新興市場
Highlights The latest adjustment of the interest rates of some PBoC lending facilities reflects China's ongoing moves toward market-driven interest rate reforms. Domestic growth improvement calls for higher interest rates, but it is too soon to conclude whether the latest interest rate adjustment is the beginning of a new tightening cycle or a temporary pause in a broad reflation process. The PBoC will remain data dependent and policy will remain accommodative. The interest rate increases in the PBoC lending facilities will likely lead to higher cost of funding for the corporate sector as well as mortgage borrowers The economic impact of the rising cost of funding should not be significant. Feature In the past three weeks, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has raised the interest rates it charges financial institutions through various lending facilities. Questions abound over how the PBoC's latest maneuvers differ from their traditional monetary policy tools, and more importantly how these changes impact the economy and financial markets. What? In a slew of actions since late January, the PBoC has increased interest rates on several liquidity management facilities. On January 25th interest rates on the Medium-Term Lending facility (MLF) were raised, the first increase since the MLF debuted in 2014. Last week interest rates on reverse repurchase agreements (repos) were also hiked by 10 basis points. Meanwhile, interest rates on the Standing Lending Facility (SLF) were also lifted. Overall, these actions have increased financial institutions' funding costs on borrowing from the central bank. Table 1The PBoC's Tool Box There have been important changes in how the PBoC conducts monetary policy in recent years. While conventional measures such as the benchmark lending rate and reserve requirement ratio (RRR) have not been abandoned, the PBoC has been increasingly focusing on utilizing various new tools (Table 1).1 The RRR has been left unchanged, while the central bank has been actively dealing with financial institutions directly to manage interbank liquidity. The latest move shows a further departure from conventional monetary operations: instead of directly adjusting benchmark policy rates on lending and deposits of commercial banks, the PBoC has targeted interest rates on its claims to financial institutions. These changes reflect China's ongoing moves toward market-driven interest rate reforms, which at this stage have become quite advanced. Commercial banks are no longer under the administrative constraints on interest rates they pay to depositors and charge borrowers, and therefore their marginal cost of funding has become increasingly important for setting their own loan rates. Meanwhile, targeting interest rates of these lending facilities rather than benchmark interest rates or the RRR provides some important advantages from the PBoC's point of view. The newly created alphabet soup of various lending facilities gives the PBoC much more flexibility to "fine-tune" interbank liquidity in terms of both magnitude and timing, and can be quickly reversed if necessary. The RRR adjustment, on the other hand, is inherently much more blunt and harder to turn. These lending facilities can aid the central bank's macro-prudential policy. For example, banks that fail to meet certain conditions of the macro-prudential assessment (MPA) will have to pay punitive interest rates to borrow from the PBoC. Similarly, the PBoC can offer subsidized loans to policy lenders for certain prioritized projects. Direct adjustment on commercial banks' loan and deposit rates is not only against the broad trend of the country's interest rate reform, but also requires coordination of various government departments under the State Council. The PBoC has much higher discretion in changing its own interest rates that it charges commercial banks. Chart 1Policy Rates Catch Up To The Market Why? The PBoC's latest adjustments on interest rates of various lending facilities and open market operations should not be surprising, given the significant increase in interbank interest rates and domestic bond yields since late last year. For example, both the seven-day interbank rate and one-year government bond yields have increased from about 2.3% to 2.6% (Chart 1). If the PBoC left its short-term lending rates unchanged, it would potentially create arbitrage opportunities in which commercial banks could borrow from the central bank and lend out to other institutions. In other words, the PBoC has already begun to tighten by allowing market interest rates to inch higher since late last year, and the recent policy rate adjustment is in fact a "catch-up." A few reasons may be behind the central bank's tightening bias. The economy has recovered considerably, with both quickening activity and easing deflation. Nominal GDP growth accelerated to 9.6% in the last quarter, up from a bottom of 6.5% in late 2015 when benchmark interest rates were cut to current levels2 (Chart 2). The January macro numbers are likely distorted by the Chinese New Year effect, but holiday sales have been quite strong compared with a year ago, and the latest PMI numbers suggest continued acceleration in both the industrial and service sectors. All of this naturally calls for higher interest rates. It is possible that the January credit numbers are uncomfortably high for the PBoC, which may have pushed the authorities to send a signal to lenders to cool things off to prevent overheating and damp further property price gains. The central bank has been concerned about leverage and overtrading in the interbank market as well as local bond markets by financial institutions, and the latest tightening moves have also been designed to reduce financial excess (Chart 3). Repo transactions in the interbank market have already dropped sharply since late year when the PBoC began to push interest rates higher. This, together with regulators' latest administrative overhaul on commercial banks' wealth management products and off-balance-sheet items, all underscore the determination to rein in excesses in the banking sector. Chart 2Growth Rebound Generates Upward Pressure ##br##On Interest Rates Chart 3The PBoC Aims To Tame##br## Financial Excess So What? Whatever the reason, the PBoC will likely continue to shift away from "conventional" tools and increasingly focus on the new framework that has emerged in recent years in conducting monetary policy. Benchmark loan and deposits rates are already on the way out, and the RRR will also be gradually faded. The problem is that the RRR is still at 17% for large banks and 15% for smaller lenders - both of which are still elevated compared with historical norms. As a result, commercial banks have been putting ever rising reserve deposits with the central bank, while at the same time their borrowings from the PBoC have also skyrocketed - leading to an ever-expanding balance sheet at the PBoC (Chart 4). Technically, it is likely that the RRR will be lowered to a more reasonable level, cutting the central bank's liability, while at the same time the PBoC can reduce its claims to commercial banks on the asset side. This operation will shrink the PBoC's balance sheet, but does not necessarily change the liquidity situation in the banking system. It is too soon to conclude whether the latest interest rate adjustment is the beginning of a new tightening cycle or a temporary pause in a broad reflation process. We expect the PBoC will remain data dependent, and that the Federal Reserve's actions will also be taken into consideration. In the near term, a few observations can be made. First, the interest rate increases in the PBoC lending facilities, together with the increase in market-driven interest rates, will likely lead to higher cost of funding for the corporate sector as well as mortgage borrowers (Chart 5). Already, discount rates of bank acceptance bills, a proxy for short-term funding costs of the corporate sector tightly linked with interbank rates, have surged in recent months. The expected returns of Wealth Management Products (WMPs), an alternative to conventional bank deposits that set banks' marginal funding costs, have also picked up notably since October. This means the average interest rate on commercial banks' loans likely have already been rising. Chart 4The PBoC's Liquidity Operation Chart 5Corporate Cost Of Borrowing Will Likely Rise The economic impact of the rising cost of funding should not be meaningful, in our view, as it is accompanied by a strengthening economy and easing deflation. The overall monetary conditions index, which takes into consideration both real interest rates and the exchange rate, has continued to ease, thanks largely to the rapid increase in producer prices. Furthermore, there is still massive scope for the Chinese authorities to reform the financial sector and reduce the funding costs of the country's dynamic smaller private enterprises - although falling sharply in recent years, the Wenzhou private loan rate, a proxy for private enterprises' borrowing costs, still stands at 16% (Chart 6). This will likely continue to drift lower as the country's financial reforms continue to deepen. In short, the latest policy tightening does not change our cyclical assessment on the broader economy. In this vein, higher interest rates may introduce some near-term turbulence in stocks, but will not change the cyclical profile. The marginal increase in interest rates will not derail the growth improvement, profit growth should continue to recover and policymakers are unlikely to overkill. Meanwhile, strategically we continue to favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. Finally, rising interest rates in China should lend some support to the RMB, due to the close link between China-U.S. interest rate differentials and the USD/CNY exchange rate (Chart 7). The interest rate gap between Chinese government bonds and U.S. Treasurys has widened notably since late last year, which should marginally make RMB assets more attractive in the near term. Nonetheless, the broad trend of the dollar against other majors will remain the dominant force setting the USD/CNY cross rate. The PBoC still faces challenges to contain capital outflows and maintain exchange rate stability. Chart 6Private Loan Rate Needs ##br##To Drop Further Chart 7China - U.S. Interest Rate Gap And##br## USD/CNY Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Closer Look At The PBoC's Balance Sheet," dated September 23, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth Watch," dated January 19, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Weekly swings in U.S. inventories notwithstanding, we believe global storage is on track to draw ~ 10% by early- to mid-3Q17, which will have achieved the goal of the OPEC - Russia production Agreement negotiated late last year. This will not require an extension of the pact beyond June, based on our modeling. Unexpectedly high compliance by OPEC producers to agreed cuts is being offset somewhat by increased production in those states exempted from the deal. Strong oil consumption on the back of a synchronized global uptick in GDP growth, which started to emerge late last year, provides the impetus for sustained storage draws. Markets are overestimating offshore production's resilience, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, where we see material declines beginning to set in next year. Backwardation likely persists in 2018, absent a U.S. policy-induced USD rally that crimps EM demand and spurs production ex U.S. Energy: Overweight. The return of contango in the WTI forward curve gives us the opportunity to reset our strategic front-to-back position (long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18) at tonight's close. Our balances assessment supports our view backwardation will return in the deferred part of the curve. Our Dec/19 short WTI vs. long Brent spread buy stop was elected at $0.07/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. We remain neutral base metals, but are keeping a close watch on copper. Unions working at BHP's Escondida mine, the world's largest, are set to strike today. Negotiations resumed this week, following BHP's request for government mediation. Precious Metals: Neutral. We continue to look to get long gold at $1,180/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain fundamentals remain unsupportive for a rally. We remain underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Oil Storage On Track For 10% Drop Global oil storage levels remain on track to hit the ~ 10% draw targeted in last year's OPEC - Russia production Agreement by early- to mid-3Q17, weekly gyrations in U.S. inventories notwithstanding. This means an extension of the agreement beyond its June expiry will not be required. Early reports suggest compliance with the deal is unexpectedly high by OPEC states that agreed to cut production by up to 1.2mm b/d - exceeding 80% by various accounts. However, OPEC states not required to cut - Libya, Nigeria, and Iran - have increased production and partially offset those declines, which took total reductions in OPEC output to ~ 840k b/d, based on a Bloomberg tally last week.1 This brought total Cartel compliance to ~ 60% of the agreed cuts, which, as we noted in our 2017 Commodity Outlook in December, would be sufficient to achieve the Agreement's goal of pulling inventories in the OECD down by ~ 10% by 3Q17.2 Non-OPEC producers also appear to be complying with the Agreement. Notable among them is Russia, which is ahead of its commitment with cuts of close to 120k b/d in January, due partly to extreme cold in Siberian fields. We expect cuts in Russia to average 200k b/d in 1Q17, going to 300k b/d in 2Q17. These cuts will allow demand to outstrip supply in 1H17 and into year-end. By early- to mid-3Q17, draws to OECD storage of 300mm bbl can be expected, without extending the OPEC - Russia production agreement (Chart of the Week). We expect to see these cuts show up in OECD inventory data this month and next and continue into the end of 2017. For non-OECD states, the draws will show up in JODI data beginning in March.3 The physical deficits - i.e., supply less than demand - will force storage to draw, backwardating the WTI forward curve later this year (Chart 2).4 If markets are not surprised by a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of a U.S. border-adjustment tax (BAT), or a too-aggressive tightening by the Fed as it seeks to normalize monetary policy, we expect the drawdown in inventories to continue keeping markets backwardated. Even with production returning to pre-Agreement levels in 2H17 in states with the capacity to expand and reliably sustain production - Gulf Arab producers, Russia and U.S. shales - we expect storage to continue to draw through the year and into 2018 (Chart 3). Chart 2We Continue To Expect Backwardation Chart 3Storage Drawdown On Track In 4Q16 the impact of the higher Kuwaiti and UAE output is apparent, along with higher Russian production. This put more crude on the market, which found its way into storage late in 4Q16 and early 1Q17, reversing the trend in draws seen earlier in 2H16. This put the market back in a temporary surplus condition, with the result being more storage will have to be worked off in 1H17 than our earlier estimates indicated. But these draws will occur, following the implementation of the production accord. Extending The KSA - Russia Deal Beyond June Is Unnecessary In our estimates, OPEC crude production increases by ~ 850k b/d in 2H17 versus 1H17 levels. Despite this recovery, the storage drawdown continues. Our modeling assumes Gulf OPEC will account for slightly more than +1mm b/d growth, and non-Gulf OPEC will see production continue to fall by 170k b/d. Russia's total liquids production goes from 10.95mm b/d in 1H17 to 11.34mm b/d in 2H17. We estimate U.S. shale production grows at an average rate of ~ 300k b/d in 2H17, while total U.S. liquids production increases 720k b/d over the same interval. Setting aside the possibility of a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of too-aggressive Fed tightening or a border-adjusted tax becoming the law of the land, both of which would depress demand and raise production ex U.S., we expect the crude-oil market to remain backwardated next year. The globally synchronized upturn in GDP will keep demand robust, with growth coming in close to even with this year's rate of ~ 1.50mm b/d. We have global liquids production and OPEC crude output growing less than 1.0% next year. We believe the market is overestimating the resilience of offshore production next year, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, based on the stout performance put in last year and expected for this year. Our colleague Matt Conlan notes in BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, U.S. production growth since October has almost exclusively been from the Gulf of Mexico's new projects. Output in the Gulf continues to increase due to the lagged effect of final investment decisions made during 2012 - 2014, when WTI prices were consistently trading above $100/bbl. GOM production will peak in 2017 then decline in 2018 due to lack of new investments made since 2014. Indeed, as "increasing decline rates overwhelm a shrinking inventory of new projects, GOM production should peak sometime in 2017 and then start decreasing. The EIA's estimate for another 200,000 b/d increase in GOM production in 2017 seems overly-optimistic."5 Once this becomes apparent to the market, we believe backwardation will reassert itself and persist into 2018. The backwardation of the forward curve structure will affect U.S. shale production economics in 2018. However, our base case is for U.S. shale-oil production in the "Big Four" basins - Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara - to grow 700k b/d next year, given the current structure of the WTI forwards, which were taken higher along with the WTI price rally at the front of the curve. This triggered the revival of rig counts; however, we want to point out that different curve shapes at different price levels produce different expected rig-count responses.6 Chart 4Barring a Policy Shock Demand Will Remain Robust Global Demand Firing On All Cylinders Robust demand growth - ~ +1.50mm b/d in 2017 and 2018 in our modeling - provides the impetus for the continued draws in storage this year and next (Chart 4). We revised our demand estimates for 2015 - 16 in line with the IEA's just-revised assessment of global consumption published in its January 2017 Oil Market Report.7 The IEA brought 2016 oil demand growth up to 1.50mm b/d, in line with our earlier estimates, but significantly revised 2015 demand growth upward to 2.0mm b/d. The Agency expects higher prices to crimp demand this year, taking it to 1.30mm b/d; our estimate, however, is higher, largely on the back of the first global synchronized growth we've seen since the Global Financial Crisis, which will be supported by accommodative monetary conditions worldwide, all else equal.8 Investment Implications Our analysis suggests there will be no need to extend the OPEC - Russia production accord into 2H17. In addition, it reinforces our view markets will backwardate later this year and stay backwardated in 2018, provided we do not see a BAT-induced rally in the USD, or an overly aggressive Fed normalization trajectory. As we noted in previous research, a BAT would lift the value of the USD, which would lower demand ex U.S. and raise supply at the margin.9 We make the odds of a BAT becoming the law of the land in the U.S. this year 50:50, so this is a non-trivial risk. This would be unambiguously bearish for oil prices. While we do not expect oil to be included among the imported commodities subject to a BAT, we do, nonetheless, expect the imposition of a BAT to lift the USD by 10%. This, coupled with the 5% increase in the greenback we'd already penciled in due to the Fed's monetary-policy normalization, will lift the USD 15% if it goes through. Should this occur, we would be preparing for prices to again fall below $50/bbl and push back to the $40/bbl area, which would cause supply and capex to once again contract significantly. That said, we are reinstating our long front-to-back WTI recommendation (long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI), given our updated balances assessment. Our expectation for inventories to continue to draw after the OPEC - Russia production-cutting agreement expires in June supports this recommendation. In addition, if we do see a BAT in the U.S., we believe markets will take the deferred WTI curve significantly lower in expectation of reduced demand and higher marginal supplies that almost surely will ensue in 2018. While the Dec/17 contract also will trade lower, more damage to prices will occur in 2018 contracts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC Cuts Oil Output, But More Work Needed to Fulfill Deal," published by Bloomberg February 2, 2017. Iraq stands out among OPEC producers agreeing to cut, but apparently not following through as diligently as the rest of the Gulf Arab states; we are assuming production of 4.5mm b/d for 1H17, going to 4.6mm b/d in 2H17 for Iraq. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 JODI refers to the Joint Organisations Data Initiative, a supranational producer-consumer oil-market data provider headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4 "Backwardation" describes a forward price curve in which the price for a commodity for prompt delivery (e.g., tomorrow) exceeds the price of a commodity delivered in the future (e.g., next year). It is the opposite of a contango curve structure. 5 Please see issue of BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy "Gulf Of Mexico Oil Production Likely To Peak In 2017," dated January 11, 2017, available nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 In next week's report, we will present scenario analysis of shale-oil production as a function of WTI forward curve shape - i.e., the implications of backwardation for shale rig counts. This will update our assessments of price sensitivities to interest rates and USD movements. 7 Please see the IEA's Oil Market Report of 19 January 2017. 8 We discuss this in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy feature article entitled "Gold Will Perform...," dated February 2, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "Taking A BAT To Commodities," dated January 26, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights Three emerging macro factors bode poorly for Taiwan's growth outlook and asset prices. Despite the worrying economic and geopolitical backdrop, global investors appear complacent. Foreign ownership in Taiwanese stocks has reached a new record high. Remain cautious on Taiwanese stocks. Short the TSE versus Chinese investable shares. Feature Taiwan's economy and financial markets have shown remarkable resilience of late. Last week's advance GDP release confirmed that the Taiwanese economy continued to accelerate in the final quarter of the year. The Taiwanese dollar (TWD) is among the few currencies that have strengthened since early last year, not only in trade-weighted terms but also against the mighty greenback. Taiwanese stocks have been a bright spot in the emerging market universe, which has been plagued with structural challenges and political instability in recent years. Taiwan's remarkable strength of late is notwithstanding the sudden deterioration in its relationship with mainland China since the DPP party regained power last year, and more recently brewing trade tensions among the major global economies kicked off by the Trump Administration. This highlights the growing disconnect between Taiwan's macro outlook and its financial asset performance, offering a particularly poor risk-return profile. We remain underweight Taiwan among the greater China bourses, and recommend a short position in the TSE versus Chinese H shares. Macro Risks Are Rising... In a nutshell, three emerging macro factors bode poorly for Taiwan's growth outlook and asset prices. First, Taiwan is among the most open economies in the world, and will suffer disportionally in any disruption in global trade (Chart 1). Although having fallen sharply since the global financial crisis, exports of goods and services still account for over 60% of Taiwan's GDP, among the highest of the major economies. Therefore, Taiwan's growth outlook is almost completely dictated by global demand, making it particualrly vulnerable at times of rising global uncertainty. Indeed, Taiwan's growth acceleration since mid-last year has been entirely driven by a synchronized acceleration in overseas demand. Both China and the U.S. have been strengthening, which will likely continue to support Taiwan's growth outlook in the near term.1 However, the strength in the Taiwanese currency is worrisome, as the exchange rate has historically been tightly correlated with overseas new orders and domestic producer prices. Chart 2 shows that the strong TWD has the potential to lead to a sudden deterioration in deflation as well as new export orders. Chart 1Taiwanese Growth: All About Exports Chart 2TWD Strength Is A Headwind For Exports Second, the cross-strait relationship has already deteriorated notably, and a vicious feedback loop appears to be developing. On the one hand, the Chinese authorities are worried that incumbent President Tsai Ing-wen will not uphold the "1992 Consensus" that forms the foundation of cross-straight integration,2 and will step up efforts to contain her "pro-independence" initiatives. On the other hand, the Taiwanese government, faced with increasing pressure from the mainland, feels the urge to reach out to a broader global audience, which in turn may be perceived by Beijing as provocative. President Tsai's controversial phone call with Donald Trump, her stop-over visit to the U.S. en route to South America and the attendance of the government's delegation to President Trump's inauguration have only further reinforced Beijing's suspicion - and propelled forward a self-feeding negative dynamic in the cross-strait relationship that is difficult to reverse. The consequence of a military conflict between the mainland and Taiwan is unimaginably costly, and still extremely unlikely. However, the economic ties between the two will continue to cool. A telltale sign is that number of mainland Chinese visitors to Taiwan has already dropped precipitously since early last year, causing visible stress in Taiwan's tourism industry (Chart 3). Furthermore, exports to China account for over 40% of total Taiwanese exports, far higher than to any other market, and its trade surplus with China accounts for 5% of Taiwanese GDP - both of which are at risk should cross-strait tensions continue to rise (Chart 4). Moreover, the deteriorating relationship with the mainland is also hurting domestic confidence. Chart 5 shows that Taiwanese consumer confidence has historically been tightly linked with stock market performance, but a widening gap has developed since early last year when stocks began to rebound but confidence continued to weaken, which we suspect is to some extent attributable to the DPP party's dealings with the mainland. Weakening confidence bodes poorly for consumption, making the economy even more vulnerable to external shocks. Chart 3Cross - Strait Relationship ##br##Has Cooled Sharply Chart 4China Trade ##br##Is Crucial For Taiwan Chart 5Cooling China - ties##br## Also Hurts Domestic Confidence Finally, tensions between China and the U.S. are bound to rise under President Trump, and Taiwan may fall victim to the "clash of the Titans." Trump has openly questioned the "One China" policy that fundamentally underpins the Sino-U.S. relationship. John Bolton, a top adviser to President Trump, has even recommended positioning U.S. troops in Taiwan to counter the mainland. It is likely that Trump is using the "Taiwan card" as a bargaining chip to win concessions from China on trade-related issues.3 However, these remarks are dangerously provocative. Any miscalculation could lead to a drastic escalation in tensions across the Taiwan Strait, and the Taiwanese economy will suffer profoundly. Even if trade tensions are contained between China and the U.S., Taiwan will also suffer because it is a critical part of the highly complex and integrated supply chain in the global technology and electronics industries. It is premature and overly alarmist to predict any "war-like" scenario, but stakes are exceedingly high for Taiwan, and any move in this direction should be monitored extremely carefully. ...But Investors Appear Complacent Despite the worrying economic and geopolitical backdrop, global investors still appear comfortable in Taiwanese stocks. Foreign capital has continued to flock to Taiwan, despite gloomy sentiment among global investors on emerging markets overall. Net foreign purchases of Taiwanese stocks, historically tightly linked with fund flows to U.S. emerging market mutual funds, have rebounded sharply, while EM mutual fund sales have weakened, a rare divergence historically (Chart 6). Cumulative foreign net purchases of Taiwanese stocks have pushed foreign ownership in Taiwanese stocks to 37%, a new all-time high (Chart 7). Foreign fund flows have been a key reason behind the relative strength of both Taiwanese stocks and its exchange rate of late. Chart 6Diverging Fund Flows To EM And Taiwan Chart 7Rising Foreign Ownership In Taiwanese Stocks Granted, Taiwan's macroeconomic conditions are largely stable, characterized by its massive current account surplus, small fiscal deficit and low government debt - which make it stand out in an otherwise perilous, crisis-prone EM world. However, we suspect large foreign flows to Taiwan in recent years are also due to the tech-heavy nature of its stock market. Chart 8 shows the relative performance of global tech stocks bear a strong resemblance to Taiwan's relative performance against the EM benchmark after the global financial crisis. In other words, investors are largely attracted to the Taiwanese market as a way to play the global tech rally rather than because of any specific macro factors unique to Taiwan. This also means that investors could be blindsided by any escalation of trade or geopolitical tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Moreover, the large percentage of foreign ownership in Taiwanese stocks risks a disorderly unwinding and sudden exodus - and an ensuing sharp spike in volatility. The last episode of military tension between Taiwan and the mainland in the mid-1990s offers the only precedent in terms of how financial markets might respond. China reacted to the U.S. visit of Taiwan's then President Lee-Teng-hui with aggressive saber-rattling by mobilizing troops and firing missiles, which led to the "third Taiwan Strait Crisis" (Chart 9). Even though the crisis officially lasted from July 1995 to March 1996, Taiwanese stocks tumbled well in advance when the tensions first began to emerge. In fact, the crisis itself, and the resolution of it, marked the bottom in Taiwanese stock prices. Chart 8Taiwanese Stocks As A Tech Play Chart 9The Last Episode Of Cross - Strait Tension Long H Shares, Short Taiwan Taiwanese stocks are the most vulnerable bourse in the Greater China region. A short position of the TSE versus Chinese H shares offers an attractive risk-return profile. Chinese stocks have long been punished by various macro concerns, and are likely under-owned by global investors. Investor sentiment on Taiwan, on the other hand, appear to be unduly complacent, and Taiwanese stocks have likely been overweighted and over-owned. Chinese stocks are much less exposed to global trade than their Taiwanese counterparts. Even though tech stocks are the largest sectors for both markets, the largest Chinese tech companies such as Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu are mainly software and service providers, and derive the majority of their revenue from the domestic market.4 In contrast, Taiwanese tech companies, also the largest constituents in the Taiwanese index, such as TSMC, Hon Hai and Largan, are all hardware producers, and are overwhelmingly dependent on the global market, making them more vulnerable to any disruption in global trade flows. Valuations of Taiwanese stocks are not particularly demanding by global comparison, but they are trading at a premium to their mainland peers (Chart 10, bottom panel). Moreover, the recent improvement in Taiwanese earnings will be tested, given the strength of the TWD and deterioration in terms of trade (Chart 11). Historically, Taiwanese earnings have been highly cyclical and prone to sharp swings, led by global business cycles. Technically speaking, the multi-year underperformance of Chinese investable shares against the Taiwanese market has become very advanced and appears to have formed an enduring bottom (Chart 10, top panel). Chart 10Chinese H Shares Vs Taiwanese Stocks: ##br##Valuation And Technical Perspective Chart 11Taiwanese Earnings Improvement##br## Will Be Tested Bottom Line: Remain cautious on Taiwanese stocks. Short the TSE versus Chinese investable shares as a trade. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard," dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The "1992 Consensus" refers to the outcome of a meeting in 1992 between China and Taiwan's then ruling party KMT. The terms means that both sides recognize there is only one "China": both mainland China and Taiwan belong to the same China, but both sides agree to interpret the meaning of that one China according to their own definition. 3,4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard," dated January 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights The U.S. has two geopolitical imperatives: domination of the world's oceans and ensuring the disunity of Eurasia; The Trump Doctrine, as currently defined, has no room for transatlantic alliances; President Trump is pursuing both mercantilism and an isolationist foreign policy; This combination imperils the transatlantic alliance and thus the American anchor in Eurasia; If pursued to its logical conclusion, the Trump Doctrine will end American global hegemony. Feature "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the world." - Sir Halford John Mackinder Geopolitics is parsimonious and predictive because it posits that states are imprisoned by their geography. For academia, geopolitics is too parsimonious. And the professors are correct! Mountainous terrain combined with ethno-linguistic heterogeneity has destined Afghanistan and Bosnia to centuries of conflict, but Switzerland seems to be doing just fine. As such, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy, despite our name, very rarely relies on pure geopolitics for its analysis. The world is just too complex and geopolitics operates on long time horizons that are rarely investment-relevant. Geography is not destiny. Rather, geography is the ultimate constraint, an immutable factor that can only be conquered with a massive effort or new technology that comes but once in a generation. To fight geography is folly, even for a hegemon. The Trump Doctrine, as it has taken shape thus far, looks to be just such a folly. In this analysis, we explain why and what the investment relevance may be for the U.S. and the world. We still think the U.S. is likely to regain power in relative terms, but Trump's "charismatic authority" and foreign policy pose a risk to this view. American Geopolitical Imperatives There are two notable "fathers" of geopolitics: Alfred Thayer Mahan and Sir Halford John Mackinder. They both dedicated their life to elucidating great power "Grand Strategy," the implicit but real geopolitical imperatives, rooted in geography, from which a country derives its day-to-day foreign policy. For Mahan, a U.S. Navy Admiral and lecturer at the Naval War College, the imperative of the U.S. was to build a navy to dominate the oceans, the global "commons" that is indispensable to modern trade, economy, and thus "hard power."1 A strong navy is the defining characteristic of a great power. It affords the hegemon military supremacy over vital trade routes and ensures that global commerce operates in its interest. If this sounds like present-day U.S. "Grand Strategy," it is because Mahan had a great influence on American policymakers in the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt supported Mahan's thinking, which included building the Panama Canal. Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, and similar work by British strategists, provided a historical and strategic framework for the naval race between the U.K. and Germany that ultimately contributed to the start of World War I.2 Mackinder, a British geographer and academic, focused on the Eurasian landmass, rather than the oceans.3 In his view - perhaps colored by Britain's history of fending off invaders from the continent - Eurasia had sufficient natural resources (Russia), population (China), wealth (Europe), and a geographic buffer from naval powers (the seas surrounding it) to become self-sufficient. Hence any great power that managed to dominate Eurasia, or "the World Island" as Mackinder coined it, would have no need for a navy as it would become a superpower by default (Map 1). Map 1The World According To Mackinder American Grand Strategy is today a combination of both Mahan's and Mackinder's thinking. The U.S. has had two explicit geopolitical imperatives since the end of World War II: Dominate the world's oceans (Mahan); Prevent any one power from dominating Eurasia (Mackinder). To accomplish the first, the U.S. has expended an extraordinary amount of resources to build and operate the world's greatest blue-water navy. To accomplish the second, the U.S. has entered two world wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and spent a good part of the twentieth century containing the Soviet Union. In addition, Washington has fostered a close transatlantic alliance to ensure that Europe, its anchor in Eurasia, remains aligned with the U.S. These were not arbitrary decisions made by a corrupt, Beltway elite looking to enrich itself with the spoils of globalization. These were decisions made by American leaders looking to expand American power, establish global hegemony, and retain it against rivals for centuries to come. Both imperatives are necessary for the U.S. to remain a hegemon. And U.S. hegemony is the foundation of the global monetary and financial system. Not least, it underpins the role of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. Bottom Line: The U.S. has two geopolitical imperatives: domination of the world's oceans and ensuring the disunity of Eurasia. The Trump Doctrine: America First, Second, And Third Every U.S. president tries to enshrine a foreign policy "doctrine" during their presidency. There is no single document that does the job of elucidating the doctrine; scholars and journalists weave the ideas together from speeches, policy decisions, resource allocation, and rhetoric. This early in the Trump presidency, it is not fair to determine what his foreign policy doctrine will be. Already, with Trump's executive orders on immigration and refugees, it is clear that there is a process of trial and error underway, with the administration reversing its position on green card holders (U.S. permanent residents). We therefore take liberty in projecting the little information we have forward. Chances that we are wrong are high and our conviction level is low. Nevertheless, we have two broad conclusions. If the Trump Doctrine develops as these early clues suggest, then it will either be rejected by Congress and the American policy establishment, or it will initiate the collapse of the geopolitical and economic institutions of our era, ushering in something profoundly different. We see no alternatives. So what are the early outlines of the Trump Doctrine? We see three factors that stand out: Isolationism: Long-term alliances and commitments abroad must have a clear, immediate, and calculable benefit for the U.S. economic "bottom line." Therefore, Japan and South Korea should pay more for the benefits of U.S. alliance, and NATO is a drain on American resources. All alliances and American commitments are negotiable. Mercantilism: The U.S. has no permanent allies, only trade balances that must be positive. Trump has not only threatened China and Mexico with protectionism, but also longstanding allies like Germany and Japan.4 Any country that sports a significant trade surplus with the U.S. is in Washington's crosshairs (Chart 1). Chart 1Trump's Hit List Sovereignty: Trump said in his inaugural address, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first" and that America does "not seek to impose our way of life on anyone." This is a stark departure from ideologically-driven foreign policies of both the Bush and Obama White House. However, there is an ideology underpinning Trump's foreign policy: nationalism. Professor Ted Malloch, tipped as the next U.S. Ambassador to the EU, revealed in a BBC interview that the new U.S. President "is very opposed to supranational organizations, he believes in nation states." This statement makes explicit what many of Trump's speeches have implied. Under the tenets of this inchoate Trump Doctrine, NATO and the EU are not just nuisances, but are positively detrimental to U.S. interests. This marks a profound shift in U.S. foreign policy thinking, if it stands. First, both NATO and the EU break the ideological tenet of nationalism. They are international organizations that pool sovereignty for some predetermined common goal. Given that the common goal has nothing to do with the immediate, domestic and economic goals of the U.S., the two organizations are not worth supporting, under this interpretation of the emerging Trump Doctrine. Second, NATO demands a U.S. overseas commitment with little material gain in return. This is not a new argument. President Obama complained about the failure of NATO member states to pay their fair share (2% of GDP on defense) for collective self-defense (Chart 2). However, Obama's intention was to cajole European allies to boost defense spending; NATO's existence was not in question. Trump does not see a point in America paying for Germany's defense, especially when Germany sports a sizeable trade surplus with the U.S. Chart 2NATO States That Need To 'Pay Up' Third, the EU runs a large current account surplus in general and a trade surplus with the U.S. in particular (Chart 3). For the Trump administration, the EU is therefore a rival, perhaps more so even than Russia, which, when viewed through a purely mercantilist lens, is not a foe. Trump's foreign policy is based on an understanding that the world is multipolar and that the U.S. is in relative geopolitical decline. Our data supports President Trump's assertion (Chart 4). In that way, Trump's doctrine is similar to that of the Obama presidency. Both recognize that the U.S. can no longer act unilaterally and that it must retrench from its global responsibilities. But while Obama sought to enhance U.S. power by relying on allies and supranational organizations, Trump seeks to withdraw into Fortress America and geopolitically deleverage. Such a deleveraging, when combined with mercantilism, may cause America's traditional allies to try harder for its approval, like Trump assumes, or it may push America's traditional allies away from Washington's orbit. Chart 3Mercantilism Makes The EU A 'Bad Guy' Chart 4American Power In Relative Decline Bottom Line: President Trump believes in a "what can you do for me" world.5 This world has no room for twentieth-century alliances, which did not anticipate the disenchantment and polarization of the American public (or the benefit of Trump's wisdom!) in their original design. Transatlantic Drift The most important feature of the Trump Doctrine is that it seeks to replace transatlantic links between the U.S. and Europe with bilateral, ad-hoc alliances. The one such alliance that has received much media attention is the thaw between the U.S. and Russia. To be clear here, we are very much aware that many U.S. presidents have had deep disagreements with Europe and that every president since Reagan has tried to thaw relations with Russia early in his presidency. However, Trump is different in that he is the first U.S. president to: Openly question the very existence of NATO; Openly oppose European integration;6 Openly engage in mercantilist trade policies towards allies while simultaneously undermining geopolitical alliances with them. The problem with this course of action is that other countries will pursue alternative economic and security relationships to hedge against America's perceived lack of commitment, or outright hostility. Japan and South Korea, for example, concerned that they may face tariffs and a drop in U.S. military support, will need to turn more friendly toward China to avoid conflict and access new consumer markets. The same goes for Europe, with Germany and others eager to substitute for the U.S. by selling more to China amid U.S.-China trade conflicts.7 Thus, if we are to take the Trump Doctrine to its conclusion, we end up with an American foreign policy that pushes Eurasia towards the kind of integration - if not exactly alliance - that Mackinder feared. Since greater Eurasian coordination could eventually develop into a dynamic of its own, this process directly contravenes the second tenet of American grand strategy: Prevent any one power from dominating Eurasia. But wait, Trump supporters will cry, Trump is going to throw a wrench in Eurasian coordination by allying with Russia! No, he won't. Russia and America will not be allies. At best, they will be friends with benefits. The two countries have no shared economic interests. Russia sees both Europe and China as its economic partners. The former for supply of badly needed technology and investment (Chart 5), the latter as an energy market and another source of investment (Chart 6).8 Chart 5Russia Needs European Technology ... Chart 6... And Chinese Energy Demand Russian policymakers may be cheering Trump for the moment, but that is only because he brings relief from the extremely anti-Kremlin policies of the Obama (and potentially Hillary Clinton) presidency. The Kremlin will take advantage of the change in the White House. Bear in mind, all that Russian policymakers know of the U.S. in recent memory is conflict and realpolitik: It was the U.S. that pushed for NATO to expand into Ukraine and Georgia. Chancellor Angela Merkel, in fact, vetoed those plans at the 2008 NATO Summit; It was the Bush Administration that pushed for Kosovo's independence in 2008; Both the Bush and Obama administrations sought to construct a ballistic missile defense shield on Russia's doorstop in Central and Eastern Europe. If Trump stumbles in the next four years, who is to say that Moscow won't have to deal with an antagonistic Washington by the end of 2020? Trump's olive branches will not alter Russian thinking about the country's long-term interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to do what is good for Russia, no matter how much he may think that Trump is a great guy to party with. And what is good for Russia is deeper economic integration with China and Europe. In fact, with the U.S. becoming an energy producer - and potentially a significant LNG exporter soon - America may become Russia's competitor for Europe's natural gas demand. Trump, his supporters and advisors, may believe that the twentieth century is over and that post-WWII American alliances have atrophied. They have! Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is no surprise that NATO is having an identity crisis when it no longer has a peer enemy to defend against. But geography has not changed. The U.S. is still far from Eurasia and Eurasia is still the "World Island." The Trump Doctrine ignores the entire twentieth century during which the U.S. had to intervene in Europe twice, and Asia three times, at a huge cost of blood and treasure, due to the threat of the continent unifying under a single hegemon. The international organizations that the U.S. set up after the Second World War, including NATO and the EU but also the UN, IMF, and others, were created to ensure that the U.S. did not have to intervene in Europe again. The security alliance and commercial system in Asia Pacific served a similar purpose. Bottom Line: Trans-oceanic alliances and organizations are not vestiges of a past that has changed, but vestiges of a geography that is immutable. The Trump Doctrine, such as it is, threatens to undermine an imperative of American hegemony. If pursued to its professed conclusion, it will therefore end American hegemony. Eurasian Alliance How can Europe, Russia, and China overcome their vast differences and unite in an anti-American alliance? It is not easy, but nor is it impossible. Russian point of view: The U.S. remains Russia's chief strategic threat. Sino-Russian distrust and tensions are overstated, as we discussed in a 2014 Special Report.9 Russia depends on China and Germany for 32% of its imports and 17% of its exports (Chart 7). It is deeply integrated with both economies. The U.S., meanwhile is about as relevant for the Russian economy as Poland in terms of imports and as Belarus in terms of exports. China's point of view: The U.S. is also China's chief strategic threat - and probably the only thing standing between China and regional hegemony over the course of this century. For China, integrating with the denizens of Eurasia makes a lot of sense. First, it would allow China to avoid the folly of competing with the U.S. in direct naval and maritime conflict. Overland transportation routes - which Beijing seeks to develop via its ambitious "The Silk Road Economic Belt" project - will bypass China's contentious and cramped South and East China Seas. Second, Europe has everything China needs from the U.S. (technology, aircraft, IT), and could offer them at discount rates due to a weak euro and general economic malaise (entire continent is for sale, at a discount!). Third, neither Europe nor Russia care what China does with its neighborhood in East Asia. If China wants to take some shoal from the Philippines, Berlin and Moscow will be okay with that. Europe's point of view: The European Union has never spent much time thinking seriously about the U.S. as a threat to its existence. The possibility, at very least, will promote efforts at economic substitution. Europe and Russia must overcome their differences over Ukraine in order to cooperate again. However, as we pointed out above, it was not Europe that sought to integrate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, it was the United States. Europe needs Russian energy and Russia needs Europe's technology and investment. As long as they delineate where each sphere of influence begins and ends, which they have done before (in 1917 and 1939 if anyone is still counting!) they will be fine. Finally, trade with emerging markets is already more important for the EU than with the U.S. (Chart 8). And China remains a major potential growth market for EU products. Chart 7U.S. No Substitute For Russian Partners Chart 8Europe Relies On EM More Than U.S. We do not think that a formal EU-Russia-China axis is around the corner, or even likely. However, if the U.S. should pursue a policy of undermining its transatlantic and transpacific alliances, cheerleading the dissolution of the EU, and treating foes and allies equally when it comes to trade protectionism, the probability that it faces a united front from Eurasia increases. We are not sure that the Trump Administration understands this, or even cares. From what we can tell right now, the Trump White House is singularly focused on trade and commercial matters. It is mercantilist, pure and simple. But geopolitics is not a single dimension. It is like a game of three-dimensional chess. Foreign policy and security are on the top chess board, trade and economic matters are in the middle, and domestic politics are played on the bottom board. When the Trump administration threatens the "One China" policy or encourages EU dissolution because the bloc has "overshot its mark," it corners its counterparts on the geopolitical and political chess boards for the sake of trade and commercial interests. This is a mistake. Europe and China will give up chess pieces on the economic board to preserve their position on the geopolitical and political boards. In other words, Trump's strategy of tough-nosed negotiations - which he learned in the global real estate sector - will only strengthen opposition against the U.S. in the real world. We don't think that Trump is playing three-dimensional chess. He is singularly focused on America's economy and commercial interests and his own domestic political coalition. This is unique in post-World War Two American foreign policy. Ronald Reagan, who cajoled Japan and West Germany into the 1985 Plaza Accord, did so because both Berlin and Tokyo understood they owed their security to America. If Reagan threatened to withdraw America's security commitment to either, he would not have gotten the economic deal he wanted. Bottom Line: If pursued to its logical conclusion, the Trump Doctrine will end U.S. hegemony. Trump's foreign policy has raised a specter, however faint at present, which has not been seen since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Russia and Germany in 1939: a united Eurasian continent marshalling all its human, natural, and technological resources against the U.S. The last time that happened, 549,865 U.S. lives were needed to preserve American hegemony, not to mention the global cost in blood and treasure. Investment Implications In our 2017 Strategic Outlook we posited that investors should get used to the revival of charismatic authority.10 We borrow the concept from German sociologist Max Weber, who identified it in his seminal essay, "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule."11 Weber argues that legal-rational authority flows from the institutions and laws that define it, not the individuals holding the office. Today, we are seeing the revival of charismatic authority, which Weber defined as flowing from the extraordinary characteristics of an individual. Such leaders are difficult to predict as they often rise to power precisely because of their opposition to the institutions and laws that define the legal-rational authority. The Trump Doctrine is one example of how charismatic authority can lead to uncertainty. Twentieth century institutions may be flawed, but they have underpinned and continue to underpin American hegemony. The U.S. cannot, at the same time, maintain global hegemony, pursue mercantilist commercial policy, and seek to undermine its global alliances. The Trump White House threatens to push allies and foes, pursuing their own interests, to work in concert to isolate the United States. Perhaps President Trump and his advisors are comforted by the fact that the U.S. has always profited from global chaos. The U.S. benefits from being surrounded by two massive oceans, Canada, and the Sonora-Chihuahuan deserts. Following both the First and Second World Wars, the U.S.'s relative geopolitical power skyrocketed (Chart 9). This is why Trump's election led us to believe that global multipolarity would peak in the coming year and set the stage for an American revival.12 Chart 9The U.S. Benefits From Global Chaos However, to maintain primacy while sowing global discord, the U.S. needs more than just Anglo-Saxon allies in the world. It needs an anchor in Eurasia, which is and always will be Europe. Without an anchor, Trump's policies will not sow discord, they will create concord, and unite the "World Island" against America. That is why it is important to see how the Trump Doctrine develops in terms of real policy, as opposed to a year's worth of mostly campaign statements. Already the administration has made some appropriate noises about standing "100% behind NATO" and having an "ironclad commitment" to Japan. But make no mistake, Trump's open doubts have reverberated farther and deeper than these minimal reassurances. It is critical to monitor how the Trump administration approaches NATO, the EU, and bilateral negotiations with key partners. We are already seeing evidence of serious coordination - particularly between Germany and China - that could be a counterweight to U.S. power in the marking. These two outcomes - renewed U.S. hegemony, or U.S. downfall - are essentially binary and it is too soon to know which will prevail. What is the probability of downfall? It is low, but rising. If Trump does not adjust his foreign policy - or, barring that, if the U.S. Congress or American foreign policy, defense, and intelligence establishment do not "correct" Trump's course - then U.S. hegemony will begin to unravel. And with it will go a range of "certainties" underpinning global economic growth and trade, including the U.S. dollar's reserve currency status. If America loses its hegemony, one victim may be the U.S. dollar's role as a safe haven asset. The notion that the greenback is a safe-haven asset even when the chief global risks emanate from the U.S. will be tested. We recommend that long-term investors diversify into other currencies, including the Swiss franc, euro, and, of course, gold. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Interest Of America In Sea Power: Present And Future (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1918). 2 Mahan, The Influence Of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, 15th ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1949). 3 Halford John Mackinder, Democratic Ideals And Reality: A Study In The Politics Of Reconstruction, 15th ed. (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1996). 4 Trump has surprised U.S. ally Japan by coupling it with China in some of his statements threatening tariffs. Meanwhile Peter Navarro, chief of the new National Trade Council, has recently accused Germany of currency manipulation and structural trade imbalances. Please see Shawn Donnan, "Trump's top trade adviser accuses Germany of currency exploitation," Financial Times, January 31, 2017 available at www.ft.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Trump has said that the U.K. was "smart" to leave the EU, and has expressed indifference to the existence of the EU and a belief that "others will leave" following the U.K. Please see "Full Transcript of Interview with Donald Trump," The Times of London, January 16, 2017, available at www.thetimes.co.uk. Also, the aforementioned Professor Malloch, potential U.S. Ambassador to the EU, said in his interview with the BBC that "Trump believes that the European Union has in recent decades been tilted strongly and most favorably towards Germany" and that "the EU has overshot its mark." 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Embrace Of The Dragon And The Bear," dated April 11, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Max Weber, "The Three Types Of legitimate Rule," Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4 (1) (1958): 1-11. Translated by Hans Gerth. Originally published in German in the journal Preussiche Jahrbücher 182, 1-2 (1922). 12 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Table 1Recommended Allocation The Reflation Trade Continues It is wrong to think that the recent rally in risk assets is mainly due to the election of President Donald Trump. Yes, since November 8, U.S. equities have risen by 7% and global equities by 3%. But the rally began as long ago as February last year, and since then U.S. and global equities have risen by 25% and 20% respectively. A more useful narrative is that the U.S. went through a "mini-recession" in late 2015/early 2016 (as indicated by the manufacturing ISM and credit spreads, Chart 1). Since then, assets have moved as they typically do in the first year of a cyclical recovery: small caps, cyclicals and value stocks have outperformed, bond yields risen, and equity multiples expanded in anticipation of a recovery in earnings. Expectations of Trump's fiscal stimulus and deregulation merely gave that momentum an extra boost. Our view is that global economic growth is likely to continue to accelerate. With the U.S. now at full employment, wage growth should rise further (Chart 2). Trump's policies are igniting animal spirits among companies, whose capex intentions have jumped sharply (Chart 3). U.S. real GDP growth this year could be 2.5-3%, somewhat above the consensus forecast of 2.3%. Meanwhile, Europe is growing above trend, and China will continue for a while longer to see the effects from last year's massive monetary stimulus (Chart 4). Chart 1One Year On From A Mini Recession Chart 2Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate Chart 3Comapanies' Animal Spirits On The Rise Chart 4China's Reflation Still Coming Through In the short term, a correction is possible: the rally looks technically over-extended, and investors have begun to notice that in addition to "good Trump" (tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending), there is also a "bad Trump" (market unfriendly measures such as immigration control, confrontation with China, and arbitrary interference in companies' investment decisions). But, on a 12-month view, our expectations of accelerating growth and only a moderate rise in inflation imply that the "sweet spot" for risk assets will continue, and so we maintain the overweight on equities and underweight on bonds we instituted in late November. What could end the reflation trade? The main risks we see (and the reasons we don't think they are serious enough to derail the rally for now) are: Extreme moves by the new U.S. administration. The biggest risk is a confrontation with China over trade. Our view is that Trump will use the threat of recognizing Taiwan to force concessions out of China. A precedent is the way the U.S. handled its trade deficit with Japan in the 1980s (note that new U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was deputy USTR at the time). China is unlikely to accept significant currency appreciation, understanding how this caused a bubble in Japan. But it might agree to voluntary export restrictions, to increasing investment in the U.S., opening the Chinese market more to foreign companies, and to stimulating domestic consumption, as Japan did in the 1980s (Chart 5). This may even chime with how Xi Jinping wants to reform the economy, though missteps by the U.S. could force him into a nationalistic position. Fiscal policy fails. The details of tax cuts are complex: alongside lowering the headline rate of corporate tax to 15% or 20%, for example, Republicans are discussing a border-adjustment tax, one-year depreciation, and an end of the tax offset for interest payments. Infrastructure spending won't happen quickly either, not least since it is disliked by Republican fiscal hawks (who are much less averse to tax cuts). BCA's geopolitical strategists, however, believe that Trump will able to get a program of personal and corporate tax cuts through Congress by August. Economic (and earnings) growth stumble. While corporate and consumer sentiment have picked up recently, hard data has not yet. U.S. 4Q GDP growth of only 1.9%, for example, was disappointing. Earnings growth will need to recover this year to justify elevated multiples. EPS growth for the S&P500 stocks in Q4 2016 looks to have been around 4% YoY according to FactSet. Stocks might fall if earnings do not come in somewhere close to the 12% that the bottom-up consensus forecasts for 2017. Inflation risks rise, triggering the Fed and the European Central Bank to rush to tighten monetary policy. Core U.S. PCE inflation, at 1.7% YoY, is not far below the Fed's 2% target and inflation could accelerate as fiscal policy stimulates an economy where slack has already disappeared. However, it is likely to take some time for inflation expectations to rise, and over the past few months core PCE inflation has, if anything, slowed (Chart 6). We expect the Fed to raise rates three times this year (compared to market expectations of twice) but not to move faster than that. German inflation, at 1.9% YoY, is starting to get uncomfortably high too, but the ECB will probably continue to set policy with more focus on the periphery, especially Italy. Chart 5When U.S. Pushed Japan In The 1980's Chart 6Inflation Has Been Slow To Pick Up Equities: We prefer U.S. equities over European ones in common currency terms. This is partly because we expect further U.S. dollar appreciation. But we also remained concerned about the structural weakness in the European banking system, and by the higher volatility of eurozone equities. Moreover, European earnings will not be boosted by currency depreciation as much as will Japanese earnings, since the euro has hardly weakened on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 7). We continue to like Japanese equities (with a currency hedge). The Bank of Japan remains committed to an overshoot of its 2% inflation target, which should weaken the yen and boost earnings. We are underweight Emerging Market equities: structural vulnerabilities remain, and the inverse correlation with the U.S. dollar is intact. Chart 7Euro Hasn't Weakened Much Fixed Income: For now, U.S. 10-year Treasury bonds are at around fair value. But we expect the yield to rise moderately further, as growth and inflation pick up, to about 3% by year-end. Yields on eurozone government bonds will also rise, but not by as much. This means that global sovereigns could produce a YoY negative return for the first time since 1994. In the U.S. we continue to prefer TIPS over nominal bonds: inflation expectations are still 30-40 bps below a normalized level (Chart 8). With risk assets likely to outperform, we recommend exposure to spread product, but find investment grade bonds more attractively valued than high-yield. Currencies: Short term, the dollar has probably overshot and could correct. But growth and interest rate differentials (Chart 9) suggest that the dollar will appreciate further until such time as Europe and Japan can contemplate raising rates. Additionally, if the proposal of a border-adjustment tax looks like becoming reality, the dollar could appreciate sharply: a BAT of 20% would theoretically be offset by a 25% rise in the dollar. The yen is likely to depreciate further (perhaps back to JPY125 against the dollar) as the Bank of Japan successfully maintains its target of a 0% 10-year government bond yield. The euro will fall by less, especially if the market begins to worry about ECB tapering in the face of rising inflation. Chart 8TIPS Have Further to Go Room To Rise Chart 9Interest Rate Differentials Suggest Stronger Dollar Commodities: The supply/demand picture for industrial metals looks roughly balanced for the year, with Chinese demand likely to remain robust, suppliers more disciplined, but the stronger dollar acting as a headwind. In the oil market, Saudi Arabia and Russia seem to be sticking to their commitment to cut supply, but U.S. shale oil producers are filling the gap, with the rig count up 23% in Q4 over the previous quarter. We continue to expect crude oil to average US$55 a barrel for the next two years. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)
Highlights The DXY correction has a bit more to run as G10 economic surprises are likely to roll over. EM-related plays like commodity currencies can rally for a few more months, but the outlook for 2017 is troublesome. China is at risk of a deceleration. Global liquidity is tightening. Protectionism is rising. Feature Dollar Correction: It Ain't Over 'til It's Over Can the dollar correction advance further, or is the dollar bull market about to resume? We prefer to position ourselves for additional dollar weakness in the coming months. Despite persistently high bond yields, the DXY is still softening. It is being dragged down by a euro supported by strong economic news such as this week's Belgian business confidence, our favorite bellwether for the euro area. The pound too continues to show some vigor, which is also a byproduct of economic data pointing toward better growth (Chart I-1). We expect the support for the greenback from higher Treasury yields to be temporary. Momentum in U.S. 10-year government bond yields is driven by G10 economic surprises (Chart I-2). Currently, economic surprises are flirting with the upper end of their distribution of the past 12 years. Chart I-1The British Economy Is Picking Up Chart I-2G10 Economic Surprises Drive Treasury Yields Accentuating the odds of a rollover in surprises are two factors: First, as bond yields and risk-asset prices attest, investors are revising their growth expectations upward, lifting the hurdle for data to surprise to the upside. Second, having expanded for 10 months, the global credit impulse has experienced its longest upswing in a decade. Yet, the increase in global borrowing costs, along with the widening in cross-currency basis swap spreads, points to tightening global liquidity conditions, a poison for the credit cycle (Chart I-3). As credit slows, the economy will deteriorate. Chart I-3The Credit Cycle Is Stretched This means that the key factor that has supported the stronger dollar in recent months - higher U.S. yields - will begin to dissipate, putting downward pressure on the USD. Finally, our dollar capitulation index, after hitting overbought conditions, is now falling. Moreover, it currently stands below its 13-week moving average, conditions under which the greenback has recorded an average 8.1% annualized weekly loss since 1994, and an average 5.3% annualized weekly loss since 2011 (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Negative Momentum For The Dollar We continue to play this correction by shorting USD/JPY. As we have pointed out before, USD/JPY remains a function of the level of global bond yields (Chart I-5). Additionally, a negative surprise in global growth is likely to hurt risk assets. To conclude with the favorable backdrop for the yen, the high degree of uncertainty created by the seemingly erratic policy changes of the new Trump administration suggests that equity implied volatility remains too low. After all, we do not know what changes will hit global tax regimes, what the Fed policy will look like, nor how protectionist Trump will really be. Imbedding a premium for these risks will require higher equity implied vols. A higher VIX tends to support the yen against the USD (Chart I-6). Chart I-5USD/JPY And G10 Bond Yields Chart I-6The Yen Likes Uncertainty Bottom Line: The correction in the dollar should continue, as bond yields still have downside on a one- to three-month basis. The yen remains the best-placed currency to take advantage of these dynamics, especially if risk assets experience a correction. Focus - Emerging Markets and Liquidity: A March To The Scaffold This week, we re-examine our bearish view on emerging markets, a key theme underpinning our bearish stance on commodity currencies. EM assets, and therefore commodity currencies, have outperformed our expectations, reflecting the percolation of previous positive economic surprises in EM relative to the U.S. (Chart I-7). EM and commodity currencies are priced for perfection, with the risk-reversals on EM currencies displaying elevated levels of optimism (Chart I-8). For EM and commodity currencies to rally further, EM economies need to continue to outperform durably. This requires the Chinese economy and the global liquidity backdrop to only improve further. Can this happen? Chart I-7Surprise Beat In EM Versus The U.S. Has ##br##Helped EM And Commodity Currencies Chart I-8EM And Commodity Currencies ##br##Priced For Perfection While the next month or two may continue to generate generous returns for EM-related plays, the rest of 2017 may not prove as kind. The China Syndrome Let's begin with China. The recent upsurge in metal prices has reflected an improvement in Chinese economic activity (Chart I-9). As we have pinpointed before, the Keqiang index is near cycle highs, and, Chinese railway freight volumes have been growing at their fastest pace since 2010. This situation is unlikely to continue much longer. The upsurge in Chinese commodity intake - metals in particular - has been fueled by a vigorous rebound in Chinese real estate construction. However, Chinese real estate price appreciation has hit dangerous levels, and the authorities are already leaning against it, with the PBoC increasing rates by 10 basis points this week. The roll-over in Chinese real estate activity should deepen Chart I-10), hurting commodity prices - particularly iron ore, steel and copper - and commodity currencies along the way. Chart I-9China's Rebound Explains ##br##The Metals Rally Chart I-10The Risk Of A China Real Estate ##br##Slowdown Is Growing Moreover, some of the upswing in Chinese economic activity was also related to large amounts of fiscal stimulus in that nation. In mid-2015, the Middle Kingdom was inching ever closer to a hard landing, prompting a panicked Beijing to boost fiscal support and to speed up the roll-out of US$1.2 trillion of infrastructure public-private partnerships. Today, this fiscal hand-out is fading (Chart I-11). This could once again cause industrial activity and investments to weaken as Chinese capacity utilization remains near recession troughs. The recent disappointing investment growth reading in the latest Chinese GDP release could be a harbinger of this reality. Finally, as we have highlighted last week, Chinese monetary conditions have massively improved as Chinese producer-price inflation rebounded, pushing down Chinese real rates in the process. However, with commodity price inflation set to slow - courtesy of a dissipating base effect and of last year's dollar rally - Chinese PPI should roll over, pulling up real rates and tightening monetary conditions (Chart I-12). A tightening in Chinese monetary conditions represents a big problem for EM as it portends a slowdown in economic activity (Chart I-13). This will ultimately lead to a big drag on DM commodity producers, as EM commodity intake decreases, pushing down the likes of the AUD, CAD, and NZD as their terms of trade suffer. Chart I-11Fading Chinese##br## Fiscal Stimulus Chart I-12Commodity Inflation Will Peak, ##br##So Will Chinese Inflation Chart I-13Tightening China Monetary Conditions##br## Will Hurt EM Economic Activity Bottom Line: In early 2016, global markets were not positioned for a rebound in Chinese economic activity. Yet, Chinese industrial activity improved, resulting in a rebound in EM assets, commodity prices, and commodity currencies. The crackdown on real estate activity, the removal of Chinese fiscal stimulus, and the expected tightening in Chinese monetary conditions should result in a reversal of these trends, hurting commodity producers and their currencies in the process. Global Liquidity In Retreat While China represents a problem for EM plays and commodity currencies, deteriorating global liquidity could prove an even stronger hurdle. Our tactical expectation of a lower dollar and lower rates may support EM plays temporarily, but the cyclical outlook remains grim. To begin with, EM economies are dependent on global liquidity as they run a current account deficit expected to hit US$140 billion in 2017, or US$400 billion if China is excluded. Moreover, they sport large external debts of US$4.8 trillion, excluding Taiwan and China. Especially worrisome are the large funding requirements of many EM countries, especially for Turkey, Malaysia, and Colombia. (Chart I-14). Chart I-14EM Debt Vulnerability Ranking Why is this a problem? Two reasons: Global Interest rates and the dollar. Global Interest rates, driven by higher Treasury yields, are rising as the U.S.'s economic slack vanishes, suggesting that the current tightening campaign by the Fed will be durable (Chart I-15). Higher U.S. rates lift the U.S. dollar against EM currencies, tightening EM liquidity conditions. But an unrelated shock is also putting exogenous upward pressure on the dollar. This force is the widening in LIBOR spreads (Chart I-16). This is the result of the regulation-related 90% melt down in the asset under management of U.S. prime money-market funds, an important source of global dollar liquidity. Moreover, U.S. banks, with their balance sheets under pressure by the binding constraints of Basel III, have not been able to fill the gap. Chart I-15The Fed has A Green Light To Hike Chart I-16Stresses In The Libor Market Remain The end result has been a widening of cross-currency basis swap spreads, which usually tends to boost the dollar (Chart I-17). This phenomenon increases the hedging costs to foreign investors of holding U.S. dollar assets. These investors become increasingly tolerant of purchasing U.S. assets unhedged, pushing up the value of the dollar in the process. This is best illustrated by the fact that net portfolio investments in the U.S. moved from a deficit of US$300 billion in Q1 2015 to a surplus of more than US$550 billion. Yet, hedges put in place, as approximated by the BIS's volume of OTC FX derivatives, have flat-lined since 2013 (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Widening Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads Equals A Higher Dollar Chart I-18Hedging Activity is Receding A rising dollar and LIBOR stresses are tightening global dollar liquidity, creating a big problem for EM. Wider-than-normal cross-currency basis swap spreads have been associated with declining global trade (Chart I-19). The stronger dollar plays a role, as it hurts the price of globally-traded good prices. Also, higher borrowing costs result in a mild disintermediation of global trade flows. As physical exports are 26% of EM GDP versus 13% for the U.S., this represents a huge drag on EM currencies, especially versus the USD. As a corollary, it is also a problem for the small open commodity producing DM economies like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand. Furthermore, the strength in the dollar associated with LIBOR shocks further hurts EM domestic economies by impeding EM credit growth (Chart I-20). The combined assault of a stronger dollar and higher rates increases the cost of EM foreign debt. Also, according to the BIS, between 2002 and 2014, 55% of EM commodity producers' debt issuance has been in USD.1 When the dollar rises, they see both their borrowing costs rise and the prices of the products they sell fall. Altogether, these forces preempt capex and credit accumulation in EM nations. Chart I-19Tightening Global Liquidity##br##Is Bad For Trade Chart I-20A Stronger Dollar Will Hamper##br## EM Credit Growth Bottom Line: The global liquidity backdrop is deteriorating. DM rates are rising cyclically, which is lifting the dollar. Moreover, a global dollar shortage is also supporting the greenback, further hurting EM liquidity conditions. Thus, we expect EM growth to deteriorate, hurting EM assets and commodity currencies. Protectionism The final issue affecting EM economies is the rise of protectionism, especially in the United States. EM - Asia and China in particular - have been the main beneficiaries of globalization (Chart I-21). Currently, they are in the line of sight of President Trump. Thus, we expect that any potential trade war between the U.S. and the rest of the world will focus on EM economies and China. Chart I-21EM And Asia Are In Trump's Line Of Sight EM are much more dependent on the U.S. than the other way around. As an example, China's exports to the U.S account for 3.5% of Chinese GDP, while U.S. exports to China account for less than 1% of U.S. GDP. EM economies have a lot more to lose from a trade war than the U.S. Because of this imbalance in relative trade-exposures, EM economies are at risk from the border-adjustment tax being discussed in the U.S. These taxes would be very deflationary for EM economies as they could force a downward adjustment in EM labor costs and further depress capex in these nations. To ease these adjustments, falling EM exchange rates would be required. Once again, commodity currencies would suffer from these developments. First, lower capex in EM hurts Australian, New Zealand, or Canadian terms of trade. Second, lower EM exchange rates means that that exports from the dollar bloc to EM would suffer. Finally, and most perversely, lower EM exchange rates will give EM commodity producers an advantage versus DM producers, in that a stronger U.S. dollar means their local-currency costs are falling. EM commodity producers would keep producing more than warranted, putting additional downward pressure on commodity prices and stealing market shares from the dollar bloc producers. This is not a pretty picture. Bottom Line: EM should bear the brunt of the pain of any rise in U.S. protectionism. The tight link between EM economies and DM commodity producers suggests that this pain should adversely affect the AUD, the CAD, and the NZD. Risks To Our View Chart I-22Chinese Tariffs Are Falling The biggest risk to our view is a redoubling of Chinese fiscal stimulus. The threat of U.S. tariffs and trade sanctions is obviously deflationary and negative for the Chinese economy. We know this, as do the relevant powers in Beijing. A tool to mitigate any of these negative repercussions on the Chinese economy might be for Beijing to press on the gas pedal once more. Additionally, as our colleague Yan Wang wrote in this week's China Investment Strategy, key members of the new U.S. administration have been on record saying that the threat of tariffs is not an end game, but rather a negotiating tool to extract concessions from U.S. trade partners, implying a potentially more pragmatic stance from the U.S. than current rhetoric suggests.2 Moreover, the Chinese side of the negotiation table is also more open minded than most observers fear. China has been cutting its own tariffs and could continue to do so (Chart I-22). Moreover, Premier Li Keqiang has made a new pledge to move faster toward opening and liberalizing Chinese markets for access by foreign companies. A deal may be less elusive than feared. Finally, regarding the global liquidity deterioration, the recent rebound in gold and silver prices may be a harbinger of improving liquidity conditions globally. We doubt that the economic situation will let this rally be durable, but it remains something to monitor. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Bruno Valentina, and Hyun Song Shin, "Global Dollar Credit And Carry Trades: A Firm-level Analysis", BIS, Working Papers, August 205. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard", dated January 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed this week. The labor market saw both continuing and initial jobless claims rise above expectations. However, the economy is still near full employment and the Fed will not respond to this news. Furthermore, the Beige Book, released last week, also highlights that the U.S. economy remains resilient with employment and pricing activity particularly strong. This week the DXY broke through the key 100 level, as the market continues to reprice capricious assumptions of Trump's policies. Nevertheless, it has rebounded since then. The dollar is unlikely to see any real movement until the administration releases concrete information about its policies. For the time being, the Fed also seems to be on the sidelines in anticipation of more information. Report Links: U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017 - January 20, 2017 Update On A Tumultuous Year - January 6, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Although the euro area has seen a brighter economic environment as of late, this week's data has been mixed: German and overall euro area services and composite PMI underperformed, while manufacturing PMI outperformed consensus. The IFO Business Climate and Expectations both underperformed consensus, while the Current Assessment remained in line with consensus. All measures still remain over 100. Finally, Belgian Business Confidence accelerated sharply. The ECB is unlikely to change its dovish stance. The euro will therefore see little upside. The recent uptrend in EUR/USD is due to dollar weakness, but the recent downtrend in EUR/GBP and EUR/SEK indicate that the market is not necessarily hopeful that the ECB will reach its inflation target anytime soon. Report Links: GBP: Dismal Expectations - January 13, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data indicates that last year's sharp depreciation of the yen is helping the Japanese economy: Exports increased by 5.4% YoY, crushing expectations of 1.2% growth. Nikkei Manufacturing PMI reached 52.8, also beating expectations. In November machinery orders grew by more than 10% YoY. The BoJ will be more resolute on its radical monetary measures, as recent data shows that their approach is working. This will prove very bearish for the yen on a cyclical basis, given that the cap in Japanese rates will cause the rate differential between the U.S. and Japan to widen. In the short term, USD/JPY will resume its correction. We estimate that USD/JPY will cease to be attractive as a short opportunity at around 110. Report Links: Update On A Tumultuous Year - January 6, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Party Likes It's 1999 - November 25, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, requiring a parliamentary vote to authorize the exit of the U.K. from the European Union. This news is an added boon for cable, which has surged by almost 5% after bottoming at 1.20 about 10 days ago. As political risks start to dissipate, and the currency trades more on economic fundamentals, the pound should become a more attractive buy, particularly against the euro, given that the U.K. economy should outperform the market's dismal expectations. Recent data supports this view: Average earning growth outperformed expectations in November. GDP growth was 2.2% YoY in Q4, also outperforming expectations. Furthermore, short-term technicals point to a stronger pound. EUR/GBP has broken through its 100-day moving average, which indicates that momentum should continue to drive this cross downwards for the time being. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Two weeks ago, we argued that the rally in AUD lacks fundamental domestic causes. This week, the momentum of the recent AUD rally, caused by rising iron ore and copper prices, has seemingly paused. Exacerbating this change of pace is recent data which indicates a weak economic backdrop: the RBA trimmed mean CPI, and the more common CPI measure, underperformed consensus at both a quarterly and yearly pace. This could be due to depressed consumer sentiment, as the labor market remains mired in a slump, with the unemployment rate increasing to 5.8%, and total hours worked falling. Given recent data, it is likely that markets reprice growth prospects in Australia. U.S. trade policies could also potentially curtail global trade, painting a bearish picture for AUD. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The Kiwi has appreciated 4.4% since the start of 2017. Although this rally might eventually be limited against the U.S. dollar, the NZD will likely have more upside against its crosses, particularly the AUD. Indeed it seems that low inflation, one of the only sore spots for the RBNZ in an otherwise stellar kiwi economy, has turned the corner, surging to 1.3% on the latest reading Wednesday. More importantly, not only did inflation beat expectations but it also surpassed 1% for the first time since 2014. This is a significant development, given that persistently low inflation in New Zealand was keeping the dovish bias of the RBNZ. With this hurdle gone, and an economy that continues to be the best performing in the G10, this dovish bias should disappear, which will ultimately lift the NZD against its crosses. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Despite the dissipating oil slump, potential risks may weigh on Canada's future. These risks are likely to emanate from an international sphere. Key concerns revolve around U.S. policies: recent statements have increased yields and tightened financial conditions, but global trade worries are not fully priced in. Recent news indicates that Trump has no ill-intentions aimed at Canada, however, protectionist policies could hurt global trade, indirectly curtailing Canadian exports. A U.S. corporate tax cut can also deviate investment from Canada to the U.S. The recent appreciation in the CAD against major currencies can also hurt Canadian competitiveness going forward. As oil is likely to remain relatively stable in the near future, we may again see a disassociation of CAD with oil, and a continued tight relationship with interest rate spreads. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Yesterday, EUR/CHF fell below the crucial 1.07 level. As we have recommended many times, any time that this cross falls below this threshold, it becomes an excellent buying opportunity. The SNB has not been shy to intervene in the currency markets, and they have been very clear that they will not tolerate any currency strength past a certain threshold as it could add additional deflationary pressures to an economy that has not had a positive inflation rate since 2014. We have identified a level of 1.07 for EUR/CHF as this threshold. Moreover given that the euro is the currency of reference for interventions, the behavior of USD/CHF should roughly mirror the behavior of the dollar against the Euro. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The Norwegian Krone has rallied along other commodity currencies so far this year, in spite of the meek performance of oil over this timeframe. This surge might prove unsustainable in the short term, as USD/NOK is very close to oversold territory. In the long term, the outlook for the NOK is more positive, particularly against other commodity currencies. Rising oil prices resulting from the OPEC cuts should supercharge the already high inflationary pressures in the Norwegian economy. This factor will eventually push the Norges Bank off its dovish bias, and the NOK higher in the process. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The Swedish economy seems to be finally benefitting from last year's weaker krona; PPI numbers came in at 2.1% MoM, and 6.5% YoY, higher than previous numbers. This will feed into CPI in the near future. Additionally, 1-year, 2-year, as well as the important 5-year Prospera Inflation Expectations have all picked up, with the 5-year at 2%, in line with the Riksbank's target. The bank is aware of the krona's recent strength against major currencies, and realizes that it is important that the appreciation slows. In the short term, the SEK could continue to rally on the back of the dollar's correction and the Swedish economic outperformance vis-à-vis the euro area. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades
The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In January, the model outperformed global equities and the S&P 500 in USD terms, but underperformed in local-currency terms. For February, the model cut its weighting in stocks and increased its allocation to bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, the weightings to both the U.S. and emerging markets were decreased. The model boosted its allocation to French bonds at the expense of Swedish and Canadian paper. The risk index for stocks, as well as the one for bonds, deteriorated in January. Feature Performance In January, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 1.4% in local-currency terms, and 3.6% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 3.2% for the global equity benchmark and a 2% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we provide other suggestions on currency risk exposure from time to time. The performance of bonds was a detractor from the model's performance in local currency terms in January. Chart 1Model Weights Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Weights The model decreased its allocation to stocks from 57% to 53%, and upgraded its bond weighting from 43% to 47% (Table 1). Table 1Model Weights (As Of January 26, 2017) The model increased its equity allocation to France, Italy, and Sweden by one point each. Meanwhile, weightings were cut by 2 points in the U.S., and by 1 point in Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Emerging Asia, and Latin America. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to French paper was increased by 6 points and the U.K. by 1 point. The model cut its exposure to Swedish bonds by 2 points and Canadian bonds by 1 point. Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time we do provide our recommendations. The dollar weakened in January and our Dollar Capitulation Index fell close to neutral levels. Uncertainty over the size of the fiscal push by the U.S. administration could prolong the dollar's consolidation phase, especially if coupled with any negative economic surprises. However, this would only be a pause since continued monetary policy divergence should translate into another leg up in the dollar bull market (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The deterioration of the value and cyclical components led to a higher risk index for commodities. The model continues to shun this asset class (Chart 4). The risk index for global equities increased to a 3-year high in January due to the deterioration in the value indicator. While the global risk index for global bonds also deteriorated, it remains firmly in the low-risk zone. The model slightly decreased its allocation in equities to the benefit of bonds (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk Following the latest uptick in the risk index for U.S. equities, the allocation to this asset class was trimmed. U.S. stocks have been propped up by the growth-positive aspects of the new U.S. administration's policies and are at risk should this optimism deflate (Chart 6). The risk index for Canadian equities improved slightly in January as the better readings in the liquidity and momentum indicators offset continued worsening in value. That said, the overall risk index remains at the highest level in this business cycle. This asset remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Canadian Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.K. equities deteriorated, reaching a post-Brexit high. For the first time in over two years, the value component crossed into expensive territory (Chart 8) The model trimmed its allocation to Emerging Asian stocks following the slight uptick in the risk index. While the global reflationary pulse should bode well for this asset class, rumblings about protectionism threaten to de-rate growth expectations (Chart 9). Chart 8U.K. Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Emerging Asian Stock Market And Risk The unwinding of oversold conditions was the main reason behind the deterioration in the risk index for bonds in January. However, the latter is still in the low-risk zone as the bond-negative reading from the cyclical indicator remains overshadowed by the ongoing oversold conditions in the momentum indicator (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys deteriorated in January on the back of a less-stretched momentum indicator. While the cyclical backdrop is bond-bearish, there is arguably more room for scaling down optimism over the economy than there is to having an even more upbeat outlook. As a result, any resumption of the rise in Treasury yields could end up being very gradual (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The risk index for euro area government bonds also deteriorated in January, but unlike the U.S., it is in the high-risk zone. There are notable differences in the risk readings within euro area markets (Chart 12). Given the upcoming presidential elections, France is next in line in terms of investors' focus on political risks. French bonds are heavily oversold based on the momentum indicator, pushing the overall risk index lower. An unwinding of the risk premium would bode well for French bonds, which the model upgraded in January (Chart 13). Chart 12Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13French Bond Yields And Risk The risk index for Spanish government bonds ticked down slightly reflecting minor improvements in all three of its components. However, it remains much higher than the risk index for the French paper, which is preferred by the model (Chart 14). With the risk index little changed in January, Swiss government bonds remain in the high-risk zone. The model continues avoiding this asset which possesses negative yields (Chart 15). Chart 14Spanish Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15Swiss Bond Yields And Risk Currency Technicals The dollar depreciated after the 13-week momentum measure indicated last month that the greenback could face near-term resistance. Further consolidation cannot be ruled out, but the 40-week rate of change measure is not signaling an end to the dollar bull market. The monetary policy divergence between the Fed and its peers provides underlying support for the dollar, while heightened uncertainty on the fiscal front implies more volatility going forward (Chart 16). EUR/USD was not able to stay below 1.05. The short-term rate-of-change measure is approaching neutral levels, which could test the EUR/USD bounce. A risk-off episode or continued solid economic data are two factors that could provide some support for the euro in the near term (Chart 17). The 40-week rate of change measure for GBP/USD continues to hover near the most oversold level since 2000 (excluding the great recession). Meanwhile, the 13-week momentum measure crossed into positive territory, but is not extended. The pound will remain event-driven and possibly range-bound in the near term as the mood bounces within the hard Brexit / soft Brexit spectrum (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Euro Chart 18Sterling Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com
Highlights Undue pessimism about global growth is giving way to unbridled optimism. Chinese growth has accelerated. However, there is a risk that the economy hits a speed bump later in 2017, as fiscal policy becomes less accommodative, monetary policy is tightened in an effort to curb capital outflows, and recent steps by the authorities to crack down on rampant speculation in the property sector begin to bite. The threat of a trade war will also loom large. U.S. fiscal policy will remain stimulative, but may fail to live up to expectations: There is little appetite among Republicans for increasing infrastructure spending; the multiplier effects from the proposed tax changes are likely to be small; and many GOP leaders are already chomping at the bit to take an ax to government spending. Fortunately, the U.S. economy has enough momentum to continue growing solidly above trend, even if fiscal policy disappoints. This will allow the Fed to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is currently pricing in. Developed market equities are overbought and vulnerable to a correction, but will be higher 12 months from now. Favor Europe and Japan over the U.S. in local-currency terms. Stay underweight EM. Feature Global Growth Is Accelerating, But Headwinds Persist The global economy is on the mend. Measures of current activity are rebounding, as are a variety of leading economic indicators (Charts 1 and 2). Chart 1Global Economy ##br##Springing Back To Life Chart 2Global Leading Economic ##br##Indicators Are Improving Investors have taken notice: Market-based inflation expectations have risen, as have growth-sensitive commodity prices. Earnings growth expectations have surged, rising in the U.S. to nearly the highest level in a decade. Cyclical stocks have also bounced back, after having lagged the overall market for five years (Chart 3). We agree with the market's positive re-rating of global growth prospects, but worry that undue pessimism is starting to give way to excessive optimism. Two potential developments in particular could end up giving investors pause: A slowing of China's economy later this year. The possibility that U.S. fiscal policy will end up being less stimulative than expected. China: Living On Borrowed Time? Chinese growth has been surprising to the upside of late (Chart 4). Timely indicators such as excavator sales and railway freight traffic, which are well correlated with industrial activity, have been rising at a fast clip. Manufacturing inventory levels have come down, corporate profitability has improved, and producer price inflation has turned positive. The labor market has also picked up steam, as evidenced by the expansion in the employment subcomponents of the PMI indices. Chart 3Market's Positive Re-Rating Of Growth Prospects Chart 4Chinese Growth Has Been Surprising To The Upside Looking out, however, there are reasons to worry that the economy will weaken anew. Growth in government spending slowed from a high of 25% in November 2015 to nearly zero in December (Chart 5). Recent efforts by policymakers to clamp down on rampant property speculation could also cause the economy to cool. Meanwhile, capital continues to flee the country (Chart 6). This has put the government in a no-win situation: Raising domestic interest rates could entice more people to keep their money at home, but such a step could increase debt-servicing costs and undermine the country's creaky financial system. Chart 5China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Running Off Chart 6China: Ongoing Capital Outflows A Problem Of Inadequate Demand There is no shortage of commentary discussing the problems that ail China. Much of the analysis, however, has focused on the country's inefficient allocation of resources and other supply-side considerations. While these are obviously important issues, they overlook what has actually been the most significant binding constraint to growth: a persistent lack of aggregate demand. It has been this deficiency of demand - the flipside of a chronic excess of savings - that has kept the economy teetering on the edge of deflation. If a country suffers from excess savings, there are only three things that it can do. First, it can try to reduce savings by increasing consumption. The Chinese government has been striving to do that by strengthening the social safety net in the hopes that this will discourage precautionary savings. However, this is a slow process which will take many years to complete. Second, it can export those excess savings abroad by running a current account surplus. This would allow the country to save more than it invests domestically through the famous S-I=CA identity. The problem here is that no one wants to have a large current account deficit with China. Certainly not Donald Trump. Third, it can channel those excess savings into domestic investment. This is what China has done by pressing its banks to extend credit to state-owned companies and local governments. Remember that debt is the conduit through which savings is transformed into investment. From this perspective, China's high debt stock is just the mirror image of its high savings rate. The problem is that China already invests too much. Chart 7 shows that capacity utilization has been trending lower over the past six years and is back down to where it was during the Great Recession. The good news is that as long as there is plenty of savings around, Chinese banks will have enough liquid deposits on hand to extend fresh credit. The bad news is that there is no guarantee that borrowers taking on this debt will be able to repay it. This has made the Chinese economy increasingly sensitive to changes in financial conditions. And that sensitivity has, in turn, made global financial markets more fragile. Chart 8 shows that global equities have sold off whenever China stresses have flared up. The risk of another such incident remains high. Chart 7China: Capacity Utilization Back ##br##To Pre-Recession Levels Chart 8When China Has a Cold, ##br##Global Equities Sneeze China Trade War: The U.S. Holds The Trump Card Chart 9China Would Suffer More ##br##From A Trade War With The U.S. Adding to the pressure on China is the prospect of a trade war with the United States. Donald Trump has flip-flopped on almost every issue over the years, but he's been perfectly consistent on one: trade. Trump has always been a mercantilist at heart, and nothing that has happened since the election suggests otherwise. It is sometimes argued that the damage to the U.S. economy from a trade war with China would be so grave that Trump would not dare initiate one. This is wishful thinking. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for 3.5% of Chinese GDP, while U.S. exports to China account for only 0.6% of U.S. GDP (Chart 9). And much of America's exports to China are intermediate goods that are processed in China and then re-exported elsewhere. Blocking these exports would only hurt Chinese companies. Yes, China could threaten to dump its huge holdings of U.S. Treasurys. However, this is a hollow threat. The yield on Treasurys is largely determined by the expected path of short-term interest rates, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve. To be sure, the dollar would weaken if China started selling Treasurys. But why exactly is that a problem for the U.S.? Donald Trump wants a weaker dollar! In short, the U.S. would not lose much by provoking a trade war with China. Where does this leave us? The most likely outcome is that China blinks first and takes more concerted steps to open up its market to U.S. goods. This would hand Donald Trump a major political victory. However, the path from here to there is likely to be a very rocky one, which means that the reflation trade could suffer a temporary setback. A Trumptastic Fiscal Policy? Getting tough with China was one of Trump's key campaign promises; increasing infrastructure spending and cutting taxes was another. Unfortunately, investors may end up being disappointed both by how much fiscal stimulus is delivered and by the bang for the buck that it generates. For starters, much of Trump's proposed infrastructure program may never see the light of day. The $1 trillion ten-year program that he touted during the campaign was scaled back to $550 billion on his transition website. And even that may be too optimistic. Most Republicans in Congress have little interest in expanding public infrastructure spending. They opposed a big public works bill in 2009 when millions of construction workers were out of a job, and they will oppose one now. The public-private partnership structure that Trump's plan envisions will also limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Granted, the definition for what counts as public infrastructure could be expanded to include such things as hotels and casinos, to cite two completely random examples. But even if one ignores the obvious governance problems that this would raise, such a step could simply crowd out private investment that would otherwise have taken place. The reason that governments invest in infrastructure to begin with is because there are certain categories of public goods that do not lend themselves well to private ownership. To purposely exclude such goods from consideration, while devoting public funds to projects that the private sector is already perfectly capable of doing, is the height of folly. Trump And Taxes House Republicans are pursuing a sweeping tax reform agenda. There is much to like about their proposal. In particular, the shift to a cash flow destination-based tax system could encourage new investment over time, while making it more difficult for firms to carry out a variety of tax-dodging strategies. However, as with many major policy initiatives, the Republican tax proposal could generate significant near-term economic dislocations. Most notably, as we discussed in detail last week, the inclusion of a border adjustment tax could lead to a sharp appreciation in the dollar.1 This would benefit foreign holders of U.S. assets, but hurt debtors with dollar-denominated loans. Such an outcome could put stress on emerging markets, potentially undermining the global reflation trade. Trump's proposed cuts to personal income taxes may not boost spending by as much as some might hope. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the top one percent of income earners will see their after-tax incomes increase by 13.5%, while those in the middle quintile of the distribution will receive an increase of only 1.8% (Table 1). Since the very rich tend to save much of their income (Chart 10), measures which boost their disposable income may not translate into a substantial increase in spending. In fact, cutting the estate tax, as Trump has proposed, could actually depress spending by reducing the incentive for older households to blow through their wealth before the Grim Reaper (and The Taxman) arrive. Table 1Trump's Proposed Tax Cuts Would Largely Favor The Rich Chart 10Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Spending Cuts On The Horizon? Then there is the question of whether Congressional Republicans will try to take an ax to government spending. The Hill reported last week that several senior members of Trump's transition team have proposed a plan to cut federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next 10 years.2 The plan contains many of the same elements as the Republican Study Committee's Blueprint for a Balanced Budget, which called for $8.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade. Separately, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, has introduced legislation seeking large cuts to pension benefits. Under his plan, workers in their mid-thirties earning $50,000 per year would see a one-third reduction in lifetime Social Security payments.3 Paul Ryan and other Congressional Republicans have also begun to argue that the goal of health care reform should be to guarantee "universal access" to high-quality medical care, rather than "universal coverage." This is a bit like arguing that the goal of transportation policy should be to ensure that everyone has access to a Bentley, provided that they can pony up $200,000 to buy one. It remains to be seen whether President Trump will acquiesce to these changes. He has repeatedly insisted that no one will lose medical coverage under his administration. However, one of his first actions in office was to loosen the mandate that requires healthy individuals to purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Such a measure, however well intentioned, could greatly undermine the Act. If healthy people can wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance, only sick people will sign up. In order to cover their costs, insurance providers would have to raise premiums, ensuring that even fewer healthy people sign up. Such a vicious "adverse selection cycle," as economists call it, could lead to the collapse of health insurance exchanges, which currently provide coverage for 12.7 million Americans. Our guess is that Trump will ultimately put the kibosh on any plan to radically cut government spending or curtail Medicare and Social Security benefits. Say what you will of Trump, he has proven to be a skilled political operator for someone who has never been elected to public office. He knows that people were chanting "build the wall" at his rallies, not "cut my Medicare." Indeed, it is possible that Trumpcare will ultimately look a lot like Obamacare but with more generous subsidies for health care providers. Nevertheless, the path to this more benign investment outcome will be a bumpy one, suggesting that market volatility could rise in the months ahead. Investment Conclusions Chart 11DM Stocks Are Overbought Markets tend to swing from one extreme to another. This time last year, investors were fixated on secular stagnation. Now they are convinced that we are on the edge of a new global economic boom. Neither position is justified. Global growth has picked up, and this should provide a tailwind to risk assets over the next 12 months. However, as this week's discussion makes clear, there are still plenty of headwinds around. This suggests that the recovery will be a halting affair, with plenty of setbacks along the way. The surge in developed market equities since the U.S. presidential election has pushed stocks deep into overbought territory (Chart 11). A correction is likely over the next few weeks. We expect global equities to fall by 5%-to-10%, paving the way for higher returns over the remainder of the year. Once that recovery begins, European and Japanese stocks will outperform their U.S. counterparts in local-currency terms. We continue to expect EM equities to lag DM. In contrast to stocks, bond yields have already moved off their highs. As we discussed in our Strategy Outlook in early January, the transition from deflation to inflation will be a protracted one.4 Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for yields is to the upside. The Fed is likely to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is currently pricing in. This should be enough to keep the dollar bull market intact. We expect the trade-weighted dollar to rise another 5% by year-end, with the risk tilted to the upside if Congress ends up approving a border adjustment tax. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Alexander Bolton, "Trump Team Prepares Dramatic Cuts," The Hill, dated January 19, 2017. 3 Please see Stephen C. Goss memorandum to Sam Johnson, "Estimates Of The Financial Effects On Social Security Of H.R. 6489, The 'Social Security Reform Act Of 2016,' Introduced On December 8, 2016 By Representative Sam Johnson," Social Security Administration, Office Of The Chief Actuary (December 8, 2016). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades