新興市場
Executive Summary Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Ukraine crisis is escalating as predicted. We maintain our odds: 65% limited incursion, 10% full-scale invasion, 25% diplomatic de-escalation. Russia says it will take “military-technical” measures as its demands remain unmet, while the US says an invasion is imminent. Fighting has picked up in the Donbas region. Our Ukraine decision tree highlights that the key to a last-minute diplomatic resolution is a western renunciation of defense cooperation with Ukraine after a verified Russian troop withdrawal. The opposite is occurring as we go to press. Stay long gold, defensives over cyclicals, and large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (STRATEGIC) 2019-12-06 27.6% Bottom Line: Our 75% subjective odds of a partial Russian re-invasion of Ukraine appear to be materializing. At the same time, we are not as optimistic about an imminent solution to the US-Iran nuclear problem. A near-term energy price spike is negative for global growth so we recommend sticking with our defensive tactical trades. Feature Chart 1Ukraine: Don't Be Complacent Fears about a heightened war in Ukraine fell back briefly this week before redoubling. Russian President Vladimir Putin showed a willingness to pursue diplomacy but then western officials refuted Russian claims that it was reducing troops around Ukraine. US President Biden said Russia is highly likely to invade Ukraine in the next few days. The Russian foreign ministry sent a letter reiterating Russia’s earlier threat that it will take unspecified “military-technical” actions given that its chief demands have not been met by the United States. A worsening security outlook as we go to press will push the dollar up against the euro, the euro up against the ruble, will lead to global equities falling (with US not falling as much as ex-US), and global bond yields falling (Chart 1). To assess the situation we need to weigh the signs of escalation against those of de-escalation. What were the signs of de-escalation? First, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed it is reducing troop levels near Ukraine, although NATO and the western powers have not verified any drawdown. An unspecified number of troops were said to return to their barracks in the Western and Southern Military Regions, according to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov. A video showed military units and hardware pulling back from Crimea. Officials claimed all troops would leave Belarus after military drills ended on February 20.1 Second, the Kremlin signaled that diplomacy has not been exhausted. In a video released to the public, Putin met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He asked whether there was still a chance “to reach an agreement with our partners on key issues that cause our concern?” Lavrov replied, “there is always a chance.” Putin replied, “Okay.” Then, after speaking with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Moscow, Putin said: "We are ready to work further together. We are ready to go down the negotiations track.”2 Third, the Ukrainians are supposedly restarting efforts to implement the 2015 Russia-imposed ceasefire, under pressure from Germany and France. Ukraine’s ruling party is expected to introduce three bills to the Rada (parliament) that would result in implementing the terms of the Russian-imposed 2015 ceasefire, the so-called Minsk II Protocols. Ukraine is supposed to change its constitution to adopt a more federal system that grants autonomy to the two Russian separatist regions in the Donbas, Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine is also supposed to hold elections.3 The caveats to these three points are already clear: The US said Russia actually added 7,000 troops to the buildup on the Ukrainian border. Without Russia’s reducing troops, the US and its allies cannot offer major concessions. The US cannot allow itself to be blackmailed as that would encourage future hostage-taking and blackmail. Putin’s offer of talks is apparently separate from its “military-technical” response to the West’s failure to meet its three core demands on NATO. Russia’s three core demands are no further NATO enlargement, no intermediate-range missiles within threatening range, and withdrawal of NATO forces from eastern Europe to pre-1997 status. Putin reiterated that these three demands are inseparable from any negotiation and that Russia will not engage endlessly without resolution. Yet the West has consistently rejected these demands. Then came the Foreign Ministry statement pledging Russia’s military-technical response. So talks that focus on other issues – like missile defense and military transparency – are a sideshow. Ukraine is reiterating its desire to join NATO and will struggle to implement the Minsk Protocol. The Minsk format is not popular in Ukraine as it grants influence and recognition to the breakaway ethnic Russian regions. Ostensibly President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has sufficient strength in the Rada to change the constitution, given the possibility of assistance from opposition parties that oppose war or favor Russia. But passage or implementation could fail. The Russian Duma has also advised Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as independent countries, which Putin is not yet ready to do, but could do if Ukraine balks, and would nullify the Minsk format.4 Of Russia’s three core demands, investors should bear in mind the following points: Ukraine is never going to join NATO. One of the thirty NATO members will veto its membership to prevent war with Russia. Therefore Russia is either making this demand knowing it will fail to justify military action, or driving at something else, such as NATO defense cooperation with Ukraine. Even if NATO membership is practically unrealistic, the US and NATO are providing Ukraine with arms and training, making it a de facto member. The quality and quantity of western defense cooperation is not sufficient to threaten Russia’s military balance so far but it could grow over time and Russia is insisting that it stop. While there is also a broader negotiation over Europe’s entire security system, immediate progress depends on whether the US and its allies stop trying to turn Ukraine into a de facto NATO ally. NATO is not going to sacrifice all of the strategic, territorial, and military-logistical gains it has made since 1997. Especially not when Russia is attempting to achieve such a dramatic pullback by military blackmail. But NATO could reduce some of the most threatening aspects of its stance if Russia reciprocates and there is more military transparency. Similarly, the US and Russia have a track record of negotiating missile defense deals so this kind of agreement is possible over time. The problem, again, hinges on whether agreement can be found over Ukraine. The opposite looks to be the case. Based on the above points, Diagram 1 provides a “Decision Tree” that outlines the various courses of action, our subjective probabilities, and the sum of the conditional probabilities for each final scenario. Diagram 1Russia-Ukraine Decision Tree, February 9, 2022 We start with the view that there is a 55% chance that the status quo continues: the West will not rule out Ukraine’s right to join NATO and will not halt defense cooperation. If this is true, then the new round of talks will fail because Russia’s core security interests will not be met. However, we also give a 25% chance to the scenario in which Ukraine is effectively barred from NATO but not defense cooperation. This may be the emerging scenario, given Chancellor Scholz’s point that Ukrainian NATO membership is not on the agenda and the White House’s claim that it will not pressure states to join NATO. Basically, western leaders could provide informal assurances that Ukraine will never join. But then the matter of defense cooperation must be resolved in the next round of talks. Given that the US and others have increased arms transfers to Ukraine in recent months and years (with US providing lethal arms for the first time in 2018), it seems more likely (60/40) that they will continue with arms transfers. After all, if they halt arms, Russia can invade anyway, but Ukraine will have less ability to resist. We allot a 15% chance to a scenario in which the US and its allies halt defense cooperation, even if they officially maintain NATO’s “open door” policy. If the Russians withdraw troops in this scenario, then a lasting reduction of tensions will occur. Again, while allied defense cooperation has been limited so far, it is up to Russia whether it poses a long-term threat. Finally, we give a 5% chance that the US and NATO will bar Ukraine from membership and halt defense cooperation. This path would mark a total capitulation to Russia’s demands. So far the allies have done nothing like this. They have insisted on NATO’s open door policy and have continued to transfer arms. No one should be surprised that tensions are escalating. De-escalation could still conceivably occur if Russia verifiably withdraws troops, if Ukraine moves to implement the Minsk II protocol, and if the US and its allies pledge to halt defense cooperation with Ukraine. The first step is for Russia to reduce troops, since that enables the US and allies to make major concessions when they are not under duress. If the US and NATO guarantee they will halt defense cooperation, given that Ukraine is practically unlikely to join NATO, then Russia may not be as concerned with Ukraine’s implementation of Minsk. As we go to press, none of these conditions are falling into place. The security situation is deteriorating rapidly. Bottom Line: Russia is likely to stage a limited military intervention into Ukraine (75%). The odds of a diplomatic resolution at the last minute are the same (25%). A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine remains unlikely (10%). Market Reaction To Re-Escalation Chart 2 highlights the global equity market response to the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, which should serve as the baseline for assessing the market reaction to any renewed attack today. Stocks fell and moved sideways relative to bonds for several months, cyclicals (except energy) underperformed defensives, small caps briefly rose then collapsed against large caps, and value stocks rose relative to growth stocks. The takeaway was to stay invested over the cyclical time frame, prefer large caps, and prefer value. The difference today is that cyclicals and small caps are already performing worse against defensives and large caps than in 2014, while value has vastly outstripped growth (Chart 3). The implication is that once war breaks out, cyclicals and small caps have less room to fall whereas value has limited near-term upside. Chart 2Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014 Chart 3Market Response 2022 Versus 2014 If we look closely at global equity gyrations over the past week – when the Ukraine story moved to front and center – we see that stocks are falling relative to bonds, cyclicals are flat relative to defensives, small caps are rising relative to large caps, and value is flat relative to growth but may have peaked (Chart 4). In the short term the geopolitical dynamic will move markets so we expect cyclicals, small caps, and value to underperform. Commodity prices and the energy sector are initially benefiting from tensions as expected – oil prices and energy equities spiked amid the tensions (Chart 5). But assuming war materializes, Russia will at least cut off natural gas flowing through Ukraine, cutting off about 20% of Europe’s natural gas supply and triggering a bigger price shock. Ultimately, however, this price shock will incentivize production, destroy global demand, and drive energy prices down. Chart 4Global Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine Chart 5Global Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine Thus we expect energy price volatility. Russia will keep shipping energy to Europe to finance its military adventures. Europe will be loath to slap sanctions on critical energy supplies, assuming Russia’s military action is limited. The Saudis may or may not increase production to prevent demand destruction – in past Russian invasions they have actually reduced production once prices started to fall. A temporary US-Iran nuclear deal could release Iranian oil to the market, though that is not what we expect in the short run (discussed below). Bottom Line: Tactically investors should favor bonds over stocks, the US dollar and US equities over global currencies and equities (especially European), defensive sectors over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, and growth over value stocks. Is Ukraine Already Priced? Not Yet. Chart 6Crisis Events And Peak-To-Trough Market Drawdown The peak-to-trough equity drawdown – in geopolitical crises that are comparable to a Russian invasion of Ukraine – range from 11%-14% going back to 1931. The following research findings are derived from a list of select events, from the Japanese invasion of China to the German invasion of Poland to lesser invasions, all the way down to Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014. We used the S&P 500 as it is the most representative stock index over this long period of time. The fully updated and broader list of geopolitical crises can be found in Appendix 1. Geopolitical crises tend to trigger an average 10% equity decline, smaller than economic crises or major terrorist attacks (Chart 6). The biggest geopolitical shocks to the equity market occur when an event is a truly global event, as opposed to regional shocks. Interestingly Europe-only shocks have seen some of the smallest average drawdowns at around 8% (Chart 7). An expanded Ukraine war would be limited to Europe. The average equity selloff is largest, at 14%, if both the US and its allies are directly involved in the geopolitical event. But the range is 11%-14% regardless of whether the US or its allies are involved (Chart 8). Ukraine is not an official ally, which is one reason the markets will tend to play down a larger war there. However, the market is underrating the fact that Ukraine’s neighbors are NATO members and will have a powerful interest in supporting the Ukrainian militant insurgency, which could lead to unexpected conflicts that involve NATO member-state’s citizens. Chart 7Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Where Is The Crisis? Chart 8Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Who Are The Players? Chart 9Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Russians have as many as 150,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, according to President Biden’s latest speech. The Ukrainian active military numbers 215,000. This ratio is not at all favorable for a full-scale invasion. The Russians are contemplating a limited action directed at teaching Ukraine a lesson or encroaching further onto Ukrainian territory, especially coastal territory. History suggests that a limited incursion will produce a 10% total equity drawdown, whereas a full-scale invasion would produce 13% or more (Chart 9). Still, investors should view 11%-14% as the appropriate range for a geopolitically induced crisis. The S&P has fallen by 9% since its peak on January 3, 2022. But Russia has not invaded yet. If war breaks out, there is more downside, given high uncertainty. Markets could still be surprised by the initial force of any Russian military action. The US will impose sweeping sanctions immediately. The Europeans will modify their sanctions according to Russia’s actions, a key source of uncertainty. If a diplomatic resolution is confirmed – with Russia withdrawing troops and the US and its allies cutting defense cooperation with Ukraine – then the market may continue to rally. However, there are other reasons to be cautious: especially inflation and monetary policy normalization, with the Federal Reserve potentially lifting rates by 50 basis points in March. Bottom Line: Stocks can fall further given that investors do not yet know the magnitude of the Russian military action or the US and European sanctions response. However, a buying opportunity is around the corner once this significant source of global uncertainty is clarified. New Iran Deal Is Neither Guaranteed Nor Durable A short note is necessary on the situation with Iran, another major risk this year, which falls under our third 2022 key view: oil-producing states gain geopolitical leverage. The implication is that the Iran risk will not be resolved quickly or easily. The global economy could suffer a double whammy of energy supply shock from Ukraine and energy supply risk in the Middle East this year. The US-Russia showdown is connected to the US-Iran nuclear negotiation. Russia took Crimea in 2014 in part because it saw an opportunity to exact a price from the United States, which sought Russia’s assistance in negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Today a similar dynamic is playing out, in which Russian diplomats cooperate on Iranian talks while encroaching on Ukraine. The Russians do not have an interest in Iran achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon and thus will offer some limited cooperation to this end. Their pound of flesh is Ukraine. According to media reports, the Iranian negotiations have seen some positive developments over the past month. US interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Biden administration has an interest in preventing Iran from reaching “breakout” levels of uranium enrichment and triggering a conflict in the region that would drive up oil prices ahead of the midterm election. It is going to be hard for Biden to remove sanctions in the context of Russian aggression but it is likely he would do it if the Iranians recommit to complying with the 2015 restrictions on their nuclear program. Iranian interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Iranians have an interest in convincing President Biden to remove sanctions to improve their economy and reduce the risk of social unrest. They are demanding the removal of all sanctions, not only those levied by President Trump. They also know that rejoining the 2015 deal itself is not so bad, since it starts expiring in 2025 and does not limit their missile production or support of militant proxies in the region. However, note that the Iranian regime has suppressed domestic instability since Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions, and the economy is improving on oil prices, so the threat of social unrest is not forcing Iran to accept a deal today. Also note that Iran is making demands that cannot be met: Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian is asking the US to provide guarantees that the US will not renege on the deal again, for example if the Republicans return to the White House in 2025. President Biden cannot provide these guarantees. The voting margins are too thin for a “political statement,” promising that the US will not renege on a deal, to pass Congress. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might be willing to provide such a statement to the Iranians, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer probably will not – he opposed the originally 2015 deal. Even if Congress gave Iran guarantees, the fact remains that the GOP could win the White House in 2025, so the current, hawkish Iranian leadership cannot be satisfied on this front. Furthermore, even if Biden pulls back sanctions and Iran complies with the 2015 deal for a brief reprieve, Iran’s underlying interest is to obtain a deliverable nuclear weapon to achieve regime survival in the future. Iran faces a clear distinction between Ukraine, which gave up nukes and is now being dismembered (like Libya and Iraq), and North Korea, which now has a deliverable nuclear arsenal and commands respect from the US on the national stage. Moreover if the Republicans take back power in 2025, Iran will want to have achieved or be close to achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon. The Biden administration is weak at home and facing a crisis with Russia, which may present a window of opportunity for Iran to make a dash for the nuclear deterrent. Still, we acknowledge the short-term risk to our pessimistic view: It is possible that Iran will rejoin the deal to gain sanctions relief. In this case about 1-1.2 million barrels per day of Iranian crude will hit the global market. The implication, depending on the size of the energy shock, is that Brent crude prices will fall back to the $80 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects. We also agree with our Commodity & Energy Strategist that global oil production will pick up in the face of supply risks that threaten to destroy demand. Bottom Line: We doubt Iran will rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal quickly. We expect energy prices to continue spiking in the short term due to Ukraine and any setbacks in the Iran negotiations. Yet we also expect oil producers around the world to increase production, which will sow the seeds for an oil price drop. Our tactical trade recommendations rest on falling oil prices and bond yields in the short run. Investment Takeaways Stay long gold. Stay long global defensive equity sectors over cyclicals. Favor global large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Stay long Japanese industrials relative to German and long yen. Stay long British stocks relative to other developed markets excluding the US, and long GBP-CZK. Favor Latin American equities within emerging markets, namely Mexican stocks and Brazilian financials relative to Indian stocks. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See "Russia Announces Troop Withdrawal," Russia Today, February 15, 2022, rt.com; "Ukraine crisis: Russian claim of troop withdrawal false, says US," BBC, February 17, 2022, bbc.com. 2 David M. Herszenhorn, “On stage at the Kremlin: Putin and Lavrov’s de-escalation dance,” Politico, February 14, 2022, politico.eu. 3 "Scholz says Zelensky promised to submit bills on Donbass to Contact Group," Tass, February 15, 2022, tass.com; "Scholz in Kyiv confirms Germany won’t arm Ukraine, stays mum on Nord Stream 2," February 15, 2022, euromaidanpress.com. 4 "Kiev makes no secret Minsk-2 is not on its agenda — Russian Foreign Ministry," Tass, February 17, 2022, tass.com; Felix Light, "Russian Parliament Backs Plan To Recognize Breakaway Ukrainian Regions," Moscow Times, February 15, 2022, themoscowtimes.com. Appendix 1: Geopolitical Events And Equity Market Impact Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)
Executive Summary Oil-Price Risk Skewed Upward The $10-$15/bbl risk premium in Brent prices will dissipate over the next month. Russia's best outcome is to follow the off-ramp offered by the US. President Biden's call to KSA's King Salman last week will result in higher oil output from the Kingdom, the UAE and Kuwait, in return for deeper US defense commitments. The Biden administration and Iran are in a hurry to get a deal done: The US wants lower oil prices, and Iran needs the revenue. Our Brent forecasts for 2022 and 2023 are revised slightly to $81.50 and $79.75/bbl, respectively, reflecting supply-demand adjustments. Price risks are tilted to the upside: A miss on any of the above assumptions will keep prices above $90/bbl, and push them higher. Bottom Line: Oil demand will remain robust this year and next. To keep prices from surging from current levels into demand-destruction territory, additional supply is needed. Most of this will come from KSA, the UAE and the US shale-oil producers. We expect prices to fall from current prompt levels this year and next. This will support sovereign budgets and oil producers' free cashflow goals. We remain long the XOP ETF. Feature The $10-$15/bbl risk premium in Brent crude oil prices will dissipate, as the following supply-side events are ticked off: 1) Russia gets on the off-ramp offered by the US last week to de-escalate the threat of another invasion of Ukraine by withdrawing its troops from the border;1 2) OPEC 2.0's core producers – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait – increase supply in return for deeper US security commitments; 3) Iran restores its remaining 1.0 – 1.2mm b/d of production to the market, following the restoration of its nuclear deal with Western powers; and 4) US shale-oil producers step up production in response to higher WTI prices. Politics, Then Economics The first three assumptions above are political in nature, requiring a bargain be struck among contending interests to resolve. We do not believe Russia's endgame is to jeopardize its future oil and gas exports to the West, particularly to the EU (Chart 1). The US is warning that another invasion of Ukraine will put the use of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to deliver gas to Germany at risk.2 It also is worthwhile noting NATO is aligned with the US on this stance. Russia derived 40-50% of its budget revenues from oil and gas production, and ~ 67% of its export revenue from oil and gas over the decade ended in 2020.3 Of course, only President Putin can determine whether oil and gas sales can be diversified enough – e.g., via higher shipments to China – to offset whatever penalties the West imposes. But, in a game-theoretic sense, the stakes are very high, and taking the US off-ramp is rational. Chart 1Russia's Critical Exports: Oil + Gas We expect the second assumption to play out in the near term, following US President Joe Biden's call to KSA's King Salman last week. The outreach stressed the US commitment to defend KSA and, presumably, its close allies in the Gulf (the UAE and Kuwait).4 KSA already has increased its production to 10.15mm b/d under the OPEC 2.0 agreement to restore 400k b/d beginning in August 2021. We estimate the coalition had fallen behind on this effort by ~ 1mm b/d, as only KSA, the UAE and Kuwait presently have the capacity to lift production and sustain it (Table 1). KSA's reference production level agreed at OPEC 2.0's July 2021 meeting will rise to 11.5mm b/d in June, up 500k b/d from its current level (Table 2). This means KSA could flex into another 850k b/d between now and the end of May; and another 500k b/d after that. The UAE's and Kuwait's reference production levels will rise 330k and 150k b/d in June to 3.5mm b/d and 3.0mm b/d, respectively. Markets will need these incremental volumes as demand continues to recover and non-core OPEC 2.0 production continues to fall (Chart 2). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Table 2Baseline Increases For Core OPEC 2.0 Our third assumption reflects our reading of the signaling by Iran over the past few weeks, which indicate growing confidence a deal with the US to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is in the offing.5 The politics here converge with the economics: the Biden Administration wants to increase oil supply ahead of mid-term elections in the US to keep gasoline prices under control; Iran needs to increase its revenues. Both sides get an immediate need satisfied. However, the risks to KSA and its Gulf allies will increase as Iran's revenues grow, because it will be able to fund proxy-war operations against the Gulf states. This is why deepening the US defense commitment to the region is critical to KSA and its allies. The last assumption reflects our view US E+P companies are being incentivized to lift production by high prompt and deferred prices. We continue to expect these companies – particularly those in the US shales, where the majority of the production increase will occur – to husband their capital resources closely, and to continue to prioritize shareholder interests. As capital availability declines – primarily due to reduced investor interest in investing in hydrocarbon production – these firms will have to focus on reducing operating costs and increasing productivity over the next decade to fund growth. Relative to 2021, we expect US oil production to increase 0.85mm b/d this year and by 0.53mm b/d in 2023 relative to this year, as producers respond to higher prices (Chart 3). Chart 2Increased Core OPEC 2.0 Production Becoming Critical Chart 3US Oil Production Will See Another Up Leg Supply-Demand Balances Are Tight Global oil demand growth this year is reduced slightly in our balances – going to 4.5mm b/d from 4.8mm b/d, mostly reflecting our assessment of slowing growth as central banks remove monetary accommodation. We lifted next year's growth estimate slightly, to 1.7mm b/d. These estimates still leave our growth expectations above the major data providers, the highest of which is OPEC's 4.2mm b/d estimate. We continue to expect DM demand to level off this year and next, and EM demand to retake its position as the global demand growth engine (Chart 4). The supply side remains tight, with average global crude oil and liquid fuels production estimated at 101.5mm b/d for 2022 and 102.8mm b/d for next year. With demand expected to average 101.5mm b/d this year and 103.2mm b/d next year, markets will remain balanced but tight (Chart 5). This means inventories will continue to be strained, leaving little in the way of a cushion to absorb unexpected supply losses (Chart 6). Chart 4EM Demand Retakes Growth-Engine Role Chart 5Markets Remain Balanced But Tight... Chart 6...Keeping Pressure On Inventories Markets Remain Balanced But Tight Our supply-demand analysis indicates markets will remain balanced but tight, with inventories under pressure until supply increases. This will predispose markets to higher price volatility, as low inventories force prices to ration supply. This will increase the backwardation in the Brent and WTI curves, which will bolster the convenience yield in both of these markets (Chart 7).6 We expect implied volatility to remain elevated, as a result (Chart 8). Chart 7Backwardation Will Keep Convenience Yield Elevated Chart 8High Volatility Will Persist Because of these low inventory values, Brent prices for 2022 are higher than our previous estimate. By 2023, the effects of increased supply from KSA, UAE, Kuwait – albeit a marginal increase – and the US kick in to reduce prices. As supply increases, the risk premium currently embedded in Brent prices will decline, pushing them to our forecasted levels for 2022 and 2023 of $81.50/bbl and $79.75/bbl, respectively. For 1H22, we expect Brent prices to average $87.20/bbl, and in 2H22 we're forecasting a price of $75.80/bbl on the back of increased production. Next year, higher output will keep prices close to $80/bbl, with 1H23 Brent averaging $79.85 and 2H23 averaging $79.70/bbl. Word Of Caution Our analysis is predicated on strong assumptions regarding the incentives of oil producers taking a rational view of the need for stability and supply in markets. The bottom panel of Chart 9 provides an indication of how tenuous markets are if our assumptions are mistaken, and core OPEC 2.0 does not increase production, Iranian barrels are not returned to the market, or the US shale supply response is less vigorous than we expect. The highest price trajectory occurs when all of our assumptions prove wrong, which takes Brent prices above $140/bbl by the end of 2023. It goes without saying this is non-trivial. But we'll say it anyway: This is non-trivial. We can reasonably expect feedback loops in such a case – e.g., US and Canadian production kicks into high gear, and once-idled North Sea are brought back into service. However, this takes time, and will cause demand destruction on a global scale. Chart 9Scenarios For Oil Prices Investment Implications Oil markets will remain tight and volatile until additional supplies are forthcoming. We are expecting core OPEC 2.0 to lift output by 3.2mm b/d this year, and for the US Lower 48 production to average 9.8mm b/d. The US production increase will be led by higher shale-oil output, which we expect to average 7.4mm b/d this year and 7.8mm b/d in 2023. Given the tight markets we expect, we remain long the XOP ETF, and commodity index exposure in the form of the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, an optimized version of the S&P GSCI. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Marketed volumes of US natural gas are expected to hit a record high of just under 107 Bcf/d next year as prices stabilize close to $4/MMBtu, in the EIA's latest estimate. This is up from just over 104 Bcf/d of marketed production this year, which itself was a 3 Bcf/d increase over 2021 levels. Almost all of this will come from the Lower 48 (97%). We expect US LNG exports to increase on the back of rising production and further investment in export terminals. Most of this will be shipped to Europe, in our estimation, as EU states seek to diversify LNG sources in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine standoff currently underway. LNG imports accounted for roughly one-fifth of all natural gas supplied to the UK and EU-27 in 2020, according to the EIA, which notes, "Growing volumes of flexible LNG supplies, primarily from the United States, contributed to the notable increases in LNG imports to Europe from 2019 to 2021." Wide price differentials can be expected to support the flow of LNG to Europe from the US (Chart 10). Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices took a hit after China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) stated its intentions to stabilize iron ore markets, crack down on speculation and false price disclosures after prices in 2022 rallied sharply last week. Authorities believe price strength is coming from speculation and hoarding, which is adding to inflationary pressures. However, fundamental factors have been, and likely will keep iron ore prices buoyed. Based on past steel inventory levels and seasonal patterns, steel production will increase and more than double current inventory levels by end-March. Monetary policy easing, and the push by China’s steel industry to become carbon-neutral over the next five years are additional fundamental factors supporting iron ore prices. Precious Metals: Bullish The January print for US CPI jumped 7.5% year-on-year, beating estimates as headline inflation rose to a 40-year high. Markets are expecting around five interest increases this year (Chart 11). BCA’s US Bond Strategy expects rate hikes will be around 100 – 125 bps this year. Gold prices initially fell on the possibility of increasing rate hikes and a hawkish Fed, but in the second half of last week settled at subsequently higher prices on each day. Apart from increased inflation demand, this was likely due to markets’ fear of the possibility of an ultra-hawkish Fed, which could tighten US financial conditions and see a rotation out of US equity markets into safe-haven assets or into other markets ex-US, both of which will be bullish for gold. Chart 10 Chart 11 Footnotes 1 Please see Background Press Call by a Senior Administration Official on the President’s Call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, released by the US White House on February 12, 2022. 2 Please see Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase, which we published on February 3, 2022 for further discussion. The EU is a huge market for Russia supplies Germany with 65% of its gas. Approximately 78% of total natural gas exports (pipeline + LNG) from Russia went to the EU in 2020. 3 Please see Russia’s Unsustainable Business Model: Going All In on Oil and Gas, published on January 19, 2021 by the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS). 4 Please see Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s Call with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, released on February 7, 2022. The readout noted, " issues of mutual concern, including Iranian-enabled attacks by the Houthis against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia." Energy security also was discussed, which we read as code for a deal to increase production in return for a deepening of US defense commitments. This line is followed closely by Gulf media – e.g., It took Biden a year to realize Saudi Arabia’s vital regional role, published by arabnews.com on February 13, 2022, which notes: "If Putin decides to invade Ukraine, the Saudis are the only ones who could help relieve the unsteady oil markets by pumping more crude, being the largest crude exporter in the OPEC oil production group. The White House emphasized that both leaders further reiterated the commitment of the US and Saudi Arabia in ensuring the stability of global energy supplies. 5 Please see Iran 'is in a hurry' to revive nuclear deal if its interests secured -foreign minister, published by reuters.com on February 14, 2022. 6 Please see our November 4, 2021 report entitled Despite Weaker Prices Crude Oil Backwardation Will Persist for additional discussion of convenience yields and volatility. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021
Chinese producer and consumer price inflation eased in January and fell below consensus estimates. CPI inflation slowed from 1.5% y/y to 0.9% y/y, slightly lower than the 1.0% expected. Similarly, at 9.1% y/y PPI inflation is beneath both December’s 10.3% y/y…
Executive Summary China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 The pace of credit creation in January increased sharply over December. However, the jump was less than meets the eye compared with previous easing cycles and adjusted for seasonality. Our calculation suggests that a minimum of approximately RMB35 trillion of new credit, or a credit impulse that accounts for 29% of this year's nominal GDP, will be needed to stabilize the economy. January’s credit expansion falls short of the RMB35 trillion mark on a six-month annualized rate of change basis. Our model will provide a framework for investors to gauge whether the month-over-month credit expansion data is on track to meet our estimate of the required stimulus. Despite an improvement in January's credit growth from December, it is premature to update Chinese stocks (on- and off-shore) to overweight relative to global equities. Bottom Line: Approximately RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will probably be needed to revive China’s domestic demand. Any stimulus short of this goal would mean that investors should not increase their cyclical asset allocation of Chinese stocks in a global portfolio. Feature January’s credit data for China exceeded the market consensus. The aggregate total social financing (TSF) more than doubled in the first month of 2022 from December last year. However, on a year-over-year basis, the increase in January’s TSF was smaller than in previous easing cycles, such as in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Furthermore, underlying data in the TSF reflects a prolonged weak demand for bank loans from both the corporate and household sectors. While January’s uptick in credit expansion makes us slightly more optimistic about China’s policy support, economic recovery and equity performance in the next 6 to 12 months, we are not yet ready to upgrade our view. An estimated RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will likely be necessary to revive flagging domestic demand. In the absence of seasonally adjusted TSF data in China, our framework will help investors determine whether incoming stimulus is on course to meet this objective. Interpreting January’s Credit Numbers Chart 1A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January January’s credit creation beat the market consensus to reach RMB6.17 trillion, pushed up by a seasonal boost and a frontloading of government bond issuance (Chart 1). However, the composition of the TSF data reflects an extended weakness in business and consumer credit demand. On the plus side, net government bond financing, including local government special purpose bonds, rose to RMB603 billion last month, more than twice the amount from January 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Corporate bond issuance also picked up, reflecting cheaper market rates and more accommodative liquidity conditions (Chart 2). Furthermore, shadow credit (including trust loans, entrust loans and bank acceptance bills) also ticked up in January compared with a year ago. The increase in informal lending sends a tentative signal that policymakers may be willing to ease the regulatory pressure on shadow bank activities (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Chart 3Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Meanwhile, several factors suggest that the surge in January’s credit expansion may be less than what it appears to be at first glance. First, credit growth is always abnormally strong in January. Banks typically increase lending at the beginning of a year, seeking to expand their assets rapidly before administrative credit quotas kick in. In recent years loans made during the first month of a year accounted for about 17% - 20% of total bank credit generated for an entire year. Secondly, the credit flow in January, although higher than in January 2021, was weaker than in the first month of previous easing cycles. Credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in TSF as a percentage of nominal GDP – only inched up by 0.6 percentage points of GDP in January this year from December, much weaker than that during the first month in previous easing cycles (Chart 4). TSF increased by RMB980 billion from January 2021, lower than the RMB1.5 trillion year-on-year jump in 2019 and the RMB1.4 trillion boost in 2016 (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4The Magnitude Of Increase In January’s Credit Impulse Less Than Meets The Eye Chart 5Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Furthermore, China’s households and private businesses have significantly lagged in their responses to recent policy easing measures and their demand for credit remained soft in January (Chart 5). Bank credit in both short and longer terms to households were lower than a year earlier due to downbeat consumer sentiment (Chart 6A and 6B). Chart 6AConsumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Chart 6BHouseholds' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down How Much Stimulus Is Necessary? Our calculation suggests that China will probably need to create approximately RMB35 trillion in new credit, or 29% of GDP in credit impulse, over the course of this year to avoid a contraction in corporate earnings. In our previous reports, we argued that the state of the economy today is in a slightly better shape than the deep deflationary period in 2014/15, but the magnitude of the property market contraction is comparable to that seven years ago. Chart 7 illustrates our approach, which uses a model of Chinese investable earnings growth. The model is designed to predict the likelihood of a serious contraction in investable earnings in the coming 12 months. It includes variables on credit, manufacturing new orders and forward earnings momentum. The chart shows that the flow of TSF as a share of GDP needs to reach a minimum of 28.5% in order that the probability of a major earnings contraction falls below 50%. The size of the credit impulse necessary is 2 percentage points higher than that achieved last year, but still lower than the scope of the stimulus rolled out in 2016. Assuming an 8% growth rate in nominal GDP in 2022, the credit flow that should to be originated this year would be about RMB35 trillion, as illustrated in Chart 8. The chart also shows that this amount would exceed a previous high in credit flow reached in late-2020. Chart 7China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession Chart 8China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Based on a 3-month annualized rate of change, January’s credit growth appears that it will achieve the RMB35 trillion mark. However, the jump in TSF largely reflects a one-month leap in frontloaded local government bond issuance and it is not certain if private credit will accelerate in the months ahead. For now, we contend the stimulus have been insufficiently provided during the past six months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chance Of A Stimulus Overshoot? We will closely monitor whether the month-to-month pace of credit growth is consistent with the scope of the reflationary policy response required to revive China’s domestic demand. Despite a sharp improvement in January’s headline credit number, we view the policy signal from January’s credit data as neutral. China’s unique cyclical patterns and the lack of official seasonally adjusted data make monthly credit figures difficult to interpret. Charts 9 and 10 represent an approach that we previously introduced to help gauge whether the pace of credit creation is on track to meet the stimulus called for to stabilize the economy. Chart 9Jan Credit Growth Looked To Be Stronger Than A “Half-Strength” Credit Cycle… Chart 10…But It Is Too Early To Conclude It Is In Line With What Is Needed The charts show an average cumulative amount of TSF as the year advances, along with a ±0.5 standard deviation, based on data from 2010 to 2021. The thick black line in both charts shows the progress in new credit creation this year, assuming an 8% annual nominal GDP growth rate. Chart 9 shows the cumulative progress in credit, assuming a 27% new credit-to-GDP ratio for the year, whereas Chart 10 assumes 30%. The 27% ratio scenario shown in Chart 9, which is slightly higher than the magnitude of stimulus in 2019, would correspond to a very measured credit expansion. If the thick black line continues to trend within this range, it would suggest that policymakers are reluctant to allow credit growth to surge. Consequently, global investors should continue an underweight stance on Chinese stocks. In contrast, Chart 10 represents a 30% rate of TSF as a share of this year’s GDP; this would be the adequate stimulus needed for a recovery in domestic demand. A cumulative amount of TSF that trends within or above this range would provide more confidence that a credit overshoot similar to 2015/16 and 2020 would occur. Investment Conclusions It is premature to upgrade Chinese stocks to an overweight cyclical stance (i.e. over 6-12 months) within a global portfolio. For now, we recommend investors stay only tactically overweight in Chinese investable equities versus the global benchmark, given their cheap relative valuations. Meanwhile, the increase in January’s TSF, while registering an improvement relative to previous months, does not signal that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overcome the negative ramifications of the ongoing deceleration in housing market activity. Therefore, in view of policymakers’ steadfast desire to avoid another major credit overshoot, our cyclical recommendation to underweight Chinese stocks remains unchanged. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations
Executive Summary Rising TIPS Yields = Equity Multiples Compression Equity sector and style rotations could prevent the broad equity indexes from plunging, but these rotations will not be sufficient to propel the overall stock indexes to new highs. Rising US bond yields remain the key risk to US growth stocks in both absolute and relative terms. As US growth stocks drift lower in absolute terms, the S&P 500 will stay in a trading range but is unlikely to make new highs. Equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or major corrections in global share prices. Hence, a major selloff in global stocks is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks move toward a period of secular outperformance (i.e., a multi-year bull market in absolute and relative terms). Recommendation Inception Date Return Underweight EM Relative To DM Stocks (In Common Currency) 2021-03-25 15.8% Bottom Line: Continue underweighting EM in a global equity portfolio. Cyclically, continue favoring value versus growth stocks. Feature We expect US bond yields to continue to rise, and global growth stocks to continue to underperform global value stocks in the months ahead. This prompts the question: What does this scenario mean for overall global share prices, EM markets, and EM relative equity performance? Equity Rotation And Overall Market Performance Can the S&P 500 or global equity index advance in absolute terms when US and global growth stocks sell off in absolute terms? Our hunch is as follows: As US growth stocks drift lower, the S&P 500 will stay in a trading range, but is unlikely to make new highs. A review of past episodes of sector and style rotation is in order. We recall two episodes of major rotation: 1. The closest historical comparison is in the year 2000. The top panel of Chart 1 illustrates US value stocks were resilient even after the Nasdaq bubble started bursting in March 2000. Besides, the S&P 500 index held up well in the first half of that year even though Nasdaq stocks were plummeting (Chart 1, bottom panel). Nevertheless, despite the rotation, value/old economy stocks failed to break out of their previous highs (Chart 1, top panel). We would expect a similar pattern to emerge in the current cycle as the Nasdaq index wobbles. Despite the Nasdaq selloff, oil prices continued to rise until October 2000, and the US median stock had a bumpy ride but made a new high in early 2002 (Chart 2). Chart 1US Equity Rotation In 2000 Chart 2Rotation In 2000: The Nasdaq, Oil And The Median Stock Overall, as rising US interest rates weigh on growth stocks, the rest of the market can stay in a trading range. Segments with very good fundamentals and cheap valuations could even make new marginal highs. Nevertheless, given the sheer weight of growth stocks in the broad US equity index, it will be hard for the S&P 500 to make new highs when growth stocks wobble. However, a key difference between now and the 2000-2002 market is that back then, US bond yields were falling. Thus, the bear market in the US equity market in general and Nasdaq stocks in particular, occurred alongside falling US bond yields (Chart 3). Currently, the Fed is in a tightening mode and US bond yields are climbing. A rising discount factor is negative for all stocks (Chart 4): It is more negative for high-multiples stocks and less negative for low multiples companies. Chart 3The Nasdaq Bubble Burst Despite Falling Interest Rates Chart 4Rising TIPS Yields = Equity Multiples Compression Another interesting observation about the 2000-2002 bear market is that it occurred despite resilient US consumer spending, and a very robust housing market and credit growth (Chart 5, top two panels). Remarkably, corporate profits collapsed by about 60% even though real GDP barely contracted at all (Chart 5, bottom two panel). We do not predict a similar equity bust this time around. Instead, we are highlighting that US equity valuations and corporate profits can shrink even if US consumer spending does not contract. What happens to costs, profit margins, inflation and interest rates are as important as the consumer spending outlook. To sum up, when the Nasdaq’s bubble began bursting in March of 2000, investors rotated into old economy stocks and the S&P 500 held up well until July of that year. From July onward, the selloff broadened, and the overall US equity indexes entered a bear market. The latter lasted until March 2003. 2. Another episode of extended market rotation occurred in the lead up to and during the 2008 bear market. The US financial/credit crisis in 2007-08 commenced with the selloff in sub-prime securities in March 2007. Corporate spreads began widening, and bank share prices rolled over in June 2007. Next, the S&P 500 and EM stocks peaked in October 2007 (Chart 6). Despite these developments, commodity prices and EM currencies continued to rally until the summer of 2008 when they finally collapsed in the second half of that year (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5US Profits Recession In 2001 Occurred Despite No Economic Recession Chart 6Domino Effect In 2007-08 Clearly, what was initially a rotation out of US cyclicals and financials into commodities and EM eventually proved to be nothing more than part of a domino effect. Again, we are not making the case that the US economy and financial markets are headed into a financial crisis. Our point here is that rotations do occur and can last for a while. Yet, a sustainable bull market in aggregate equity indexes does not emerge until there is a broad-based selloff during which the majority of sectors and bourses drop in absolute terms. Bottom Line: Rotation episodes can last several months. Equity sector and style rotations could prevent the broad equity indexes from plunging but these rotations will not be sufficient to propel the overall stock indexes to new highs. Equity Leadership Changes Occur Around Major Selloffs Having examined these rotation episodes, we can now take a step back and see the big picture: equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or major corrections in global share prices. Chart 7 illustrates EM relative stock prices versus DM along with the global equity index. Over the past 25 years, there have been several major leadership changes between EM and DM, and all of them coincided with, or were preceded by, either a bear market or a substantial drawdown in global share prices. Chart 7EM Versus DM: Equity Rotations Similarly, the relative performance of global growth versus value stocks often experiences trend reversals during or after selloffs (Chart 8). Chart 8Global Growth Versus Value: Leadership Rotations Finally, secular trend changes in the relative performance of the global tech sector, energy stocks and materials have also occurred during or after drawdowns in global share prices (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Technology, Energy And Materials: Leadership Rotations A word on commodity prices is warranted. We are surprised that industrial metal prices have so far held up well and oil prices have been surging despite China’s slowdown. The culprits behind the rally in resource prices are strong DM demand for commodities and investor purchases of commodities as an inflation hedge. Therefore, it might take investor concerns about US demand and/or a slowdown in global manufacturing to trigger a relapse in commodity prices. Rising US interest rates and a continued US dollar rally will eventually lead to a meaningful drawdown in commodity prices. Yet, the precise timing of this shift is uncertain. Critically, among financial markets, oil prices are often the last to fall and/or rally. Hence, investors should not use oil as a leading indicator for other markets. As to share prices of commodity producers, global materials have rolled over at their previous high (Chart 10, top panel), while energy stocks have surged through multiple technical resistances. However, they now face another technical hurdle (Chart 10, bottom panel). If oil share prices decisively break above this long-term moving average, it would likely signal that they have entered a multi-year bull market. Chart 10Global Energy Stocks And Materials: A Long-Term Profile Bottom Line: Major equity leadership rotations normally occur around bear markets or major corrections. Hence, a major selloff in global stocks is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks move toward a period of secular outperformance (i.e., a multi-year bull market in absolute and relative terms). Investment Considerations Chart 11EM And US Stocks Relative To The Global Benchmark: No Change In Trend We will contemplate upgrading EM if a broad selloff transpires. In such an equity drawdown, there is a 50% chance that EM may outperform the S&P 500 if the selloff is led by growth stocks, as occurred during the carnage in global stocks in January this year or in the fourth quarter of 2018 (Chart 11, top panel). Yet, the EM overall equity index will underperform Europe and Japan in such a broad-based drawdown. A weaker dollar is essential for EM outperformance. For now, we remain positive on the dollar for the next several months and are hence underweight EM stocks and credit markets versus their DM peers. As to US stocks, the jury is still out on whether their secular outperformance is over. Notably, US share prices relative to the global equity index have rebounded from their 200-day moving average (Chart 11, bottom panel). When such a technical pattern occurs, odds are high that US stocks will make new highs in relative terms. US equities outperforming the rest of the world is not consistent with growth stocks underperforming value ones. Hence, a potential US outperformance represents a risk to our core view that growth stocks will continue underperforming value stocks. How do we reconcile these inconsistencies? It might be that US growth stocks’ recent rebound persists for the next several weeks and they outperform value stocks during this window. In such a case, our equity leadership rotation theme will be delayed. Yet, in this scenario EM stocks will continue underperforming DM ones. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
Brazilian risk assets have started the year on a positive note. After falling 23.5% in 2021 – and underperforming emerging market and global equities by 18.9% and 40.3%, respectively – Brazilian equities are up 14.3% so far in 2022. We recently showed that…
BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy service sees four significant risks to turning bullish towards Chinese domestic stocks (in both absolute and relative terms) in the next 6 to 12 months. A subdued recovery in China’s economic activity. When…
Executive Summary Chinese Onshore Stock Prices And Earnings Are Set To Deteriorate Macro fundamentals indicate that for the time being there is no basis to overweight Chinese onshore stocks (in both absolute terms and relative to global stocks) given the outlook for profit growth contraction in 1H22. We are reluctant to shift our stance on Chinese domestic stocks to overweight in the next 6 to 12 months due to the following non-trivial risks: a subdued recovery in China’s economic activity, a deceleration in fiscal impulse in 2H22, a re-focus on reducing carbon emissions, as well as higher US bond yields and tighter global liquidity conditions. Despite a sharp drop in January, valuations in Chinese onshore stocks are still neutral in absolute terms, and only slightly cheaper than global stocks. As such, Chinese onshore stocks offer little valuation buffer in the wake of any negative surprises. Bottom Line: We maintain our underweight stance on Chinese onshore stocks (in both absolute terms and relative to global equities) due to non-trivial risks in the coming year. Feature China’s stock markets was very weak in the first month of 2022. The domestic equity market tumbled by 8% in January, while the offshore market dropped by 3%. We discussed our view on Chinese investable stocks in last week’s report and recommended that investors go long on investable value stocks versus growth stocks. This week’s report focuses on the onshore market. While we expect the economy to stabilize by mid-year on the back of increased policy support, we are reluctant to move to a cyclical overweight in the next 6 to 12 months, in both absolute terms and relative to their global peers. Near-term challenges in economic fundamentals will continue to weigh on Chinese domestic stocks. Over a cyclical time frame, the main risks to a bullish view on Chinese stocks are fourfold: a potentially subdued economic recovery; a sharp deceleration in fiscal impulse in the second half of the year; a re-acceleration in de-carbonization efforts; as well as higher bonds yields in the US and tighter global financial conditions. Chinese onshore stocks are not as deeply discounted as their offshore peers and, therefore, are less able to counter any negative surprises. Macroeconomics Matter Chart 1Weak Economic Fundamentals Undermine Stock Performance China’s economic fundamentals still drive corporate earnings and the country’s domestic stock performance, despite an escalation in monetary policy easing (Chart 1). Current macro fundamentals do not provide a legitimate support for investors to overweight Chinese stocks. The domestic stock market’s rocky start to 2022 underscores extremely fragile sentiment and heightened anxiety among investors. Credit growth bottomed in October last year but has not shown any signs of a strong rebound. Corporate demand for credit remains in the doldrums while turmoil in the housing market has disincentivized households from taking mortgages (Chart 2). The real economy, which in previous business cycles lagged credit growth by about six to nine months, has not responded to policy easing measures. Housing market indicators in January deteriorated further (Chart 3). Moreover, the nation’s counter-COVID measures have disrupted a recovery in the service sector and private consumption. Chart 2Demand For Loans Remains Weak Chart 3Housing Sales Weakened Further In January Chart 4Chinese Onshore Stock EPS Is Set To Deteriorate The financial market is forward looking and macro policies have become more market friendly. However, Chart 4 suggests that China's onshore corporate profits are set to deteriorate in the coming six months or so, and investors will likely react negatively to any further weakness in China’s measures of economic activity. Bottom Line: At the moment, China’s domestic economic fundamentals do not support an overweight stance in Chinese stocks. Mindful Of Cyclical Risks Chinese authorities have prioritized stimulating growth through countercyclical measures in 2022. However, we are reluctant to move to a cyclical overweight stance because we see four significant risks to turning bullish towards Chinese stocks (in both absolute and relative terms) in the next 6 to 12 months. These scenarios not only threaten the performance of Chinese stocks relative to global equities but could also prevent Chinese stocks’ absolute performance from trending higher. A subdued recovery in China’s economic activity. When policymakers wait too long to decisively stimulate the economy, business and consumer sentiment as well as the economy can remain downbeat for a prolonged period. For example, in the 2014/15 business cycle, monetary policy started to ease in early 2015, but policymakers hesitated to back down from supply-side reforms. As a result, the economy did not bottom until Q1 2016. Business activity and the financial markets reached their lows only after the authorities opened the “flood irrigation” to the economy by massively stimulating the housing sector (Chart 5). Arguably China’s economy is in a better shape now than in 2014/15 and the ongoing economic slowdown is not the result of a four-year downtrend in industrial activity as was the case prior to 2015’s economic slump (Chart 6). The drop in the A-share market in January was nothing compared with the turmoil in the financial markets seven years ago. Chart 5Economic Activity Picked Up In Q1 2016 Following A Massive Stimulus Chart 6China's Economy In General Is In A Better Shape Now Than In 2014/15... On the other hand, the housing market, which is estimated to account for about 29% of China’s economy, is currently decelerating at the same pace as in 2014/15. Growth in home sales and new projects dropped to their 2015 lows, while real estate inventories are comparable to the 2015 highs (Chart 7). Furthermore, property developers and consumers are even more indebted than during the 2014/15 cycle (Chart 8). Chart 7...But Downward Momentum In Property Market Comparable To 2015 Chart 8Chinese Real Estate Developers And Households Are More Leveraged Now Than In 2015 Chart 9Policymakers Will Have To Allow Significant Re-leveraging To Revive The Housing Market As noted in a previous report, unless regulators are willing to initiate more aggressive policy boosts as in 2015/16, the ongoing easing measures will not be sufficient to revive sentiment in the property market. Thus, the property market downtrend will likely extend through 2022 (Chart 9). The IMF recently revised its 2022 growth projection for China from 5.6% to 4.8%. It attributed the sharp downgrade to China’s protracted financial stress in the housing sector and pandemic-induced disruptions related to a zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy. A sub-5% economic expansion in 2022, although still an improvement from the 4.5% average annual rate in 2H21, is subdued and below China’s potential growth. Such a weak economic recovery will weigh on investor sentiment towards Chinese stocks in the coming year. A deceleration in fiscal impulse in 2H22. The impulse in fiscal stimulus - without any intervention - will fall sharply in the second half of the year. The Ministry Of Finance has approved a quota of RMB1.46 trillion in local government special purpose bonds (SPBs), which accounts for more than one-third of the yearly SPB quota, to be issued in Q1 this year. Chart 10Large Amount Of Local Government Debts Due In 2H22 However, the frontloading of SPBs also means that the fiscal impulse will slow significantly in 2H22. Our geopolitical strategists have noted that a total of RMB2.7 trillion worth of local government bonds (LGB) will reach maturity this year, with RMB2.2 trillion coming due after June 2022 (Chart 10). The number of maturing LGBs in 2H22 will be only slightly smaller than those in all of 2021; in 2021 42% of LGBs issued were re-financing bonds to pay off existing local government debts, undermining real fiscal support for the economy. Furthermore, authorities have not loosened their grip on implicit local government debts (Chart 11). These so-called shadow banking debts through local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) are an important source of funding for investments in infrastructure projects. If the central government does not reverse its efforts to curb hidden debts while explicit fiscal stimulus also wanes, then we will likely see a sharp deceleration in fiscal support in 2H22. Lastly, we think Chinese policymakers are still serious about preventing “flood irrigation” type of stimulus, and will not opt for it unless the economic slowdown is much sharper. In Q1 2019 stock prices jumped sharply, boosted by an above-expectation pace of local government SPB issuance and credit expansion. However, following the public spat between Premier Li Keqiang and the PBoC over whether the January 2019 credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus, policymakers quickly scaled back credit expansion in Q2 and onshore stock prices ended the year 5% lower than in Q1 (Chart 12). Chart 11Authorities Have Kept Tight Grip On Shadow Banking Activity Chart 12Policymakers Scaled Back Stimulus And Took The Wind Out Of Onshore Stocks In 2019 Carbon emission reduction targets are still viable. In the current 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025), the cumulative targets reduction in energy consumption intensity is 13.5%.1 Last year’s energy crisis slowed the de-carbonization process and energy consumption intensity fell by 2.7% in 2021, missing the official annual target of 3%. To meet the de-carbonization target by 2025, energy consumption intensity will have to be lowered by at least 2.7% per year in the next four years. If energy- and carbon-intensive infrastructure activity picks up sharply in 1H22, then policymakers will have to renew their vigilance to constrain carbon-intensive activities later this year. The de-carbonization target has become a key parameter for assessing the performance of local governments, and meeting de-carbonization targets is particularly important given the rotation of local officials will be completed in late 2022. Furthermore, the initiative to reduce energy intensity reflects China’s commitment to move to a green economy. Given the important political events in both China and the US in the fall of 2022, meeting the annual de-carbonization target will be an important projection of China’s international image and will likely play a role in US-China negotiations. Chart 13Prior To The Pandemic, Chinese Stocks Had Little Correlation With US Treasury Yields Higher bond yields in the US and tighter global liquidity conditions. Historically, Chinese onshore stocks have exhibited a loose cyclical correlation with US government bond yields (Chart 13). Nonetheless, if US bond yields rise more than global investors expect and to a level that is economically restrictive, then capital expenditures and household consumption in the US will weaken. This, in turn, will weigh down global trade and Chinese exports of manufactured goods. Against the backdrop of escalating US bond yields, Chinese onshore stocks may passively outperform their US counterparts because China’s A-share market is heavily weighted in value stocks. However, A-share prices in absolute terms will not be immune to heightened volatility in the global financial markets. The risk-off sentiment across global bourses will discourage portfolio flows into emerging economies including China. On a monthly basis, foreign portfolio net inflows account for less than 1% of the onshore equity market trading volume, but in recent years foreign portfolio inflows have increasingly influenced China’s onshore market sentiment and prices (Chart 14). China’s domestic household savings will not provide much support to stock prices this year. Chinese households have increasingly invested in the domestic equity market in the past few years, given that the authorities have been vigilant in containing price inflation in the property market.2 While we think Chinese consumers will continue rotating investment from property to financial market, household savings growth has fallen sharply since mid-2021, which means there have been less available funds to invest in the stock market (Chart 15). Chart 15Chinese Households' Quickly Diminishing Dry Powder Chart 14Foreign Investors Have Become More Influential In The Chinese Onshore Market Bottom Line: For the time being, the significant risks described above make us reluctant to turn bullish on Chinese stocks in both absolute and relative terms. Investment Conclusions There are few upsides related to Chinese onshore stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. However, there are two risks to our underweight stance on Chinese onshore stocks: First, we cannot rule out the possibility that Chinese policymakers will go “all in” for economic stability and allow a significant credit overshoot. In this scenario, a strong pickup in credit growth will produce a rebound in profit growth and support share prices in absolute terms and relative to global equities. Secondly, recent gyrations in global financial markets, coupled with China’s sluggish domestic economy, have triggered shakeouts in the onshore equity markets. The pullback in stock prices has helped to shed some excesses in Chinese stock valuations. Chart 16In Very Optimistic Scenario Chinese Stocks Would Have Some Upside Potential Vs. Global If the stimulus in the next 6 to 12 months returns Chinese corporate profit growth to their 2021 peaks, then Chinese stock prices (in absolute terms) will also approach or go back to their early-2021 highs. Chart 16 highlights that reverting to these levels would imply a return of about 10-15% for domestic stocks in both absolute and relative price terms. We think China’s potential to command a higher multiple than global stocks is capped, barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth. However, Chart 16 (bottom panel) shows that Chinese onshore stocks at their height early last year were still cheaper than their global counterparts. Therefore, in a scenario where Beijing does “whatever it takes” to stimulate its economy, we will have no strong reasons to argue against a return of domestic forward multiples and a strong earnings growth back to levels seen in early-2021. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Energy consumption intensity refers to energy consumption per unit of GDP. 2 There was a sharp jump in demand in 2020 for investment products from households; mutual funds in China raised money at a record pace, bringing in over 2 trillion yuan ($308 billion), which is more than the total amount in the previous four years. Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations