of their rise since late-2016. In short, given that China's economy is already slowing, this analysis underscores that any meaningful increases to the benchmark rate are likely unwarranted, and would be greeted negatively by global investors were they to occur. Bottom Line: Conventional methods of gauging the tightness of China's monetary policy stance tend to ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year. Meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate are therefore unwarranted barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum. Monetary Policy And Investment Strategy We presented a "decision tree" for Chinese stocks in our January 4 Weekly Report,5 and noted that signs of significant further tightening of monetary policy should be met with a downgrade bias towards Chinese equities. We argued that the "bark" of monetary authorities would be worse than their "bite" over the coming several months, given that growth momentum and house price appreciation has already peaked. Recent market performance suggests that global investors agree with our assessment that the PBOC will refrain from any meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate, and that any further rise in the average lending rate will be modest. Chart 10 shows that while the performance of Chinese investable ex-tech stocks versus global ex-tech did challenge its 200-day moving average in mid-December, the selloff has been completely reversed over the past month. In addition, Chart 11 shows that bottom-up 12-month forward EPS growth expectations remain solid and net earnings revisions remain close to a seven-year high, suggesting that there is no imminent fundamental basis for a major decline in Chinese investable equity prices. Chart 10Investors Aren't Worried##br## By The Specter Of Tight Policy Chart 11There Is Fundamental Support ##br##For Chinese Stocks Accordingly, while further monetary policy tightening remains a risk to be monitored over the course of the year, our "decision tree" framework continues to suggest that investors should be overweight Chinese stocks. We regard this as a recommendation to be cautiously bullish, a stance that we will be continually evaluating over the course of the year as more information about the risk factors that we have identified presents itself. Stay tuned! Bottom Line: Despite several identifiable risk factors, investors should remain overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the emerging market and global benchmark. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 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. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "On A Higher Note", dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 IMF Country Report No. 17/247, People's Republic of China : 2017 Article IV Consultation, August 8, 2017. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The "Decision Tree" For Chinese Stocks", dated January 4, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Controversial gaffes aside, President Trump has started 2018 by moving to the middle; This comes at a time when animal spirits are reawakening thanks to tax cuts; And the path of least resistance for fiscal policy points towards more profligacy; Meanwhile, Chinese growth is imperiled by structural reform efforts; With money growth and import data showing signs of stress; The combination of upside growth risks in the U.S. and downside growth risks in the rest of the world should revive the U.S. dollar and threaten EM performance in 2018. Feature In just the first two weeks of 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump has: Hosted a meeting on immigration policy with Republican and Democratic leaders during which he said that the upcoming legislation should be a "bill of love," while encouraging congressional leaders to think big and pursue comprehensive immigration reform; Claimed that he has a "very good relationship" with Kim Jong-Un, while refusing to deny that he has already spoken privately with the North Korean leader; Supported bringing back "earmarks" in order to grease the wheels of bipartisanship in Congress - i.e., new spending that allocates funds to specific projects; Extended sanction relief to Iran, albeit with the caveat that it would be the last time he does so without demanding modifications to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran nuclear deal); Broken with his former chief political strategist Steve Bannon - dubbing him "Sloppy Steve" in the process - while disparaging Bannon's penchant for scorched-earth tactics.1 On the whole, Trump's actions in January suggest a move towards the political center. Meanwhile, the media and political opponents continue to dwell on Trump's alleged comments where he disparaged immigrants from certain countries, obscuring the subtle shift in political strategy. What would be the reason for a Trump shift to the middle? As we wrote last week, the Pocketbook Voter Theory in political science suggests that Trump's Republican Party should be benefiting from a surge in popular support amid strong economic data and record-setting market performance.2 However, the 2018 generic congressional ballot still points to a very challenging midterm election for the Republican Party (Chart 1). Trump has two choices. First, he can ignore the poor GOP polling, as well as his own (Chart 2) in the face of stellar economic performance, and plow into an electoral disaster. This would make him the earliest "lame duck" president in recent U.S. history. As we wrote in December, this choice is a serious market risk for investors.3 Lame duck presidents have often sought relevancy abroad, given the lack of constitutional constraints to executive action in the foreign policy realm. In the case of Trump, we could think of three avenues by which he might increase geopolitical risk premiums: Protectionist policies towards China, the abrogation of NAFTA, or military tensions with Iran. Chart 1History Favors The Opposition Chart 2Trump Is Extraordinarily Unpopular The second option for President Trump is to move to the middle ahead of the midterms. This would be unexpected in every way other than that Trump is the master of the unexpected. We happen to agree with his supporters that he is a political genius. Unless, that is, he continues to waste an extraordinary bull market, strong economy, and soaring consumer/business confidence by refusing to woo the median voter. What would a shift towards the center mean for the equity market? First, the already low probability that domestic political intrigue will upend the ongoing rally would get even lower in a world where Trump moves to the center. Second, the risk of market-moving geopolitical risks prompted by White House policy would decline as Trump would presumably seek and follow the advice of his establishment advisers. In other words, it would be pure nectar for the already buoyant markets. This is not to say that there would not still be reason for a pullback in U.S. equities. The bull-bear ratio is dangerously high (Chart 3), and consumer confidence is ominously stretched (Chart 4). Chart 3Investor Bullishness Is At Record High... Chart 4...And So Is Consumer Confidence U.S.: Business Owners Are Republican While some of our clients in the financial community may fret about Trump's unorthodoxy, our clients in the corporate world clearly do not. This is not merely an offhand observation, it is an empirical fact (Chart 5). America's business leaders have given President Trump the benefit of the doubt since he was elected. Bill Dunkelberg, the Chief Economist of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which publishes the Small Business Optimism survey, went on to comment this month: "we've been doing this research for nearly half a century ... and I've never seen anything like 2017 ... The 2016 election was like a dam breaking."4 It is dangerous, therefore, to be overly mathematical about U.S. growth prospects in 2017. While we agree with our colleague Peter Berezin that, on face value, the strict growth impact of the tax cuts may merely add 0.3% of GDP growth in 2018, the qualitative impact of unleashing animal spirits is incalculable.5 The risk to growth in the U.S. is therefore very much tilted to the upside. First, as we discussed in a Special Report published with our U.S. Equity Strategy colleague Chris Bowes, a crucial, yet under-reported change in the corporate tax bill allows the immediate expensing of capital investment.6 Most market observers have overlooked this part of the legislation as it is simply a shift in the "time value of money." The IRS already allows significantly accelerated depreciation of capex; this reform merely brings it forward. Our analysis, however, suggests that the impact of bringing it forward could, at the margin, change spending behavior for firms and drive the next upleg in capex. This comes at a time when the prospects for business investment are already positive (Chart 6).7 Chart 5Business Owners Are Depressed When##br## Democrats Control The White House Chart 6Animal Spirits Will ##br##Spur CAPEX Second, investors are underestimating the probability that the current budget impasse - which could lead to a government shutdown in late January - gets resolved through more, not less, federal spending. Trump surprised legislators during a meeting on immigration when he offered his support for "earmarks" - i.e., legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts. Earmarks were done away with in 2011 by the GOP following the Tea Party-inspired 2010 midterm victory, but they have crept back into the discussion through different guises (Chart 7). Chart 7Pork-Barrel Prohibition Is Ending The timing of Trump's statement on earmarks is interesting as the House Rules Committee is holding public hearings on the originally GOP-instituted earmark ban. In fact, the 115th Congress (the current one) almost reinstated earmarks at the beginning of 2017, only to be held back by House Speaker Paul Ryan and the newly elected White House. In January 2017, Ryan and the White House agreed that it would be unseemly to approve "pork barreling" so quickly after the election of a man who promised to "drain the swamp." Apparently, a year later, the appropriate amount of time has passed to make the move okay! What about the fears that the budget deficit is unsustainable? Investors may be fretting about a problem that does not exist (at least not yet). Chart 8 shows that budget deficits have decreased in almost every case ahead of a recession by 1.16% on average in the eight quarters before a downturn. This is because revenues are very important in determining deficit dynamics. Only just before the recession hits, as growth slows, does the deficit start to flatline or expand. If the risk to the U.S. economy is to the upside, as we believe it is, then deficits will come down regardless of tax or spending policy. Chart 8The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet Fiscal policy rhetoric may alone be far more important to the equity, bond, and currency markets than the market is currently pricing. Talk of draconian spending cuts - remember the May 2017 White House budget? Anyone? - could very quickly be replaced with an appropriation bill in late January that combines higher defense spending with higher discretionary spending. Given the current low levels of discretionary spending (Chart 9), the move towards greater spending could be sizeable and surprising. And if earmarks make a comeback, look out! Chart 9Government Spending Is Bottoming Chart 10Global Economy Is Firing On All Cylinders This fiscal fuel is coming when the fire of the U.S. economy is already well lit. Yes, global growth is strong (Chart 10), but U.S. growth is likely to beat it in 2018 (Chart 11). The global and U.S. economy may diverge just as the BCA's two-factor 10-year Treasury yield model is showing that U.S. long-dated bonds are expensive (Chart 12), while dollar bearishness is overcrowded (Chart 13). Chart 11U.S. May Outperform Global Growth Chart 12More Room For Yields To Rise Chart 13The Dollar Will Be Great Again Bottom Line: Tax cuts will unleash animal spirits in the U.S. in 2018. Meanwhile, the political path of least resistance on fiscal policy is towards profligacy. Fade any talk of austerity or entitlement reform, earmarks are back! A combination of easy fiscal policy and tax cuts should be good for equity markets, bad for Treasuries, and good for the greenback in 2018. Technical indicators flag some near-term risks to the dollar, but over the course of the year, our assessment is that it will hold at current levels or rally. China: Reform Reboot Is Growth-Constraining Unlike the U.S. economy, where risks lie to the upside, China is our top candidate for growth disappointments in 2018. Premier Li Keqiang has announced that China's GDP grew by 6.9% in 2017, slightly above expectations at the beginning of the year. However, growth momentum is already slowing due to cyclical factors, the waning of fiscal and credit stimulus, and the government's financial tightening measures that were implemented over the past year (Chart 14). Chinese imports are what really matter from a global macro perspective, and the latest import data suggest that the domestic economy is slowing more abruptly than expected. Import growth fell sharply to 5% year-on-year in December and 0.46% month-on-month. Import volume growth fell from 27.1% in early 2017 to 9.3% in December (Chart 15). Chart 14Chinese Economy: Weakness Ahead Chart 15What Happens In China, Does Not Stay In China Policy changes are highly likely to add to this slowdown. There can no longer be much doubt about the reformist turn in government policy that we highlighted last year.8 All of the policy announcements that came out of the nineteenth National Party Congress in October so far have had a reformist bent. The market agrees, as the sectors of the equity market most likely to benefit from reforms - health care, IT, energy and consumer staples - have outperformed the broad market significantly since President Xi's five-year policy speech on October 18, 2017 (Chart 16). Two separate news items that caused market jitters over the past week reflect the reformist turn. First came unconfirmed rumors that China would make its exchange rate more flexible by abandoning a "counter-cyclical factor" in its daily fixing rate; second came a "fake news" report that China planned to diversify its foreign exchange reserves away from U.S. Treasuries (Chart 17). The rumors were not significant in themselves, at least not without more information, but they were significant in suggesting that debates on major macro policies are intensifying.9 The question is how much resolve will China's central government have in executing its renewed reform agenda? President Xi obviously does not want to self-impose a recession, yet meaningful reform will constrain credit, investment, and growth. For instance, the current financial regulatory crackdown has caused a precipitous drop in the growth of wealth management products (WMPs), which are investment products that make up about 60% of the burgeoning non-bank credit flows; non-bank credit, for its part, makes up 28% of total credit (total social financing). And regulators have gone on to tackle entrusted loans, corporate bonds, and other innovative financial products as well (Chart 18). The impact could be material over the course of this year. Chart 16Markets Believe In China Reforms Chart 17Chinese Treasury Reserves Can Be Weaponized Chart 18China's Dodd-Frank Moment We strongly urge clients to fade the narrative that China is already "easing up" on reforms. In the three months since China's party congress we have seen a handful of false media narratives about how the government is backtracking on its policy agenda. For instance, both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times declared that the outcome of the major annual economic policymaking meeting - the Central Economic Work Conference - included a turn away from deleveraging. This was not only a misreading of the high-level policy priorities but also a mistranslation of the Economic Work Conference documents, which argued that deleveraging remains a key policy focus.10 It would be humiliating for President Xi - who, not incidentally, has achieved Mao-like authority within the Communist Party - to backtrack on his second-term economic agenda before he has even officially been elected to his second term. Xi will be re-elected in March and he is looking at 2020-21 deadlines for progress on key reforms according to the thirteenth Five Year Plan (2015-20) and his own three-year plan to fight the "Three Battles" of systemic financial risk, poverty, and pollution. The only way to meet these deadlines while ensuring that the country is strong and stable for the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party in 2021 is to frontload the reform push in 2018-19.11 In Table 1 we update our "Reform Reboot Checklist" to reflect the reality that the Central Economic Work Conference produced a strikingly reform-oriented outcome. This is significant because it was billed as the first major statement of economic policy under "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the New Era." Table 1How Do We Know China Is Reforming? The money growth (M2) target for 2018, for instance, is rumored to be the lowest in China's history after that meeting (supposedly it will be 9%, down from the low- to mid-teens seen in previous years). Now all we need to confirm that serious reforms are afoot is slower bank loan growth (which will likely be tipped in January numbers due in early February), or substantially tighter interbank rates, plus the announcement of significant reform initiatives at the annual "Two Sessions" in early March. It is very common in China for central government decrees to be too draconian initially and then to be modified after an outcry from industry. This year, however, we would advise clients to avoid confusing the inevitable back-and-forth between the central and local governments for a lack of resolve from the central government.12 China's bark will have bite this time around because the political and macroeconomic constraints to the core leadership are lower than they have been at any point in the past ten years. Table 2 shows the issues that we are watching to gauge the reform process and its impact on growth. In light of the above initiatives, we give a 30% subjective probability that China's policymakers will overtighten this year, which could lead to a global risk-off move in financial assets. Table 2China Is Rebooting Economic Reforms Even in our baseline case - China slows abruptly but remains stable - we believe financial markets have yet to understand the shift in Chinese policymaker thinking, which means that China is the prime candidate for negative surprises in a year in which markets are priced for perfection. Chart 19China's Trade Surplus Is A Geopolitical Risk Finally, China is still a major geopolitical risk this year. It scored the largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in 2017 (Chart 19) and several key U.S. trade rulings are looming that could trigger a tit-for-tat conflict. This was, of course, the real reason behind the rumors about halting U.S. Treasury purchases. We will discuss the trade and geopolitical tensions in a forthcoming report. Bottom Line: China's reform reboot is gaining steam. It will threaten to constrain growth via the anti-corruption campaign, financial and regulatory tightening, corporate and industrial restructuring, and local government scrutiny. In combination with a stronger U.S. economy, China's downward-sloping business cycle and reform-capable political cycle spell disappointments for global markets this year. Investment Implications A faster growing U.S. economy and a slower growing China is beneficial for DM versus EM, the USD versus the RMB and other EM and commodity-linked currencies, U.S. stocks relative to DM stocks (because China's slower growth will weigh on Japanese and European earnings), and Chinese stocks relative to EM. It is bearish for China/EM corporate bonds. It will have varying impacts on commodity prices, depending on the role of Chinese supply-side reforms, but in the long term - as overcapacity cuts are priced in - it should be marginally bearish base metals as a result of China's desired switch of the growth model to a less investment-intensive model.13 Could stronger U.S. growth compensate for slower Chinese growth? We doubt it very much. China is alone expected to make up a third of all global economic growth in 2018, with China-leveraged EM making up the other 45%, according to the latest IMF World Economic Outlook (Chart 20). It is unfathomable to see how the U.S., which is expected to contribute just 10% of all growth, can compensate for slower growth in developing nations. Even if U.S. growth massively surprised to the upside, the U.S. economy is far too domestically driven to make a genuine difference through higher imports. Chart 20Chinese Growth Outweighs U.S. Globally As for the U.S. economy and markets, a global slowdown may be precisely what the doctor ordered. With stretched valuations, a foreign-induced correction may be healthy from a valuation perspective while having no impact on domestic economic fundamentals. Meanwhile, a dollar rally combined with some market volatility later in the year may be enough to give the Fed just enough pause to slow down the pace of hikes. Technical indicators are flagging some near-term risks to the dollar, but over the course of the year our assessment is that it will hold at current levels or rally. While this is not our base case, it would be the type of event that could prolong the current economic cycle. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 In his official statement on the break with Mr. Bannon, President Trump concluded with an important paragraph: "We have many great Republican members of Congress and candidates who are very supportive of the Make America Great Again agenda. Like me, they love the United States of America and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up, rather than simply seeking to burn it all down." The statement was important as it aligned President Trump firmly with Congressional Republicans in their opposition to the Bannon/Breitbart Clique. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The American Pocketbook Voter," dated January 10, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see NFIB, "December 2017 Report: Small Business Optimism Index," dated December 12, 2017, available at www.nfib.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Equity Sector Implications," dated December 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The biggest pushback against our view comes from the oft-repeated anecdote of a meeting between Gary Cohn, the Director of the National Economic Council, and American business leaders. Apparently, when Cohn asked the attendees how many would invest if their corporate taxes were cut, only one executive raised their hand. We have now heard this anecdote repeated to us so many times by clients that it has become clear that it is essentially the only evidence that U.S. corporations have no intention of increasing capex. Needless to say, we do not base our analysis on a single anecdote! 8 For this theme, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "China Down, India Up?" dated March 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The change to the RMB fixing method is not confirmed, while the rumor of a change in the forex reserve portfolio management came from an unreliable media report that was denied by China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). China's purchases of U.S. Treasuries peaked in 2011; China would harm itself if it sold its Treasuries rapidly. However, it may want to highlight this threat in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's threats of broad tariffs on Chinese imports. 10 The official communique from the 2017 Central Economic Work Conference did not specifically use the term "deleveraging," as in the 2015 and 2016 statements. This omission triggered U.S. news reports claiming that Beijing was backing off its deleveraging goal. However, the 2017 communique clearly emphasized preventing financial risk, including the first of the administration's "three battles" for the next three years. It also indirectly referred to "deleveraging" by citing the "Three De's, One Lower, and One Make Up," which is shorthand for the policy phrase "De-capacity, de-stocking, deleveraging, lowering costs and making up for weaknesses," which has been a fixture in rhetoric on China's supply-side reforms. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 For instance, the central government is facing pushback on new asset management regulations that are set to be fully in force by June 2019. While there may be some compromise, we do not expect the regulations themselves to be watered down too much. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore," dated January 11, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com; and BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.
ハイライト
ビットコインの「合成」供給が金融デリバティブを通じて増加し、大手既存テクノロジー企業によるビットコイン類似の代替通貨の立ち上げが加わると、暗号通貨市場は自らの重みで崩壊するでしょう。
今後数年で供給増に起因する圧力を受け得る他の分野としては、原油、ハイイールド債、世界の不動産、低ボラティリティ取引が挙げられます。
対照的に、米国株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の減少が観察されています。
投資家はハイイールド債に対して米国株をロングすることを検討しつつ、ボラティリティ上昇に備えるべきです。
このような結果は1990年代後半に起きた状況に類似している可能性があり、その期間はVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向にある一方で株式は史上最高値を更新し続けました。
NAFTA交渉の決裂はカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソにとって依然として主要なリスクです。
特集
供給過剰でバブルが崩壊する
価格上昇の「治療法」はさらなる価格上昇である。ドットコムと住宅バブルは完全に自然消滅したわけではない。その崩壊は市場に新たな供給が波のように押し寄せたことで促進された。ドットコム・バブルの場合、2000年には新規公開（IPO）や二次公募による株式の洪水が投資家を圧倒し（チャート1）、インターネット株の価格に大きな下押し圧力を与えた。住宅ブームも同様に新規建設の急増によって覆された。住宅投資は2006年にGDP比6.6%と55年ぶりの高水準に達した（チャート2）。
チャート1
供給過剰による崩壊：例1
Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1
Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1
チャート2
供給過剰による崩壊：例2
Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2
Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2
ビットコインは同様の運命をたどろうとしているのだろうか？表面的には「いいえ」のように見えるかもしれない。より多くのビットコインが「マイニング」されるにつれ、追加生産の計算上のコストは指数関数的に上昇する。理論上、流通可能なビットコインは2100万枚に制限され、その約80%は既に生成されている（チャート3）。しかし、表面の下を見れば、ビットコインはさまざまな「供給側」要因に脆弱である可能性がある。
チャート3
ビットコイン：大部分は既に採掘済み
ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み
ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み
まず第一に、ビットコインの価値に連動する金融デリバティブの拡大は、暗号通貨の「合成」供給を生み出す脅威となる。
株式のコールオプションを売る（ライトする）とき、オプションの売り手は実質的に弱気の賭けをし、買い手は強気の賭けをしている。オプションを売るという行為自体が追加のロング・ポジションを生み、それは追加のショート・ポジションによってちょうど相殺される。さらに、特定のコールオプションを売る決定が類似のコールオプションの価格を押し下げる程度に、基礎となる株価も押し下げられるだろう。これは単純に、株式に対するロングエクスポージャーは現物株を保有するかそのコールオプションを保有することで得られるからである。後者の価格を傷つけるものは前者の価格も傷つける。
ビットコイン先物が取引され始めると、ビットコインに対して弱気の投資家はショートポジションを作り、結果として流通するビットコインの実質的な数量を増加させることができる。これは公式の発行枚数が同じままであっても起こり得る。
模倣は最大の賛辞
ビットコインの合成的な供給増はビットコイン投資家の懸念の一つである。もう一つの懸念は、ビットコイン類似の代替通貨からの競争の増大である。現在、数百もの暗号通貨が存在し、その多くはビットコインを支えるブロックチェーン技術のわずかな変形を使用している。
チャート4
政府は取り分を要求するだろう
政府は取り分を求めるだろう
政府は取り分を求めるだろう
これまで新通貨の拡散は主に寝室やガレージで働く技術に精通した起業家によって牽引されてきた。しかし今や企業も参入している。営業しているらしいコダックの株価は、今週自社の暗号通貨を発表したことで3倍になった。これはこれから起こることのほんの一例に過ぎない。
フェイスブック、アマゾン、ネットフリックス、グーグルのような巨大企業が自社の暗号通貨を発行するのを妨げるものは何だろうか。彼らはすでに安全なグローバルネットワークを持っている。アマゾンは販売ごとに数コインを配り始め、消費者が新通貨で同社のオンラインストアから商品を購入できるようにすることもできる。やり方は簡単だ。1
唯一のもっともらしい制約は法的なものである：政府が自国の法定通貨への需要が落ちることを恐れて新興の暗号通貨を潰す脅威だ。数週間前に述べたように、米政府は通貨を印刷しその資金で財やサービスを購入する能力から年間約$100 billion、約1000億ドルのシニョレッジ収入を得ている（チャート4）。2 大企業が暗号通貨分野に参入すると、政府は遅かれ早かれ厳しい対応を取る可能性が高い。今週の韓国政府が取引所での暗号通貨取引禁止を検討するという報道は、その兆候である。
他にどの分野が？
新規供給の津波に脆弱な他の分野はどこか？四つが思い浮かぶ：
原油：BCAの強気の原油見通しは大当たりだった。ブレントは昨年6月の44ドルから現在の69ドルまで上昇した。しかし今後の追加上昇はそれほど容易ではないかもしれない。当社のエネルギー・ストラテジストは米国シェール生産者の損益分岐点を50ドル台前半と見積もっている。3 現在はその水準を大きく上回っており、シェール供給は加速するだろう。これは短期的に価格がさらに上昇し得ないという意味ではないが、原油の長期的な上昇余地を制限する。
不動産：世界の多くで超低金利が住宅価格の急増を後押しした。カナダ、オーストラリア、ニュージーランド、および欧州の一部では、インフレ調整後の住宅価格は大不況前の水準を大きく上回っている（チャート5）。米国の実質住宅価格はまだ2006年のピークを下回っているが、商業用不動産（CRE）価格は新高値に達している（チャート6）。米国のCREセクター内の賃料上昇は鈍化し始めており、供給が徐々に需要に追いつきつつあることを示唆している（チャート7）。
チャート5
低金利が##br##住宅価格を押し上げた地域
低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域
低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域
チャート6
商業用不動産価格が##br##不況前の水準を上回った
商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている
商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている
チャート7
賃料の伸びは鈍化している
家賃の伸びが鈍化している
家賃の伸びが鈍化している
企業債務：低金利は企業にクレジットを活用させた。米国および多くの国で企業債務の対GDP比はほぼ過去最高水準にある（チャート8A およびチャート8B）。クレジットスプレッドは依然として非常にタイトだが、これも企業債が市場に出てくるにつれて変わる可能性がある。
チャート8A
企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い
企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている
企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている
チャート8B
企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い
企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている
企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている
低ボラティリティ取引：最近のブルームバーグの見出しは「ショート・ボラティリティ・ファンドに史上最多の資金が流入」と叫んでいた。4 Cboeで取引されるボラティリティ契約の数は2012年以降で10倍以上に増加した。ネットのショート投機ポジションは現在史上最高水準にある（チャート9）。トレーダーはここ数年、ボラティリティが低下することに賭けて巨額の利益を上げてきた。問題は、ボラティリティが上昇し始めると、同じトレーダーがポジションを一斉に手放す可能性があり、さらにボラティリティが高まる懸念があることだ。
前掲の分野とは対照的に、株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の侵食を受けている。S&Pの除数（ディバイザー）は2005年以降8%以上低下している。米国の上場企業数は1990年代後半以降ほぼ半減している（チャート10）。この傾向がすぐに逆転する可能性は低く、利益率の高止まりと多くの企業が法人税減税を利用して自社株買いを加速させる誘惑があることを考えれば、なおさらである。
チャート9
低ボラティリティへの需要が高い
低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている
低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている
チャート10
株式市場における供給の減少
株式市場における供給の侵食
株式市場における供給の侵食
株価上昇に賭ける一方、ボラティリティとクレジットスプレッドの上昇も見込む
前述の議論は、今後数か月で株価とボラティリティ、クレジットスプレッドの関係が変化する可能性を示唆している。これは初めてのことではない。チャート11は、1990年代後半にVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向に転じた一方でS&P500は史上最高値を更新し続けたことを示している。今、我々は類似の局面に入る可能性がある。
米国でのトレンド超過の成長継続とインフレ上昇は米国債利回りを押し上げるだろう。我々は2016年7月5日に「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉」と宣言したが、これはちょうど10年物米国債利回りが終値で史上最安の1.37%を記録したその日だった。5
利上げは資金繰りに苦しむ借り手を苦しめ、クレジットスプレッドを拡大させる。企業の業況が悪化し次の景気後退の時期が近づくにつれて株式のボラティリティも上昇するだろう。我々の基本シナリオでは、米国および世界は2019年後半に景気後退に陥ると見ている。
金融市場は景気後退を実際に起こる前に嗅ぎつける。ただし歴史が示すように、それは景気後退開始の約6か月前にしか起こらないことが多い（表1）。これは、世界の株式は今後12か月程度は上昇を続け得ることを示唆する。これを念頭に、我々はS&P500のロング対ハイイールド債を新規トレードとして開始する。
チャート11
株価が上昇する中でもボラティリティは上昇し、スプレッドは##br##拡大し得る
株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。
株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。
表1
手仕舞いにはまだ早い
ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？
ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？
通貨に関するクイック・ヒット（4点）
今週は4つの項目が通貨およびフィクスト・インカム市場を揺るがした。第一は中国が米国債の購入を減速または停止するという報道だ。中国の国家外為管理局（SAFE）はその報道を「フェイクニュース」と非難した。
騒ぎの中で見落とされがちなのは、中国の保有する米国債残高が2011年以降ほぼ横ばいで推移しているという事実である（チャート12）。中国は依然として高度に管理された通貨を持つ。資本流出がもはや発生していないため、中国人民銀行（PBoC）は外貨準備の再構築を始めるだろう。米国債市場が世界で最大かつ最も流動的であることを考えれば、中国が余剰外貨の多くを米国に置かざるを得ないのは避けがたいように思える。
第二は日本銀行が保有する国債の買入目標を引き下げると発表したことだ。これは既に1年以上続いている動きを形式化したに過ぎない。日本銀行のJGB買入は過去12か月で急減しており、主因は80兆円という目標が国債の年間ネット発行額30〜35兆円のほぼ2倍であるためだ（チャート13）。
チャート12
中国の米国債保有：##br##2011年以降ほぼ横ばい
中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい
中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい
チャート13
日銀は国債買入を##br##削減している
日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している
日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している
最終的には、これらはそれほど重要ではないはずだ。日本銀行は価格（JGBの利回り）をターゲットにすることも、数量（保有国債の枚数）をターゲットにすることもできるが、両方を同時にターゲットにすることはできない。日銀がすでに前者を行っているという事実は後者を無意味にする。そして長期インフレ期待が日銀の目標からほど遠い現状では、前者が変わる見込みは低い。
では円には何を意味するのか。円は割安であり、経常収支の黒字はGDP比で4%に膨らんでいる（チャート14）。投機筋の円ショートも非常に大きい（チャート15）。これは短期的な上昇の可能性を高めるが、同僚のMathieu Savaryが今週指摘したように、6世界の国債利回りが上昇する一方で日本の利回りが据え置かれる場合、円が大きく上昇して持続するのは難しい。総合的には、今年はUSD/JPYがやや強含むと予想している。
チャート14
円は既に割安...
円はすでに安い…
円はすでに安い…
チャート15
...かつ不人気
...そして愛されない
...そして愛されない
第三の項目はECBの12月議事録で、中央銀行が2018年初めにコミュニケーション方針を見直すと示唆された点だ。市場が織り込んでいるより速くECBが金融政策を正常化するという憶測がある。もしそうなればEUR/USDはさらに強含むだろう。
もちろんこれは起こり得るが、それにはユーロ圏の成長が上振れサプライズを出す必要があるだろう。それは決して確実ではない。ユーロ圏の経済サプライズ・インデックスは下落に転じ始めており、相対的には米国に対して急落している（チャート16）。米国とは異なり、ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスは現在マイナスである（チャート17）。ユーロ圏の金融環境も米国に比べて大幅に引き締まっている（チャート18）。
チャート16
ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが##br##下落に転じ始めている
ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下
ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下
チャート17
ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスのマイナスは##br##成長の重しとなる
ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう
ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう
チャート18
金融環境の乖離は##br##米国をユーロ圏より有利にする
金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする
金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする
一方で、EUR/USDは2016年以降、金利差の変化から予想される以上に上昇している（チャート19）。ユーロに対する投機的ポジショニングも、2017年初頭の大幅ショートから今日では大幅ロングへと変化している（チャート20）。妥当な割安感と健全な経常収支の黒字はユーロに有利に働くが、我々の最良の見立てはEUR/USDが今後数か月で上昇分の一部を手放すだろうというものである。
チャート19
金利差で説明される以上にユーロは##br##強含んだ
ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している
ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している
チャート20
ユーロのポジショニング：大幅ショートから##br##史上最高のロングへ
ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ
ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ
最後に、今週は米国がNAFTA交渉から撤退するという報道を受けてカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソが圧迫された。ここで述べた4項目のうち、これが我々にとって最も懸念材料である。グローバルなサプライチェーンは高度に統合されている。それを破壊するものは大きな混乱を招くであろう。ある程度、トランプはこれを理解しているが、支持基盤は貿易に厳しくあってほしいと望んでおり、そうしなければ再選の見込みはさらに厳しくなることも彼は知っている。最終的には新たなNAFTA合意が成立すると期待しているが、そこに至る道のりはでこぼこだろう。
事務連絡
当社のグローバル・インダストリアルのロング／ユーティリティのショートのトレードは、9月29日に開始して以来12.4%の利益が出ている。利益保護のためストップを10%に引き上げる。2年物USD/サウジ・リヤルのフォワード契約のロングは損失2.9%で満了とし、サウジアラビアの財務状況が最近改善していることを踏まえ、同トレードは再導入しない。
ピーター・ベレジン, チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー peterb@bcaresearch.com
1 本トピックに関する貴重な示唆を頂いたSHIG Partners LLC代表イゴール・ヴァッセルマン氏に感謝する。
2 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・レポート「ビットコインのマクロ的影響（Bitcoin's Macro Impact）」、2017年9月15日付；およびグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「フラット化したイールドカーブを恐れるな（Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve）」、2017年12月22日付を参照されたい。
3 エネルギー・セクター・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「損益分岐点分析：シェール企業が自立するには約50ドルの原油が必要（Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient）」、2017年3月15日付を参照。
4 Dani Burger, "Short-Volatility Funds Are Being Flooded With Cash," Bloomberg, 2017年11月6日。
5 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・アラート「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉（End Of The 35-year Bond Bull Market）」、2016年7月5日付を参照。
6 フォーリン・エクスチェンジ・ストラテジー「円：QQEは死んだ！YCC万歳！（Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!）」、2018年1月12日付を参照。
タクティカル・グローバル・アセット・アロケーションの推奨
ストラテジー & マーケット・トレンド
タクティカル・トレード
戦略的推奨
クローズド・トレード
ハイライト
中国での環境改革は製鋼能力を引き続き削減しています。中国における違法な誘導炉施設の閉鎖も市場を引き締めています。公式の中国の鉄鋼生産が増えているように見えるのは、違法な誘導炉からの生産が報告されず（したがって計上されず）、閉鎖によって生じたギャップを埋めるために合法的な製鉄所の生産が増加していることを反映している可能性が高いです。
鉄鋼メーカーの利益は急増しており、少なくとも2018年前半までは中国における鉄鉱石需要は堅調に推移するでしょう。銅は2017年6月以降、供給の混乱と世界的な景気回復に伴う強い需要成長を受けて堅調に買われています。建設プロジェクトの配線や配管工事が中国で本格化するため、2018年前半にさらに上昇するものと予想します。その後は世界的な成長が中国の減速分を補うでしょう。
我々の分析は、全球の鉄鋼市場が2018年前半に引き締まることを示しています。中国ですでに起きているのと一致して、我々は上海先物取引所の2018年3月限鋼筋先物（人民元/トン建て）でタクティカルなロングポジションを取り始めます。本推奨には10%のストップロスを設定します。
エネルギー: オーバーウェイト。かつてコンセンサスと異なっていた我々の原油見通しは現在コンセンサスとなっているため、今晩の取引終了時にブレントとWTIの55ドル対60ドル/バレルのコールスプレッド（5月・7月受渡し）で利益確定を行います。これらのポジションは火曜日の終値でそれぞれ109.2%と123.5%の含み益が出ていました。売りが出れば、これらのフォワードカーブに沿って再度ロングを構築する好機となるでしょう。
ベースメタル: ニュートラル。銅は世界的な景気回復が続く限り今年も堅調に買われるでしょう。鉱山での多数の契約再交渉が今年の銅価格に対する追加の上方リスクとなります。
貴金属: ニュートラル。FRBが年内に4回利上げすると予想しているため、金に対して強気になるのは難しいです。ただし、中央銀行がハト派に傾く兆候、特に今年インフレが高まらない場合は金が上昇するでしょう。
農産物／ソフトコモディティ: アンダーウェイト。市場は金曜日のUSDA WASDEまでは様子見になるでしょう。トウモロコシを除いてアンダーウェイトを継続します。
特集
今週のチャート
鉄鉱石と鉄鋼価格は2017年に乖離した
2017年、鉄鉱石と鉄鋼の価格は乖離した
2017年、鉄鉱石と鉄鋼の価格は乖離した
中国の環境政策の措置により、2016年前半から2018年前半の間に世界の製鋼能力は1億トン削減されました。これは中国の鉄鋼価格に最も明確に表れており、2016年にほぼ80%上昇した後、2017年には30%以上上昇しました。北京が鉄鋼市場改革に注力し始めて以来の鉄鋼価格の総上昇率は135%にも達します。
鉄鉱石価格は2016年に鉄鋼と同様の上昇を示しましたが、2017年には大きく乖離し、3月中旬から6月中旬にかけて40%以上下落し、通年では前年比でほぼ8%下落して終えました（今週のチャート）。急騰する鉄鋼価格は中国の製鋼所の利益率を押し上げ、年末に向けて鉄鋼の重要原料である鉄鉱石需要を刺激しました：鉄鉱石価格は2017年末の2か月で20%上昇しました。
どのようにここまで来たか？中国の鉄鋼部門改革の振り返り
大気汚染削減を目的とした旧式で過剰な産業能力の排除を目指す改革の一環として、北京は2016～2020年の期間に1億～1.5億トンの鉄鋼能力を削減することを約束しました。これまでに推定1億トンの能力が閉鎖されています。
これらの改革に加えて、北京はスクラップ鋼を溶かして品質の劣る鋼を生産している小規模の誘導炉を閉鎖することを約束しました。これらの誘導炉は年次能力で8,000万～1.2億トンを占めると推定されていますが、実際の生産ははるかに少なく、S&P Global Plattsによれば2016年の生産は推定3,000万～5,000万トンでした。1 これは中国の粗鋼生産全体の7%未満です。
誘導炉からの生産削減は公式データには明確に現れていません — 中国の粗鋼生産はこれらの削減の中でも増加を続けており、これは我々が以前のリサーチで議論した通りです（チャート2）。2 国際鉄鋼協会のデータは、2017年の最初の11か月間で世界の鉄鋼生産が過去最高水準にあり、前年比で5%以上増加したことを示しています。同様に、世界生産の50%を占める中国の粗鋼生産は8月にピークを迎え、同期間の生産は過去最高を記録し、2016年同期間比で5.28%増加しました。
この生産の逆説は、多くの中国の誘導炉が違法であるためにその生産が公式の生産データに計上されていないという事実に起因します。合法的な製鋼所が閉鎖された誘導炉の減少を相殺するために生産を増やすと、公式の粗鋼生産数値は上昇します。
実際、中国の鉄鋼データをさらに検討すると、粗鋼生産数値から推測されるよりも中国の鉄鋼市場が実際にはより引き締まっていることが明らかです（チャート3）。以下の観察は供給がひっ迫していることを示しています：
中国の粗鋼生産は新たな記録を塗り替えていますが、China Stat Infoのデータは鋼製品について矛盾する状況を示しています。2017年3月から11月の鋼製品生産は前年同期比で3.46%減少し、1995年以来この期間での初の前年比マイナスとなりました。 誘導炉で生産された粗鋼は公式の粗鋼統計には含まれない可能性がありますが、それらの金属は最終的にワイヤー、棒材、レール、バーなどの鋼製品の製造に使われ、これらはこのデータに表れます。したがって、鋼製品の減少は粗鋼供給の低下が鋼製品の生産を押し下げていることを示唆しています。
中国の鋼製品の輸出は下落傾向にあります。理論的にはこれは国内需要の増加か海外需要の減少のいずれかによります。世界経済が健全であること、及び中国の鉄鋼生産に関して我々が把握している事実を考えると、前者の理論が妥当だと考えます。 2017年の最初の11か月で中国の鋼製品の輸出は前年比で30%減少しています。2016年の3.04%の前年比減少を除けば、これは2009年以来初の輸出の年間減少を示しています。国内供給が減少している中で、中国は国内の鋼材使用者の需要を満たすために輸出を削減した可能性が高いです。
中国のスクラップ鋼の輸入は2017年後半に落ち込みました。鉄鉱石を主原料とする高炉とは異なり、閉鎖された違法製鉄所はスクラップ鋼を誘導炉で溶かしています。これらの炉の排除と一致して、中国のスクラップ鋼輸入は2017年後半に前年比で14.35%減少しました。これはこれらの炉からのスクラップ鋼需要の低下を示すさらなる証拠です。
中国の鋼在庫は減少しています。実際、主要工業都市の鋼製品在庫は記録的な低水準にあります（チャート4）。これは需要が供給を上回る引き締まった市場の症状であり、中国の粗鋼生産数値と矛盾します。
チャート2
中国の粗鋼生産は過去最高を記録##BR##一方で鋼製品生産は減少
鋼製品の生産が減少する中、中国の粗鋼生産が過去最高を記録
鋼製品の生産が減少する中、中国の粗鋼生産が過去最高を記録
チャート3
中国の貿易データが示す証拠##BR##引き締まった市場
中国の貿易データは市場の逼迫を示す
中国の貿易データは市場の逼迫を示す
チャート4
中国の鉄鋼在庫は減少している
中国の鉄鋼在庫が減少している
中国の鉄鋼在庫が減少している
さらに、World Steel Association（WSA）によれば、同協会がデータを収集している66か国の設備稼働率は2017年7月～11月期で前年同期比で3.12ポイント上昇し平均72.64%となり、2016年同期間の平均69.52%から上昇しました。これらの観察は、公式の粗鋼生産数値が増加している一方で、実際の生産は低下し供給は引き締まっている証拠です。
鉄鋼価格が供給のひっ迫で支えられ続けるかどうかは、中国が過剰能力や品質の劣る鋼メーカーを恒久的に閉鎖することに成功するか、あるいは誘導炉操業者がこうした政策を回避して違法な鋼を市場に戻せるかどうかにかかっています。
少なくとも今冬は中国の改革が鉄鋼市場を支配する
12月中旬の中央経済工作会議の終了を受けて、中国当局は今後3年間の「三つの重大攻防戦」を発表しました。これは将来の経済繁栄にとって重要と見なされるもので、(1) 大きなリスクの防止、(2) 的を絞った貧困削減、(3) 汚染対策と要約されます。国際エネルギー機関（IEA）は大気汚染が年間約100万人の早期死亡を引き起こし、家庭内大気汚染が追加で120万人の早期死亡をもたらしていると推定しています。3 したがって、中国の大気質改善は社会的かつ健康面での主要目標です。
チャート5
中国の生産減少は##BR##世界生産に影響を与える
中国の鉄鋼生産量の減少は世界の生産量に影響を与える
中国の鉄鋼生産量の減少は世界の生産量に影響を与える
これは大気汚染を減らし中国の空を浄化するための措置が鉄鋼セクターにとって非常に重要になることを意味します。環境保護省によれば、中国はスモッグの影響を受けやすい北部28都市で直径2.5マイクロメートル以下の浮遊粒子（PM2.5）濃度を前年比15%削減することを約束しています。鉄鋼産業は主に北京・天津・河北の北部地域に集中しており、この地域での大気汚染の主要な発生源の一つです。実際、工業排出、特に鉄鋼やセメント部門の排出がこれらの微小粒子の40～50%を占めていると報告されています。
中国の冬季スモッグ「戦略」は、スモッグが発生しやすい11月中旬～3月中旬の期間に鉄鋼、セメント、アルミニウムの生産を削減すること、ならびに家庭用石炭の使用、ディーゼルトラック、建設プロジェクトを制限することでこれらの汚染産業を標的にします。鉄鋼生産の削減は30～50%の範囲をターゲットとしており、Plattsの推計によれば冬季に3,300万トンの鉄鋼生産（2017年の中国の粗鋼生産見通しの約3.9%に相当）が停止される見込みです。実際、中国の環境大臣李干杰は「これらの特別キャンペーンは一度限りのものではなく、長期的なメカニズムの模索である」と述べています。4 したがって、これらの削減は中国の鉄鋼部門で繰り返される出来事になる可能性があります。
中国の公式な粗鋼数値はこれらの削減の影響を示し始めており、11月の粗鋼生産は前月比で8.6%減少し、前年比ではわずか2.2%の伸びにとどまり、7月以降の平均7.6%の前年比伸びから大幅に鈍化しています。その結果、世界の他地域では粗鋼生産がこれまで通りの伸びを示した一方で、11月の世界の鉄鋼生産は前月比でほぼ6%減少し、前年比では3.7%増と、2017年下半期以降に観測された平均6.6%の前年比成長率から大幅に減速しました（チャート5）。
この見通しに対するリスクは、これらの削減に対する遵守の弱さから生じます。山東省のアルミと鉄鋼の生産者による回避の報告があります。それでも、中国がこれらの改革に注力していることを考えると、広範な違反が起こるとは見ていません。
もう一つのリスクは需要側から来ます。環境アジェンダの一環として、北京は都市の主要公共プロジェクト（道路や水関連プロジェクト）の着工を春まで延期する計画を発表しました。ただし、この停止は鉄道、空港、手頃な価格の住宅などの「主要な生活関連プロジェクト」には影響を与える意図はありません。
建設は鉄鋼の最大の最終需要先であり、WSAによれば世界の鉄鋼の半分以上が建築物とインフラに使用されます — 建設部門の減速は鉄鋼需要を抑制します。5 他の主要な建設地帯が同様の政策を採用すれば、供給減の影響は需要の弱さによって相殺され、鉄鋼市場全体への影響は和らぐでしょう。
結論：今後数か月で中国の鉄鋼生産と輸出は減少すると予想されます。習近平氏が大気質改善に強い決意を示していることから、今冬の製鋼所の環境改革遵守は強いと予想します。これと中国の誘導炉からの生産減少は、市場が少なくとも2018年前半に一般的に思われているよりも引き締まる可能性を示唆しています。世界経済の回復と拡張がおおむね2018年を通じて継続する可能性が高いことを考えると、特に我々が予想するように中国以外の成長が中国の減速分を埋める場合、2018年下半期も鉄鋼市場は引き続き堅調に推移する可能性があります。ただし、2018年3月の全国人民代表大会後に業界向けの実際の改革内容がどうなるかを見守る必要があります。6
鉄鋼の利益率が鉄鉱石需要を促す
過去2年間にわたる鉄鋼価格の著しい上昇と2017年の鉄鉱石の精彩を欠くパフォーマンスを受けて、中国の製鋼所の利益率は複数年ぶりの高水準に達しました（チャート6）。通常であれば、これは生産を促し、市場に供給が大量に流れ込み価格を押し下げるはずです。しかし、中国の環境改革は今後数か月で最も生産性の高い製鋼地域の生産を制限します。したがって、今冬に製鋼所による大規模な政策違反がない限り、価格が迅速に下落することは予想していません。
代わりに、製鋼所は生産制限が春に解除された際にフル稼働できるよう準備しています。そのため彼らは鉄鉱石在庫を積み増し、弱い鉄鉱石価格を利用しています。鉄鉱石市場が鉄鋼に追いつく前に、彼らは利益率を確保しようとしているのです。中国の鉄鉱石輸入は9月に過去最高を記録し、最新データでは輸入が前月比19%増となり、前年比では2.8%増となっています（チャート7）。
チャート6
健全な鉄鋼の##BR##利益率
鉄鋼の利益率は堅調
鉄鋼の利益率は堅調
チャート7
春に備え鉄鉱石を備蓄する鉄鋼メーカー
製鉄業者、春に備えて鉄鉱石の備蓄を増強
製鉄業者、春に備えて鉄鉱石の備蓄を増強
これは、抑制された鉄鋼生産期に我々が期待する動きと逆行しています。特に現在のように鉄鉱石在庫が健全な環境ではそうです。中国の在庫は年央のピークから下がりましたが、2017年第4四半期に再び上昇傾向に戻りました。これは冬季の生産能力削減と一致しており、製鋼所からの鉄鉱石需要の減少によるものと考えられます。この現象を説明する理論は二つあります：
1. 中国の製鋼所は安い鉄鉱石価格を利用して利益率をロックインしており、春に鉄鋼生産が再開した際に鉄鉱石価格が上昇すると見込んでいる。
2. 冬季の削減期間中、中国の製鋼所はブラジルやオーストラリアから輸入された高品位の鉄鉱石を要求している。これにより環境規制に違反せずに生産量を最大化できるようにしている。
環境配慮が鉄鉱石のスプレッドを拡大する
冬季の生産能力削減の結果として、最も汚染の激しい工程を削減するために高品位の原料に対する需要が強まっています。高品位の鉄鉱石は純度（鉄含有量）で定義され、高炉でより効率的に使用できるため、消費する鉄鉱石1トン当たりより多くの鉄鋼を生産でき、生産と利益を最大化します。これは引き締まった鉄鋼市場で利益率が高い状況では特に当てはまり、製鋼所は高品位を購入する余裕があり、生産効率を重視しています。
58%鉄含有の低品位ファインのディスカウントや、65%鉄含有の高品位のプレミアムは拡大しています（チャート8）。これは製鋼所が冬季の環境制限を法的に回避しつつもコンプライアンスを維持する方法を見つけたためです。さらに、より純度の高い鉱石は汚染が少なく、中国の環境方針に合致します。
また、鉄鉱石ペレットや塊鉱のプレミアムも拡大しています。塊鉱やペレットは高炉に直接投入できますが、ファインは高汚染の焼結工程が必要です。したがって、中国の環境改革はより高品位で汚染の少ない鉱石への需要を増加させています。
スプレッドを押し上げているもう一つの要因は、冶金コークス価格の上昇かもしれません（チャート6）。高品位の鉄鉱石はシリカが少ないため、精錬に必要な冶金コークスが少なくて済みます。中国の風聞では、最高の鉄含有量と最低のシリカ含有量を持つブラジルのカラジャス・ファインが高い需要にあると伝えられています。7
さらに、中国の輸入は低品位であるインド産の鉄鉱石が減少していることを示しています。7月～10月期でインドからの輸入は前年比で11.26%減少し、10月は前年比ほぼ25%、前月比で30%減となりました。これは製鋼所が低品位鉱石を敬遠しているという理論と一致します。一方で、ブラジルとオーストラリアからの輸入は引き続き堅調であると見込まれます（チャート9）。最新のAustralian Resources and Energy Quarterlyは、2018年にオーストラリアとブラジルの鉄鉱石輸出がそれぞれ5.4%と4.2%成長すると予測する一方、インドの輸出は前年比57.5%の減少が見込まれています。
チャート8
鉄鉱石の価格スプレッドは拡大
鉄鉱石の価格スプレッドの拡大
鉄鉱石の価格スプレッドの拡大
チャート9
環境懸念は高品位鉄鉱石の需要を支える
環境への懸念が高品位鉄鉱石の需要を支えるだろう
環境への懸念が高品位鉄鉱石の需要を支えるだろう
結論：冬季の生産削減に直面しても生産を高水準に保ち、強い鉄鋼価格から利益を得るために、製鋼所は高品位の鉄鉱石に頼り、その結果高品位と低品位のスプレッドが拡大しています。製鋼所が高品位鉱石で生産を維持できる程度が、冬季の生産削減が鉄鋼セクターに与える影響を和らげるでしょう。中国の環境重視が長期計画であることを考えると、これらのスプレッドは歴史的平均に戻るというよりは引き続き広い水準で推移すると予想します。
鉄鋼価格と銅市場
チャート10
鉄鋼消費は銅価格を予測するのに役立つ
鉄鋼の消費は銅価格の予測に役立つ
鉄鋼の消費は銅価格の予測に役立つ
銅市場は第4四半期に乱高下しました。赤色金属の価格は5月以降概ね上昇トレンドにあり、9月上旬には3.13ドル/ポンドで一度ピークに達し、同月後半には2.91ドル/ポンドまで下落しました。その直後、銅は10月中旬に3.22ドル/ポンドの新高値を付け、3年以上ぶりの高値となりました。第19回党大会のメッセージを受けた中国の減速懸念により、同金属は12月上旬に再びほぼ10%の下落を経験しました。実際、12月5日には4.65%の下落が見られました。この下落には明確な理由はないものの、LME在庫の約10万トンの増加、中国の減速懸念、及び年末前のポジション解消が混ざった影響と考えられます。それでも銅はその後これらの下落を取り戻し、年末は3.28ドル/ポンドで終えました。
我々の銅のモデリングでは、鉄鋼消費が将来の銅価格の挙動を予測する上で重要であることが分かりました。具体的には、中国の鉄鋼消費は6か月後の銅価格と有意な正の関係を持っています（チャート10）。これは建設部門が両金属の重要な最終需要先であることから説明できます。しかし、両素材は建設現場で必要とされるタイミングが異なります。鉄鋼製品は構造物の構築に使われ、プロジェクトの開始時点で必要となる一方、銅は電気配線や配管に使われ、プロジェクトの後半（およそ6か月後）に必要となります。
これは我々の発見と一致しており、鉄鋼は平均的に6か月のラグで最も重要であり — 構造物が建設されてから配管や配線が必要になるまでの平均期間を反映しています。需要側のファンダメンタルが鉄鋼と銅の市場を支配する場合、中国の鉄鋼消費は銅市場の有用な先行指標です。
政府の景気刺激と堅調な建設セクターが2017年の中国の鉄鋼需要を押し上げました。しかし、WSAの短期見通しによれば、今年は中国でのリフレーションの影響を受け需要は緩やかになる見込みで、世界的な強い成長がこれを一部相殺します。WSAは誘導炉の閉鎖が鉄鋼需要成長率を12.4%と過大に見せたと指摘し、2017年の中国の鉄鋼需要成長率はより妥当な約3%と見積もるべきであり、これにより世界の鉄鋼需要成長率は2.8%になると述べています。中国以外の鉄鋼需要は2017年に推定2.6%増加し、2018年には3%に達すると予想されています。一方で、中国の需要は2018年は横ばいと見込まれ、2018年の世界鉄鋼需要成長率は1.6%になると予想されています（表1）。
表1
鉄鋼需要（前年比成長率）
中国の環境改革が鉄鋼・鉄鉱石をけん引
中国の環境改革が鉄鋼・鉄鉱石をけん引
中国からの需要の緩和と供給側の安定性（あるいはその欠如）が今年の銅市場を支配します。需要面では、中国の鉄鋼市場は赤金属の将来の方向性に関する洞察を提供します。
結論：中国の鉄鋼需要はこれまで堅調に推移しており、今年も2017年の水準を維持すると見込まれるため、6か月の期間において銅価格が需要に起因して急落する可能性は低いと考えます。
ルカヤ・イブラヒム、アソシエイトエディター コモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com
1 S&P Global Plattsが2017年3月6日に発表した「Will China's induction furnace steel whac-a-mole finally come to an end?（中国の誘導炉鋼のいたちごっこはようやく終わるのか？）」をご参照ください。
2 BCAリサーチのコモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 ウィークリーレポート「Slow-Down In China's Reflation Will Temper Steel, Iron Ore In 2018（中国のリフレーションの減速は2018年の鉄鋼・鉄鉱石を抑制する）」、2017年9月7日発行をご参照ください。ces.bcaresearch.comで入手可能です。
3 IEAのWorld Energy Outlook 2016特別報告「Energy and Air Pollution（エネルギーと大気汚染）」をご参照ください。iea.orgで入手可能です。
4 「Provincial China officials used fake data to evade aluminium, steel capacity curbs - China Youth Daily（中国の地方当局がアルミと鉄鋼の能力抑制を回避するために偽データを使用）」、2017年12月26日発行をご参照ください。reuters.comで入手可能です。
5 worldsteel.orgの「Steel Markets（鉄鋼市場）」をご参照ください。
6 追加の議論については、BCAリサーチのコモディティ＆エネルギー戦略2017年11月9日号「Shifting Gears in China: The Impact On Base Metals（中国のギアチェンジ：ベースメタルへの影響）」をご参照ください。ces.bcaresearch.comで入手可能です。
7 「High-medium grade iron ore fines spread widens to all-time high of $23.55/dmt（高中品位鉄鉱石ファインのスプレッドが史上最高の23.55ドル/乾燥トンに拡大）」、2017年8月22日発行をご参照ください。platts.comで入手可能です。
投資見解とテーマ
推奨
戦略的推奨
戦術的トレード
コモディティ価格と取引参照表
中国の環境改革が鉄鋼・鉄鉱石を牽引
中国の環境改革が鉄鋼・鉄鉱石を牽引
2017年にクローズしたトレード
Highlights Chinese policymakers are walking a tightrope, attempting to balance contradictory objectives. While their task is not impossible, we find that financial markets are overly complacent. Recent price action in EM risk assets resembles a final bear capitulation phase, and a classic top formation. Currency appreciation and moderation in export growth will damp corporate profits of exporters in Korea and Taiwan. Stay short KRW versus THB and short MYR versus RUB and USD. Feature "...at first, a stick may bend under strain, ready all the time to bend back, until a certain point is reached, when it breaks." Irving Fisher, The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions (1933) China continues to tighten financial regulations1 and onshore corporate bond yields keep marching higher. Yet EM and China-related financial markets have been extremely buoyant, completely ignoring the tightening dynamics underway. This reminds us of the above quote from Irving Fisher. The Chinese economy has been able to "...bend under strain, ready all the time to bend back..." In other words, growth has so far done well, despite ongoing liquidity and regulatory tightening (Chart I-1). This has led many investors and commentators to proclaim that the economy is healthy and will slow only a bit, or not at all. Chart I-1China: Will Economy Continue ##br##Defying Weak Credit Impulse? Yet, financial market risks linger. At a certain point, cumulative pressure from policy tightening will cause China's recovery to falter - "break," as per Fisher's quote above - impacting the rest of the world in general and EM in particular. This precept is pertinent to China at present because its money, credit and property markets are frothy, as we have written repeatedly in recent years, making them especially vulnerable to tightening. We thought such a deceleration in China's business cycle would occur in 2017, but it has not yet transpired. Forward-looking indicators such as money supply growth and the yield curve have been heralding a growth slowdown for many months (see Chart I-1). Nevertheless, this recovery has proved to be enduring; even though some segments have slowed, overall nominal growth, corporate pricing power and profits have done well. Does such growth resilience warrant an upgrade on China's outlook? An economy's past performance does not guarantee its future performance. This is relevant to China now, especially given the cumulative impact of the ongoing triple policy tightening - liquidity, regulatory and anti-corruption efforts in the financial industry2 - which will likely be substantial. Walking A Tightrope China's policymakers are walking a tightrope trying to balance contradictory objectives such as curbing financial speculation and credit excesses, capping inflation and maintaining a stable currency on the one hand, and maintaining robust growth on the other. Inflationary pressures are escalating in the mainland economy. Chart I-2 demonstrates that pricing power for 5,000 industrial companies - a diffusion index for producer prices compiled by the People's Bank of China - is approaching its 2007 and 2010 highs, while nominal interest rates are currently much lower than they were in 2007 and 2010 (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Notably, most of China's nominal recovery in the past two years has been due to prices, not volumes (Chart I-3). Given that rising prices benefit corporate profits much more than rising volumes, Chinese corporate profits have surged. Yet, the flip side of these dynamics is rising inflation. Chart I-2China: Inflationary Pressure Are Rising, ##br##While Interest Rates Are Low Chart I-3China: It Has Been Nominal (Price) Not ##br##Volume Manufacturing Recovery Mounting inflation amid enormous money excesses - the Chinese banking system has originated RMB 142 trillion (equivalent to $22 trillion) since January 20093 - risks triggering rising inflation expectations, which would then feed back into inflation. With real interest rates already extremely low (Chart I-4), increasing inflation expectations could lead to growing demand for foreign currency, in turn exerting downward pressure on the RMB exchange rate. Chart I-4China: Inflation-Adjusted ##br##Interest Rates Are Low Chinese households have been uneasy about the real (inflation-adjusted) value of their deposits, and have been opting for speculative investments that promise higher yields than bank deposits. Hence, policymakers cannot ignore households' desire for higher real interest rates if they aim to cool down speculative investment activities and contain systemic risks in the system. Overall, the authorities need to tread carefully, balancing between the need to preserve decent growth while keeping inflation at bay. Falling behind the inflation curve is as dangerous as being too aggressive in tightening. For now, rising domestic inflationary pressures, robust DM growth and the resilience of financial markets will justify further policy tightening in China. Controlling leverage, curbing financial market excesses and limiting speculation in the real estate market are all major components of the structural reforms agenda that China's top policymakers committed to at the Party Congress in October. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers are walking a tightrope, trying to balance contradictory objectives. While their task is not impossible, we find that financial markets are overly complacent. The odds of successfully navigating these contradictory objectives amid lingering money, credit and property market imbalances are 30% or lower. In the meantime, financial markets seem priced for perfection. This gap between the market's views and our perception of risks leads us to maintain a negative investment stance. EM's Blow-Out Phase EM stocks and currencies have gone vertical in recent weeks, despite being overbought and not cheap. The recent price actions in EM and global risk assets looks like a final bear capitulation phase and a classic top formation. The EM overall equity and small-cap indexes have reached their 2011 high (Chart I-5, top and middle panels). Meanwhile, EM high-yield (junk) corporate and quasi-sovereign bond yields are at their historical lows (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Economic data, corporate profits and news flows are typically extremely positive at tops of cycles, and very negative at bottoms. Given that share prices have surged and credit spreads are extremely low, a lot of good news has already been discounted. In particular, EM long-term EPS growth expectations have shot up above their previous highs (Chart I-6). This indicator can serve as a proxy for investor sentiment on EM stocks, at the moment suggesting extreme bullishness. EM stocks topped out in the past when this indicator reached the current levels. Chart I-5Are EM At Their Zenith? Chart I-6Analysts Are Super Bullish On EM Profits Growth Needless to say, global investors' positioning is stretched in favor of risk assets. Chart I-7 entails that U.S. individual investors' holdings of cash was at a record low as of December, while their exposure to equities was not far from record highs. Apart from China-related risks, a potential rise in U.S. bond yields and/or the U.S. dollar, could spoil the EM party. Many investors have invested in EM on the assumption of continued weakness in the greenback and subdued U.S. bond yields. It would be unusual if this current robust global growth does not lead to higher inflation expectations or higher bond yields. With respect to market signals, Chart I-8 illustrates that global steel stocks in absolute terms, and the relative performance of emerging Asian stocks versus DM equities have approached their very long-term moving averages. The latter might become a major technical resistance. Failure to break above this resistance level would be consistent with EM share prices rolling over at their 2011 highs (see Chart I-7). Altogether, this could signal a major top in EM risk assets. Chart I-7Asset Allocation Of ##br##U.S. Individual Investors Chart I-8Select Segments Are At Their ##br##Long-Term Technical Resistances Bottom Line: The EM rally has endured much longer and has gone much farther than we envisioned. However, we maintain our cautious stance, and recommend underweighting EM stocks, currencies and credit versus their DM counterparts. Emerging Asia: Currencies And Business Cycle Chart I-9Geopolitics And Asian Currencies Emerging Asian currencies have recently been on the fly, surging versus the U.S. dollar. Apart from strong global manufacturing, one reason behind the emerging Asian currency appreciation has been geopolitics. We suspect political leaders in Taiwan and Korea have instructed their central banks to allow their currencies to appreciate to gratify the Trump administration's aspirations of a weaker greenback. The top panel of Chart I-9 shows that the Taiwanese dollar's sharp appreciation coincided with Trump's controversial phone call with the Taiwanese president on December 3rd, 2016. Similarly, Trump's visit to South Korea on November 7th, 2017 jives with the latest up leg in the Korean won (Chart I-9, bottom panel). It seems President Trump's geopolitical assurances to Taiwan and Korea are somewhat tied to these policymakers' increased tolerance for currency appreciation. Notably, foreign exchange reserves in both Taiwan and Korea have risen little, despite their strong trade surpluses and foreign capital inflows over the past year. This confirms that their central banks have been reluctant to purchase U.S. dollars and in turn cap their currencies' appreciation. In addition to the political context, there are a number of other important drivers of Asian exchange rates and the region's business cycle: The growth rate of Korean and Taiwanese total exports in U.S. dollars has moderated (Chart I-10). This, along with KRW and TWD appreciation, implies a meaningful deceleration in exporters' revenue growth in local currency terms. Besides, China's container freight index - the price to ship containers worldwide - has relapsed and it correlates well with Asia's export cycle (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Moderation In Asian Exports Growth Chart I-11A Negative Signal For Asian Exports Even though DRAM prices are rising, other semiconductor prices have rolled over (Chart I-12). Semiconductor prices and volumes are vital for the tech-heavy Taiwanese and Korean manufacturing sectors. The RMB rally is also late. Enormous pent-up demand for foreign assets from Chinese residents due to low mainland real interest rates creates the potential for capital outflows to cap RMB strength. This would weigh on the ongoing Asian currency rally. Finally, net EPS revisions of Korean and Taiwanese technology companies' have rolled over (Chart I-13), probably reflecting a dampening effect of currency appreciation. This could in turn lead to foreign capital outflows from their equity markets causing currency selloffs. Chart I-12Divergence In Semiconductor Prices Chart I-13Asia Tech Companies: Net EPS Revisions Corroborating budding signs of a slowdown in exports and corporate profits, emerging Asian stocks have begun underperforming DM equities, as shown in Chart I-8 on page 7. The deceleration in export revenues and currency appreciation are adverse developments for share prices in export-related sectors of Korea and Taiwan. Nevertheless, for dedicated EM equity portfolios, we recommend overweighting the Taiwanese bourse and Korean technology stocks (and being neutral on the rest of KOSPI). The basis is that share prices of hardware tech manufacturers have less downside than other EM sectors. Their attractive relative valuations combined with prospects for robust growth in DM warrant their outperformance against the overall EM equity index in common currency terms. As to exchange rates, the Trump factor will delay and mitigate Asian currency depreciation, but will not preclude it if export growth slows, as we expect. In such a scenario, policymakers in Asia will opt for modest currency depreciation, reversing their recent gains. In terms of investment strategy, we have been shorting the Korean won versus the Thai baht. This trade has so far been flat, but we are maintaining it because the won is a higher-beta currency than the baht, and the former will underperform the latter as Asia's business cycle eventually slows. In addition, we are also shorting the Malaysian ringgit versus the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble due to weak domestic fundamentals in Malaysia. Bottom Line: Currency appreciation will damp corporate profits of exporters in Korea and Taiwan. This will weigh on EM share prices in aggregate, given that the Korean and Taiwanese markets together account for 27% of the MSCI EM market cap, compared with an 12% share of the entire Latin American region. The 12-month outlook for Asian currencies is downbeat: continue shorting the MYR versus both the U.S. dollar and the RUB, and stay long the THB versus the KRW. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 This week the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) announced a set of sweeping new rules to control banks' entrusted lending (Source: Caixin). This is in addition to a slew of regulatory measures for financial institutions that have been introduced over the past year. 2 We discussed these in details in Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Questions For Emerging Markets," dated November 29, 2017, a link available on page 13. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, a link available on page 13. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights A "decision tree" for the allocation to Chinese stocks highlights several key questions for investors over the coming year. The equity allocation decision hinges on the condition of the global economy, the stance of monetary policy, the pace of structural reforms, and the character of the ongoing economic slowdown. Despite several identifiable risks, our "decision tree" suggests that investors should be overweight Chinese vs global stocks. Feature Unlike in past years, BCA's China Investment Strategy service published its 2018 themes report in December, as an addendum to BCA's special year end Outlook report.1 Our final report for 2017 echoed our key themes by recapping some of the most important developments in China last year, as well as their longer-term implications.2 These reports outline our framework for evaluating China's economy in 2018, and will serve as an important reference point over the coming months relating to the pace of China's economic slowdown, policymakers' actions and priorities, and investor attitudes toward Chinese assets. In today's brief report, we begin the New Year by walking through the Chinese equity "decision tree" that flows from the framework that we detailed in our themes piece noted above (Chart 1). The chart presents a set of questions that should be answered over the coming 6-12 months in order to decide on the ideal allocation to Chinese equities within a global portfolio. We elaborate on the decision tree below. Chart 1The Chinese Equity "Decision Tree" Is The Global Economy Slowing Significantly?: Developments in China need to be considered within a global context. We have noted in previous reports that a synchronized global economic slowdown was a key factor behind China's economic slowdown in 2015.3 If global growth were to slow significantly this year, it would bode poorly for the relative performance of Chinese stocks. Next week's report will discuss the evolution of the alpha and beta characteristics of China's investable stock market; while our research is still ongoing, the evidence suggests that Chinese equities in US$ terms have become a high-beta market that would likely suffer in relative terms if the global equity market stumbles. Chart 1 highlights that the appropriate allocation to Chinese equities vs global stocks is underweight if the answer to this first question is yes, with the upgrade/downgrade bias determined simply by whether there has been an appropriate response from Chinese and global policymakers. Is Significant Further Monetary Policy Tightening Likely?: Overly tight monetary policy was the second ingredient that contributed to the 2015 slowdown. Monetary conditions tightened somewhat in the first half of 2017 (Chart 2), but the overall stance is not restrictive. Taken alone, hawkish rhetoric from the PBOC would imply that significant further tightening is imminent. However our sense is that the bark of monetary authorities will be worse than their bite over the coming months, especially since growth momentum and house price appreciation has already peaked. Is The Pace Of Renewed Structural Reforms Likely To Be Aggressive?: October's Party Congress heralded stepped-up reform efforts in 2018 and beyond, which we have highlighted is a risk to a constructive stance towards Chinese stocks. While the "status quo" scenario of no significant reforms is highly unlikely, the intensity of reforms pursued over the coming year will have to be closely monitored by policymakers to avoid a repeat of the 2015 experience. Even if policymakers feel that their threshold for pain will be higher in 2018 than has previously been the case, they are very likely to avoid a significant slowdown as it would raise the risk of returning to the exact set policies that they are trying to turn away from. In other words, an intense pace of reform would risk turning a "two steps forward, one back" situation into a full-blown retreat from structural reform momentum. For now, our China Reform Monitor continues to suggest that reform intensity will be consistent with a rising equity market (Chart 3). Chart 2Chinese Monetary Conditions ##br##Have Tightened Chart 3Investors Don't Believe That Reforms##br## Will Upset The Apple Cart Is The Existing Slowdown In China's Growth Momentum Metastasizing? Our view of China's significant growth slowdown in 2015 suggests that the end of the recent economic "mini-cycle" is likely to be benign and controlled, absent a policy mistake or a major global shock. However, it is possible that the lagged effect of a deceleration in export growth and tighter monetary policy, both of which have already occurred, could cause a broader or deeper slowdown in economic growth beyond what we have already observed. In order to gauge this risk, we tested a wide range of commonly-watched macro data series for signs that they reliably lead economic activity in China,4 using the Li Keqiang index as our proxy for the business cycle. We concluded that measures of money & credit are among the most important predictors, and presented a composite leading indicator of the Li Keqiang index based on six series that passed our test criteria (Chart 4). For now, our indicator suggests that the Chinese economy will continue to slow over the coming months, but that the pace and magnitude of the decline will be benign and controlled. The first question in our decision tree is the easiest to answer: The highly synchronized nature of global economic growth suggests that a significant slowdown is not imminent, even if the pace of growth becomes narrower or slows modestly (Chart 5). While our decision tree highlights that answering "yes" to any of the last three questions means that investors should have a negative bias towards Chinese investable stocks (and should downgrade them in response to a technical breakdown), these questions are still addressing risks rather than probable events. This supports our current recommendation of being overweight Chinese investable equities with a positive bias. Chart 4The Chinese Economy##br## Will Gradually Slow Chart 5No Sign Of A Significant ##br##Global Economic Slowdown As a final point, some investors and market participants have noted that investable Chinese stocks experienced a non-trivial selloff at the end of 2017, with some questioning whether it is a harbinger of a more pronounced economic slowdown. Our answer is no, for two reasons. First, there is some evidence to suggest that the selloff was technical in nature, as the sectors that had experienced the largest gains prior to the selloff also experienced the largest declines (Chart 6). Second, the timing of the relative selloff in Chinese stocks coincided exactly with a relative selloff in the global tech sector (Chart 7), which is strongly indicative of a common, global, factor. But given the underlying strength in the global economy, we regard this event as idiosyncratic and do not view it as a threat to the relative performance of Chinese vs global stocks over the coming year. Chart 6The Late-Year Selloff Was Partially ##br##Driven By Technical Conditions Chart 7Global Tech Also Drove The Selloff##br## In Chinese Relative Performance Bottom Line: While there are several identifiable risks that need to be monitored in 2018, for now our "decision tree" for the relative allocation to Chinese equities suggests that investors should be overweight within a global equity portfolio. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, and Weekly Report, "Three Themes For China In The Coming Year", dated December 7, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Legacies Of 2017", dated December 21, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle", dated October 12, 2017, and "China's Economy - 2015 vs Today (Part 1): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 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. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations