財政

特別レポート

ハイライト ブラジルの年金改革が進行中です。今後12～18か月は、特に民営化と税制改革の面で好機となるウィンドウを提供します。 継続的な取り組みは短期的に「動物の精神」（アニマルスピリッツ）の改善を維持し、長期的には構造的改善の可能性を生むでしょう。 それでも、ブラジルの緩慢な経済回復は、ネガティブな対外的または国内ショックにより「失速速度」に陥る脆弱性を抱えています。 構造改革や景気循環が失速速度に達すると、金融市場は売りに転じます。 メリットとデメリットを勘案し、ブラジルをアンダーウェイトからニュートラルへと格上げします。 特集 年金改革は（最終的に）可決されるだろうが、その次は？ ブラジルの経済改革アジェンダに関する最近の進展は市場にとってポジティブですが、社会保障削減の可決が見込まれた後に改革の勢いが維持されない場合、明らかに「失速速度」1のリスクにさらされます。 下院をクリアした年金改革案は現在上院でも可決される可能性が高いです。第一回投票は近日中に行われる見込みで、政府の上院リーダーであるフェルナンド・ベゼラは、第二回投票が10月中旬までに可決されると見込んでいます（図 I-1）。 図 I-1 ブラジル：年金改革タイムライン ブラジル：『失速速度』をわずかに上回る ブラジル：『失速速度』をわずかに上回る チャート I-1 年金法案は日の目を見るだろう ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る この改革は事実上議会で承認される見込みであり、ボルソナロ政権にとって最初の大きな立法上の勝利となります。下院議員は主に党の同盟に沿って投票しました—もし上院でもこれが続けば、法案は81人中少なくとも56人の上院議員の支持を得るはずで、可決に必要な49票を上回るでしょう（チャート I-1）。 上院で突如としてつまずき、遅延や希薄化が起きることがあっても驚きません。下院法案は2月に提出され、いくつかの遅延ののち8月に可決されました。下院議長ロドリゴ・マイアは、法案の円滑な通過を確実にする上で重要な役割を果たしました。上院議長ダヴィ・アルコロンブレも可決を望んでいますが、スムーズに進む保証はありません。例えば上院の断片化は下院と異なり史上最高レベルにあります。法案は2回の投票を必要とします。ベゼラの9月24日と10月15日の投票見込みは、当初の9月18日と10月2日から既に遅れています。 結論：年金改革はその推進者が言うほど迅速ではないにせよ、可決される可能性が非常に高く、ブラジル議会はまもなく経済改革アジェンダの次の主要項目に取り組む必要に迫られます。 年金改革後のアジェンダに向けたボルソナロの政治資本の追跡 ボルソナロは他の構造改革を可決するのに十分な政治資本を持っているのか？それとも、政策焦点が市場に不利な分野に移り、立法府との関係が悪化し、支持率が低下し続ける中で失速速度の犠牲になるのか？ マクロ経済の逆風と脆弱な連立を考えると、ボルソナロが追加改革に費やすための政治資本を持っているというのは条件付きの「はい」です。しかし、年金改革が通った後に何が起こるかを正確に知ることは不可能なので、我々はボルソナロの進捗を監視するための主要な指標を強調します。 基本前提は、ボルソナロも彼の党も本能的またはイデオロギー的に親市場ではないということです。彼は2018年の選挙に特定の状況と人気政策群により勝利しました。これらが彼の政治的支持の四本柱を形成します： 左派の崩壊：2016年と2018年の選挙は、2003年からブラジルを支配してきた労働者党（PT）を壊滅させ、深い幻滅の波に乗ってボルソナロを政権に押し上げました。ボルソナロの右派ソーシャル・リベラル党（PSL）という比較的小さな党が、国の主要政党の一つであるフェルナンド・ハダッドの左派PTを打ち負かしたことは、世紀に一度の最悪の景気後退と広範な汚職スキャンダルによる有権者の失望を浮き彫りにしました。 チャート I-2 左派は依然として傷ついている ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る ボルソナロの選挙後の「ハネムーン期間」は終わりましたが、PTは過去十年の正当性喪失から回復していません。8月下旬に実施された世論調査によると、もし2022年の選挙が今日行われれば、ボルソナロはPTだけでなく結合された反対勢力に対しても大きなリードを確保することが示されています（チャート I-2）。 年金改革：ブラジルの政治エリートは膨張した年金制度を削減して財政プロファイルと債務持続性を改善する必要があることを認識しています。前政権がこれを実行できなかったため、これはボルソナロの主要な公約となりました。年金改革に関するコンセンサスは、彼が多数派連立を形成することを可能にしました；年金改革は、人々が年金削減を好むから人気があるのではなく、必要でありブラジルの経済環境を改善すると広く認識されているため、政府の議題の中で最も支持されている項目の一つです（チャート I-3）。 チャート I-3 ブラジル人は年金改革の価値を見ている ブラジル：「失速速度」のすぐ上 ブラジル：「失速速度」のすぐ上 皮肉なことに、しかしこの改革が可決されると、政権の政治資本のこの柱は取り除かれます。ボルソナロは他の改革に費やせる政治資本を失い、共通の最大目標を達成したことで連立内の団結は弱まるでしょう。したがって、法案が可決されたが支持率を押し上げないか、直ちに市場に不利な政策を追及することを促すか、あるいは連立から主要政党を失うようであれば、それは彼が一発屋であり任期中に他の主要改革を成し遂げられないことを示す赤信号です。 治安：ボルソナロは秩序回復を掲げて当選しました。犯罪率は年初来低下しており、有権者はこの傾向が持続することを期待しています（チャート I-4）。犯罪率の低下と治安環境に対する純評価は、ボルソナロの信頼性にとってポジティブです。 しかし、この改善が彼の政策によるものかは明確ではなく、したがってトレンドは変わり得ます。もし犯罪が増加すれば、彼は他の政策を実行する政治資本を失います。 さらに、国民は彼のアプローチを支持しないかもしれません。上記の チャート I-3 が示すように、家庭での武器所持の権利については意見が分かれている一方で、路上での武器所持の権利については明確な不支持があります。人気のない解決策を追求すると、治安分野での支持が低下する可能性があります。 チャート I-4 犯罪増加はボルソナロに打撃を与えるだろう ブラジル：『失速速度』をわずかに上回る ブラジル：『失速速度』をわずかに上回る チャート I-5 モロはボルソナロの反汚職運動にとって鍵 ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る 汚職：また、チャート I-4の第3パネルは、汚職対策がこれまでのところボルソナロ政権の主要な成功分野であることを示しています。ボルソナロは、蔓延する汚職の時代にクリーンな指導者と見なされたこともあり当選しました。政権はまた、司法長官セルジオ・モロの存在によって強化されています。モロは「ラヴァ・ジャト」作戦で汚職容疑者の起訴に主導的役割を果たしました。モロは現在キャビネットで圧倒的に最も人気のある大臣です（チャート I-5）。モロの人気低下は、国民が反汚職の進展に満足していないことを示す兆候となり、政治資本の低下を示唆します。もし何らかの理由でモロが政権を離れれば、この重要な問題に対するボルソナロの信頼性にも打撃となるでしょう。 これまでのところ、ボルソナロの支持率は歴代大統領に比べて非常に低く、下降しています（チャート I-6）。これを変える唯一の方法は、彼が年金改革の成果を認められ、その後イデオロギーよりも幅広く人気のある政策を優先することです。前述のように、年金改革を受けた変化は注視に値します：世論調査は、連邦政府とボルソナロ大統領個人がブラジルの改善に最も大きな手柄を与えられていると示します（チャート I-7）、しかし年金を削減したことが大きな報酬につながるかは不明です。 チャート I-6 年金改革の可決はボルソナロを救うか？ ブラジル: 「失速速度」をかろうじて上回る ブラジル: 「失速速度」をかろうじて上回る チャート I-7 全ての評価はボルソナロ政権に帰する ブラジル：失速寸前をわずかに上回る ブラジル：失速寸前をわずかに上回る   立法努力は主に下院議長ロドリゴ・マイアのおかげで成功しました。経済的にリベラルなマイアは、経済改革を議会で通すために個人的な相違を脇に置く現実主義的アプローチを取っています。これは大統領の物議を醸す社会政策を脇に置き、親市場の法案を通過させることに集中するという、実利的な対応を伴います。 チャート I-8 PSLの出発点は弱い ブラジル：失速寸前をわずかに上回る ブラジル：失速寸前をわずかに上回る 今年のブラジルからの政治ニュースは、立法府と行政府の亀裂に占められてきました。一見すると、議会は航行が不可能に見えます。ブラジルでは典型的に議会は極めて分断されています。ボルソナロのPSLは下院の25党の議席のうちわずか10％、上院の17党の議席のうちわずか5％しか占めていません（チャート I-8）。これはカルドーゾ政権初期と比較可能で、立法基盤を拡大することが不可能というわけではありませんが、出発点は弱いと言えます。 さらに、ボルソナロは選挙公約でいわゆる「旧来の政治」― キャビネットのポストを付与したり議会の縁故に基づく利権を与えることを避けるという公約 ― を守ってきました。これは反汚職の柱を強化しますが、立法を円滑に進める潤滑油を塗ることを難しくします。 年金改革案がブラジル下院を通過したことは、議会が操作可能であることを示しましたが、マイアの重要な役割を浮き彫りにしました。この関係は年金改革後に破綻する可能性があり、その場合、追加改革を成し遂げる政府の能力は低下します。 マイアの3期目の2年任期は来年末に満了します。技術的には連続して再選されることはできません（この規則は既に破られたことがあります）。これは、彼の後継者が必ずしも親市場であるとは限らないこと、あるいは下院運営において同様に成功しない可能性の脅威を高めます。実際、今後12～18か月は政権と立法府が2020年の地方選挙や2022年の総選挙が影響を及ぼし始める前に法案を通すための好機を生みます。 年金削減は将来的に後期にずれ込む形――数年後に実施されるため――有権者はこのウィンドウ期間中に社会保障変更の痛みを直ちに感じることはなく、大規模な大衆的反発の可能性は低くなります。マイアの実利主義が引き続き勝る限り、政府は年金改革を足がかりに別の主要改革イニシアティブを開始することができます。 経済相パウロ・ゲデスは、次の大きな課題として民営化と税制改革を強調しています。 今後12～18か月はさらなる改革のための好機を提供するウィンドウです。 結論：行政府と立法府の間の緊張は、ボルソナロが新しいマンダート（信任）を持ち、政治資本を十分に有し、政策自体に広い合意があったため、年金改革の可決を妨げてはいません。今後は多くの政治資本が使い果たされ、次の政策優先事項のための合意形成が必要となります。下院議長ロドリゴ・マイアは議会で法案通過を実利的に可能にする重要人物であり、彼の協力は不可欠です。今後12～18か月はさらなる改革、特に民営化と税制改革にとってウィンドウとなります。 民営化に関する行政府単独での前進 政権の民営化計画は野心的すぎますが、政府が立法府で長期戦に入る一方で、行政府単独で進める道筋はあります。 ゲデスはブラジルの国営企業をすべて民間に売却したいと示唆しています。価値ベースでは、政府はこの過程で1.3兆レアル（3,230億ドル）を調達することを望んでおり、これは公的債務の約20％に相当します。 ブラジルには州および自治体レベルで直接的または間接的に国家が管理する国有企業が418社あります。連邦企業134社のうち、46社は直接管理下にあり、残りの88社はペトロブラス、エレトロブラス、ブラジル銀行（Banco do Brasil）、カイシャ（Caixa）、BNDESなどの主要国有企業の子会社として間接管理下にあります。 ブラジルの公的債務がGDPの86％に達しているため、これらの売却益は債務返済に充てられ、競争と効率性の向上からGDPの押上げにつながることが期待されます。このプログラムは政府の利払いを減らすことにもなります—利払いは政府支出の25％、GDPの5％を占めています。民営化・資産売却・市場担当特別書記官サリム・マッタルは、利息の削減により政府が教育や保健に資金を振り向けられ、人材資本を長期的に高めると主張しています。 非効率で損失を出している国有企業の民営化は短期・長期の見通しにプラスですが、政府の計画は現実的ではありません。マッタルのかなり低い試算でさえ最大8,000億レアル（2,140億ドル）ですが、これも達成困難と思われます。政府は今年200億ドル調達の目標を容易に達成するでしょうが2、これらの売却は「取れやすい果実」（低い反発か抵抗のある資産）を対象にしたものであり、国民や議会からの抵抗がないか低い資産売却です。 8月21日、ボルソナロ政権は民営化を予定している17の国有企業のリストを公表しました（表 I-1）。最大級のSOEであるペトロブラス、エレトロブラス、BNDES、ブラジル銀行、カイシャのうち、リストに挙がっているのはエレトロブラスだけです。残りの主要国有企業は「戦略的」だと認識されており、国民の抵抗が大きいためより大きなハードルに直面するでしょう（チャート I-9）。実際、政府関係者はエレトロブラスが2020年に民営化されると自信を示しましたが、上院議長ダヴィ・アルコロンブレは上院で大きな抵抗に直面すると示唆しました。したがって、立法府はより論争の少ない企業に取り組むと予想されます。 表 I-1 政府の民営化リスト ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る さらに、国有企業の売却には議会の承認が必要ですが、今年初めの最高裁判決により、政府は自社の子会社を議会の承認なしに売却することが可能になりました。したがって、ペトロブラスやエレトロブラスのような主要国有企業が民営化される可能性は低く（ましてや完全売却はなおさら）、政府は非戦略的企業の非中核資産を売却したり、運営効率を改善する他の手段を取ることで前進しようとするでしょう。 チャート I-9 これらの「戦略的」国有企業は民営化に抵抗する ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る チャート I-10 民営化は債務負担を軽減するだろう 民営化は債務負担を軽減する 民営化は債務負担を軽減する 政権が来年プログラムを加速する計画を脇に置けば、ボルソナロの任期残存期間に毎年200億ドルの民営化が行われると仮定すると、合計800億ドルの売却でブラジルの債務対GDP比は85％から81％へ低下します（チャート I-10）。 結論：最大級の「戦略的」国有企業の売却は起こらないでしょうが、政府は立法府の注意を非戦略的企業に向けさせることで民営化プログラムを成功させることができます。政府はまた非中核資産については単独で動くことも可能です。全体として生産性、競争力、財政の持続可能性に対して純粋にプラスですが、規模はそれほど大きくありません。 税制と関税改革に対する楽観度は低め 国の経済における国家の過大な役割に加え、ブラジルは比較的高い税負担と過度に複雑な制度のために非効率に苦しんでいます（チャート I-11）。これにより、世界銀行のDoing Businessランキングでは税金支払いの分野で7番目に悪い位置にあります（チャート I-12）。ブラジルの税を規定するほぼ6千の法律は、外国直接投資（FDI）のポテンシャルを抑制し、脱税を助長している可能性があります。 チャート I-11 ブラジル人は過度の税負担に苦しんでいる… ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る ブラジル：「失速速度」をわずかに上回る チャート I-12 …ビジネス環境を魅力的でなくしている要因 ブラジル：「失速速度」をかろうじて上回る ブラジル：「失速速度」をかろうじて上回る ブラジルの財政状況の悪さと巨額の債務を踏まえると、税率を引き下げる余地はありません。むしろ改革は投資環境を改善するために税コードの簡素化に集中しています。完全な見直しには議会の3分の2以上の承認が必要です。年金改革が理論的にはこれを可能にすることを示しましたが、プロセスは長期化し来年後半までには実現しそうにありません。 現在、4つの主要な提案が検討されています。いずれも消費に課される現在のすべての税を単一税に統合して税制を簡素化することを目指しています。立法プロセスで最も進んでいる提案はマイアの支持を得ており、既に下院委員会で合憲と判断されています。その提案は単一税率を全州で均一に適用することを推奨しています。 ボルソナロ政権も独自の改革案を設計していますが、まだ詳細を公表していません。9月11日に連邦歳入庁特別書記官マルコス・シントラが解任されたことが示すように、CPMFのような金融取引税の再導入を巡って内閣内で対立があります。上記の チャート I-3 はこの税が一般的に不人気であることを示しており、ボルソナロは強く反対している一方でゲデスはこれを改革の一部とすべきだと示唆しています。提案は10月8日までに法案起草を担当する議会委員会に提出され、下院に導入される前に審議される見込みです。しかし、金融取引税は不人気であり政権内の争点でもあるため、スケジュールは遅れる可能性が高いです。 さらに立法承認プロセスは時間がかかるでしょう。ベゼラ・コエーリョは税制改革が2020年後半まで承認されないと予想していますが、これは楽観的な見積りです。税制全体を見直す複雑さを考えると、最低でも1年のプロセスが必要と予想され、したがって2020年に承認されるとは考えにくいです。代わりに現行制度の修正の方が成立・実施が容易かもしれません。 ゲデスはまた、輸入代替政策のもとで設けられた非常に高い輸入関税の引き下げの必要性を示唆しています（チャート I-13）。多くの関税が10％から35％の範囲にあるため、ゲデスはボルソナロの4年間の任期中に関税を合計で10ポイント引き下げる計画を表明しており、1年目に1ポイント、2年目に2ポイント、3年目に3ポイント、4年目に4ポイントを引き下げると述べています。これは行政府の措置で実行可能であり、立法を必要としません。 ボルソナロの貿易自由化の推進についてはどうでしょうか？ 選挙活動中、ボルソナロはメルコスールから距離を置き、代わりに米国のような富裕国との二国間貿易を優先する意向を表明しました。しかし、貿易におけるブロックの重要性を考えると、現実的にはボルソナロはこれらの国々を無視する余裕はありません（チャート I-14）。合意されたEU-メルコスール貿易協定は長期的な機会を生む可能性がありますが、世界的に自由貿易協定への政治的関心が低下しているため、欧州諸国によって足止めされています。 チャート I-13 高い関税率はブラジルの競争力を損なう 高い関税率がブラジルの競争力を損なう 高い関税率がブラジルの競争力を損なう チャート I-14 メルコスールとの貿易黒字は頼りになる メルコスールとの貿易黒字は信頼できる メルコスールとの貿易黒字は信頼できる より大きな国際貿易との統合はブラジルの市場アクセスを拡大し—輸出にとってはプラスですが—短期的には競争の激化と、国際レベルで競争できない既存企業に対する脅威も生じます。したがって、貿易自由化が短期的にブラジル経済に純益をもたらすかは明確ではありません。もしボルソナロとゲデスが直ちに動かない場合、彼らは2022年選挙に向けた2021年の準備の中でこれらの取り組みを一時停止せざるを得ないでしょう。 さらに、メルコスール協定およびアルゼンチンとの二国間貿易は、10月27日に野党指導者アルベルト・フェルナンデスが大統領選に勝利した場合にリスクにさらされます。アルゼンチンが保護主義政策に回帰すれば、ブラジルの輸出に打撃を与え、メルコスールの進展を脅かす可能性があります。 民営化に対しては税制改革や貿易自由化よりも楽観する理由が多い。 結論: ブラジルの税制全体の大規模な見直しや国際市場との統合よりも、民営化の取り組みに対して楽観的である理由は多い。それでも、継続的な努力は短期的に「動物の精神」の改善を維持し、長期的には構造的改善の可能性を生むでしょう。 経済：失速速度リスク チャート I-15 緩やかな回復過程 じわじわとした回復 じわじわとした回復 ブラジル経済は回復の途上にありますが、緩やかなものです。経済活動の水準は依然として景気前の水準を大きく下回っていますが、ゆっくりと戻りつつあります（チャート I-15）。主要な経済リスクは失速速度です。 飛行機のように、成長のペースが失速速度を下回ると重力の力が勝り、経済はリセッションへと下落します。ブラジルの場合、重力の力とは債務――公的債務、家計の債務サービス費用、企業の外貨債務――を指します。 景気循環にとって最も抵抗の少ない道は上向きであり、ブラジルに対する強気論は国際投資コミュニティに広がっています。それでも経済は非常に脆弱です。現時点ではポジティブな見通しが実現する確率は比較的高いと認めつつも、重力の力はブラジルで依然として深刻であることを強調したいと思います。 ポジティブな見通しが実現する確率は高いが、重力の力は依然としてかなり深刻である。 狭義マネーの成長の鈍化は名目および実質の経済活動の鈍化を予告しています（チャート I-16）。 ブラジルの家計は近年、消費を賄うためにクレジットカードやリボルビングクレジットにますます依存してきました。これらのクレジットは高金利を伴います。したがって、可処分所得の21%という水準で家計の債務サービスは非常に高止まりしており、債券利回りと政策金利の大幅な低下にもかかわらず高いままです（チャート I-17）。 チャート I-16 成長は失速しようとしているか？ 成長は今にも停滞しそうか？ 成長は今にも停滞しそうか？ チャート I-17 家計の債務サービス費用は高止まりしている 家計の返済負担は依然として高止まりしている 家計の返済負担は依然として高止まりしている 民間銀行では不良債権（NPL）がやや増加しています（チャート I-18）。これは民間銀行が与信成長を抑制する誘因となり得ます。公的銀行がバランスシートを縮小するかデレバレッジする中で、民間銀行の貸出抑制は経済の成長ペースを停滞させる可能性があります。 興味深いことに、史上最低水準の債券利回りとセリック金利は、実質不動産価格の意味のある回復にはまだつながっておらず、新築着工は依然として低調です（チャート I-19）。 チャート I-18 民間銀行のNPLと信用成長 プライベート・バンクの不良債権（NPL）とクレジット成長 プライベート・バンクの不良債権（NPL）とクレジット成長 チャート I-19 低金利にもかかわらず弱い不動産市場 低金利にもかかわらず不動産市場は弱い 低金利にもかかわらず不動産市場は弱い   財政政策は支出上限ルールによって縛られており、政府支出は前年のインフレ率に連動して指数化されます。今年の名目財政支出はわずか4.3％の成長にとどまり、2020年にはわずか3.4％の拡大にとどまります。 対外債務義務（Foreign Debt Obligations、FDO）—短期債権、利払い、今後12か月の償還額の合計—は1,800億ドルに達しており、ブラジルの年間輸出の78％に相当します（チャート I-20）。  もし国内需要が回復し、それに伴い輸入が増えれば経常収支赤字は拡大を続けます。対外資金調達需要—FDOに経常収支を加えたもの—はかなり大きく、2,500億ドルに上ります（チャート I-21）。新興市場へのポートフォリオフローが乱されれば、ブラジルは痛手を感じるでしょう。 チャート I-20 対外債務義務は高水準にある 対外債務は高水準にある 対外債務は高水準にある チャート I-21 ブラジルは大きな資金ギャップを抱えている… ブラジルは大きな資金ギャップを抱えている… ブラジルは大きな資金ギャップを抱えている… チャート I-22 …輸出は縮小している …輸出が縮小している …輸出が縮小している 輸出は金額と数量の両面で二桁縮小しており（チャート I-22）、ブラジルにおけるドルの需給はドル高（米ドル買い）を維持し、ブラジルのレアルに対してドルが強含みとなるでしょう。 国の年金法案は構造改革プロセスにおいて非常にポジティブで必要不可欠な一歩です。しかし、現行の形では公的債務の動態を持続可能にする、すなわち政府の債務対GDP比の上昇を止めるには不十分です。 結論：景気循環にとって最も抵抗の少ない道は上向きです。しかし、経済は依然として非常に脆弱です。ネガティブな対外的または国内的ショックはブラジル経済を失速速度に陥らせる可能性があります。そうしたネガティブなショックがない限り、経済は回復を続けるでしょう。 金融市場は既に脱出速度に達したのか？ 金融市場は構造改革と経済成長の両面で失速速度のリスクに脆弱です。これは株式と債券価格が大幅に上昇した現状では特に当てはまります。 構造改革のペースや経済が失速速度の犠牲になると、金融市場は急落します。逆に、改革アジェンダが進展し経済成長が加速すれば、金融市場は脱出速度に到達し、強気相場を維持するでしょう。 構造改革と景気循環の見通しを別にしても、ブラジルの金融市場にとって最大のリスクは以下の通りです： BCAのエマージング・マーケッツ・ストラテジーチームは、ベースメタルとエネルギー価格がさらに下落し、新興国通貨を圧迫すると予想しています。主因は中国需要の弱化です。 このシナリオは、ブラジルのレアルの下落という無視できない確率を伴います。なぜならレアルは歴史的にコモディティ価格と正の相関があるからです（チャート I-23）。ブラジルは石油の純輸出国になっているため、原油価格の下落は通貨にとってネガティブです。 重要なのは、実効為替レートに基づくとレアルは安くないという点です（チャート I-24）。 チャート I-23 コモディティ価格が鍵を握る コモディティ価格が鍵を握る コモディティ価格が鍵を握る チャート I-24 レアルの評価はまだ魅力的ではない 実質的なバリュエーションはまだ魅力的ではない 実質的なバリュエーションはまだ魅力的ではない 現地通貨と米ドルの債券利回りのギャップは史上最低水準に縮小しています。これと上で述べた企業の外貨債務の大きな残高は、既に債務スワップを促しています—企業は外貨債務を返済するためにレアルで借り入れています。これらの居住者からの資本流出は為替レートに重石となり続けるでしょう。 経常収支赤字の拡大は、ドル建てでの株価下落を予告してきました（チャート I-25）。 最後に、現地債利回りおよび国債・社債スプレッドは通貨下落にもかかわらず急落しました。通貨下落に対するフィクスト・インカム市場のこのような強さは歴史的に前例がありません。為替が崩れた場合に利回りと信用スプレッドが低水準を維持できるかは見ものです。 結論：構造改革と経済成長が失速速度に陥らない限り、ブラジル資産価格の下方向の余地は限定的です。ただし、国の金融市場は買われ過ぎで投資家センチメントは非常に強気なため、短期的なボラティリティは生じる可能性が高いです。 また、株価をドル建てで見た場合、重要なテクニカルの抵抗線を上抜けていないことがチャート I-26で示されています。したがって、ドル建てのボベスパの強気相場はまだ脱出速度に達していないと言えます。 チャート I-25 経常収支は株価にとってリスクである 経常収支は株価に対するリスクだ 経常収支は株価に対するリスクだ チャート I-26 ドル建てのボベスパはまだ脱出速度に達していない ドル建てのボベスパは脱出速度に達していない ドル建てのボベスパは脱出速度に達していない 投資に関する推奨 メリットとデメリットを勘案した上で、専用の新興国株式、クレジット、国内債ポートフォリオについて、ブラジルをアンダーウェイトからニュートラルへ格上げすることを推奨します。上記で述べた潜在的リスクを考慮し、ブラジルをオーバーウェイトに格上げするためのより良いエントリーポイントを探しています。 我々は2018年10月9日に大統領選の第一回投票後にブラジルをオーバーウェイトに格上げしましたが、ボラティリティが上昇し始めた2019年4月4日に格下げしました。振り返れば、それは誤った判断でした。ボラティリティは上昇する可能性がありますが、政権が親市場改革にコミットし続ける限り恩恵を与える根拠はあります。 チャート I-27 不動産株は機会を提供する bca.ems_sr_2019_09_27_s1_c27 bca.ems_sr_2019_09_27_s1_c27 長期の絶対リターン投資家にとって主要なリスクは為替レートです。したがって、これらの投資家は現地通貨リターンに対して長期的にポジティブなバイアスを採用する一方で、為替リスクを定期的にヘッジすべきです。現在、世界の金融市場はドルが上昇しやすい局面にあり、ブラジルのレアルは下落しやすいと見られます。したがって、既にブラジルに投資している投資家は為替リスクをヘッジすべきです。 ブラジル株式のユニバース内では、BCAのエマージング・マーケッツ・ストラテジーサービスは不動産を支持しています。名目・実質ともに低金利は不動産セクターにとって強気材料だからです。同セクターは景気後退で打撃を受け、まだ回復していません（チャート I-27）。したがって、長期投資家にとっては下落時にブラジルの不動産関連プレイ／資産を推奨し続けます。 脚注   1      「失速速度」は、航空機が迎え角に関係なく下降（失速）してしまう速度のことです。航空機の対気速度が失速速度より大きければ、操縦士は迎え角を増すことで追加の揚力を得ることができます。 2      2019年これまでに政府はペトロブラスから123億ドル相当の資産を既に売却し、様々な企業の株式で49億ドル、空港・鉄道・港湾のリースで19億ドルを得ています。

ハイライト 新興国株式ポートフォリオ内で、インド株をアンダーウェイトからニュートラルへ格上げします。 それでも、インドの株価の絶対パフォーマンス見通しは依然として弱気のままです。 財政赤字拡大により、現地の国債利回りが上昇する可能性が高い。 利回りの上昇と依然低迷する成長が、法人税減税の一時的な株価押し上げ効果を圧倒するでしょう。 特集 予想外の抜本的措置が採られたのは、インド経済の成長が劇的に減速したためです。 先週、インド政府は予期せぬ大規模な法人税率引き下げに踏み切りました。政府は実効法人税率を35%から約25%に引き下げました。この劇的な政策変更は投資にどのような影響を及ぼすのでしょうか。 なぜ抜本的措置を講じたのか？ 予想外の抜本的措置が採られたのは、インド経済の成長が劇的に減速したためです： 家計の裁量支出が縮小している（Chart I-1）。 企業の設備投資指標は極めて弱く、多くの場合縮小している（Chart I-2）。 Chart I-1 インド：家計の裁量支出は縮小している インド: 家計の裁量的支出が縮小している インド: 家計の裁量的支出が縮小している Chart I-2 インド：設備投資は低迷している インド：設備投資は低迷している インド：設備投資は低迷している 上場上位500社の1株当たり利益は現地通貨建てで前年同期比8%減少している（Chart I-3）。 コア指標のインフレは低水準である（Chart I-4）。 Chart I-3 インドの企業利益は縮小している インドの企業利益は減少している インドの企業利益は減少している Chart I-4 インフレは極めて抑制されている インフレは極めて抑制されている インフレは極めて抑制されている 中央銀行は利下げを行ってきたが、実質の借入コストは依然として高い。理由はインフレが低下し、実質（インフレ調整後）で見た貸出金利が上昇しているためである（Chart I-5）。 さらに、企業の借入コスト（現地通貨建てBBB社債利回り）は名目GDP成長率を上回っている（Chart I-6）。これは、企業の資本支出に適した水準に借入コストがないことを意味する。 政府が法人税を抜本的に引き下げた決定は現状の環境において正しい政策判断である。政策担当者は企業が投資を行い、好循環が生まれることを期待している。 Chart I-5 実質金利は高く、上昇している 実質金利は高く、上昇している 実質金利は高く、上昇している Chart I-6 借入金利は名目成長に対して高い 借入金利は名目成長率に比べて高い 借入金利は名目成長率に比べて高い Chart I-7 商業銀行の貸出：公的銀行対民間銀行 商業銀行の貸出：パブリック対プライベート 商業銀行の貸出：パブリック対プライベート 最後に、貸し手は依然として不良債権の傷を負っている。国有銀行は縮小を余儀なくされ、非銀行系金融会社は現在バランスシートを縮小しており、民間銀行も次いで与信の増加ペースを抑える可能性がある（Chart I-7）。 中央銀行の政策金利を段階的に引き下げても短期的に成長を押し上げる可能性は低いと認識した当局は、財政政策に訴えて景気刺激を図った。インドは不足投資の国であり、設備投資が長期的な成長ポテンシャルの鍵を握る。したがって、政府が法人税を抜本的に引き下げた決定は現状の環境において正しい政策判断である。政策担当者は企業が投資を行い、好循環が生まれることを期待している。  しかし、投資家にとって重要な疑問は、これらの政策が株価の下値を支えるのか、それともより良い買い場は先にあるのか、という点である。 国内債利回りが株価の鍵を握る この財政刺激に反応して国債や企業の現地通貨債利回りが大幅に上昇すれば、株価は苦戦するだろう。 Chart I-8 高い借入コストは株価にとってマイナス 高い借入コストは株価にとってマイナスである 高い借入コストは株価にとってマイナスである この財政刺激に反応して国内債利回りが大幅に上昇すれば、株価は苦戦するだろう。対照的に、現地債利回りが現在の水準付近にとどまれば、特に新興国ベンチマークと比較して株価は好調に推移するだろう（Chart I-8）。 重要なのは、株価は来年の利益や配当よりも、金利や長期の成長期待に遥かに敏感である。1　法人税の引き下げは一時的な出来事であり、来年の利益や場合によっては配当を押し上げるが、それは来年だけの効果である。 金利が上昇するか長期の名目成長期待が和らげば、一時的な企業利益の増加だけでは株式の高いバリュエーションを正当化するには不十分である。むしろ、金利上昇や名目成長期待の低下は来年の一時的な企業利益上昇のプラス効果を圧倒するだろう。その結果、株式の公正価値は上昇せずに低下する。 結論： 現地通貨建て債利回りと長期成長期待は、一時的な企業利益の増加よりも株式評価に遥かに重要である。 国内債の見通し なぜ低迷が続きインフレが非常に低い中で現地債利回りが急騰するのか？ 主因は財政赤字の急拡大であり、国債の発行増が必要となることだ。 中央政府の全体の財政赤字はGDP比3.7%であり（最新の法人税引き下げ前）。州政府を合わせると、総合的な財政赤字はGDP比で約6%に達している。 今後、中央予算の赤字は政府が今会計年度のために見積もったGDP比3.3%の予想を大幅に上回るだろう。法人税削減に加えて、政府の歳入成長は急落しており、名目成長が非常に低迷しているため、少なくとも現行会計年度末である2020年3月まで減少し続ける見込みである。 Chart I-9 インド：マネー創出と財政赤字の対比 インド：マネー創造と財政赤字 インド：マネー創造と財政赤字 商業銀行による広義マネー創出が合計財政赤字（純国債発行に相当）に劣る場合、債利回りは上方圧力を受けるだろう。Chart I-9は、総合財政赤字が急増する中で、広義マネー供給の増加分が拡大する赤字を吸収するのに十分でない可能性を示している。  銀行の大規模な国債購入がない限り、公的・民間の双方にとって利用可能な資金は減少することになり、債利回りは上昇するだろう。 新規国債発行が市場に容易に吸収される可能性は低くなっている。預金に対する比率で見た場合、銀行の国債保有は既に28%に達しており、法定最低の18.75%を大きく上回っている。 外国人の国債保有も2014年以降急増している。外国人投資家のインド国債に対する需要は、今後数か月間は以下の理由から鈍る可能性が高い： 現在高い水準にある公的債務対GDP比率が急速に上昇していること。 新興国通貨の下落が新興国フィクスト・インカム市場からの外国資本の流出を誘発し、インドの現地通貨建て債券に対する国際的な需要を損なう可能性があること。 銀行は国債保有の42%、保険会社が23%、投資信託と外国人がそれぞれ3%を占めている。合計で現在発行残高の71%を占める。したがって銀行が公的・民間の双方の資金供給の鍵を握っている。 Chart I-10 RBIの国債保有 RBIの国債保有 RBIの国債保有 債利回り上昇シナリオに対するリスクは、インド中央銀行が国債購入をさらに加速させる場合である（Chart I-10）。その場合、債利回りは抑制されるだろう。しかし、それは量的緩和や公的債務のマネタイズを意味する。後者は通貨安を招き、資本逃避を誘発するだろう。 結論： インドの国債利回りは上昇傾向をたどる可能性が高い。これが現地通貨建ての企業債利回りを押し上げ、結果として株式評価を圧迫するだろう。 投資結論 インド株の絶対的パフォーマンス見通しは依然として弱気である（Chart I-11、上段）。 それにもかかわらず、過去数か月のアンダーパフォームを利用して我々はこの市場を新興国株式ポートフォリオ内でアンダーウェイトからニュートラルへ格上げする。法人税減税により新興国ベンチマークに対する株式のアウトパフォーマンスの可能性は高まったが、オーバーウェイトを正当化するほど高くはない（Chart I-11、下段）。 Chart I-11 インド株価：絶対および相対パフォーマンスのプロファイル インドの株価：絶対および相対パフォーマンスのプロファイル インドの株価：絶対および相対パフォーマンスのプロファイル Chart I-12 我々のインド・ソフトウェアのロング／新興国株のショートポジション 当社のインド・ソフトウェア・ロング／EM株式ショート・ポジション 当社のインド・ソフトウェア・ロング／EM株式ショート・ポジション 他の新興国通貨と同様に、ルピーは今後数か月で反落する脆弱性を抱えている。歴史的に見て、外国人投資家はインドの株式や投資信託に累計1480億ドルを流入させてきた。したがって、インドの成長軌道や財政赤字に関する外国人投資家の失望が蓄積すると、資本流出の期間を引き起こす可能性がある。 通貨安のリスクと我々の「先進国（DM）成長志向を新興国に対して優先する」というテーマは、引き続きインド・ソフトウェア銘柄のロング／新興国全体の株価指数のショートというポジションを支持する。私たちは2016年12月21日にこのポジションを開始しており、かなりの利益を生んでいる（Chart I-12）。 フィクスト・インカム投資家は、1年受け／10年支払のスワップでイールドカーブの急勾配化に引き続き賭けるべきである。   Arthur Budaghyan チーフ・エマージング・マーケッツ・ストラテジスト arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, 編集者／ストラテジスト ayman@bcaresearch.com   脚注 1      理由は、キャッシュフロー割引モデルの分母には金利と利益の長期的成長率（レート）の両方が存在するためである（株価＝期待配当／（金利－利益の長期的成長率））。したがって、これらは株価に対して指数的に影響を与える可能性がある一方で、配当／利益は分子にあるため株価への影響は線形である。 株式の推奨 通貨、クレジットおよびフィクスト・インカムの推奨

Dear Client, Owing to BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference at the Grand Hyatt in New York City next week, there will be no report on Wednesday, September 25. We will return to our regular publication schedule on Wednesday, October 2. I look forward to meeting China Investment Strategy clients in person at our conference. Please do not hesitate to say hello. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Highlights China’s economy should bottom as a result of the pickup in credit that occurred earlier this year, but the circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown are unprecedented in nature. This raises the risk that policymakers will have to do more in order to stabilize growth. Optimism surrounding recent Chinese policy announcements is misguided. For now, Chinese policymakers are not upping the pace of stimulus, which underscores the risk to our forecast that growth will soon stabilize. A more meaningful shot of reflation will occur in the coming few months if the economy slows further, but policymakers will be reactive rather than proactive. Barring a successful (even if temporary) trade deal, we expect more weakness in the RMB as a passive source of reflation to aid the economy. But currency devaluation is a double-edged sword, and cannot be counted on to single-handedly stabilize China’s economy. Over a 6-12 month time horizon, investors should continue to overweight Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark in currency hedged terms, but the risk of further underperformance over the near-term is high. Feature Chinese economic growth continues to weaken. The Caixin manufacturing PMI for August, along with the New Export Orders component of the manufacturing PMI released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics, registered small gains in August from July. However, any hopes pinned on this being an emerging sign of turnaround in the Chinese economy soon faded. A slew of August data showed continued sluggishness in exports, an even worse domestic-demand picture, and further deflation in ex-factory producer prices. Most importantly, we continue to witness “half-measured” stimulus. In explaining past and existing economic weakness, many investors point to the trade war with the U.S. However, Charts 1 and 2 serve as an important reminder that domestic weakness predates U.S. protectionism. The trade war tensions and tariffs are magnifying this weakness, but China’s slowdown is, at its core, policy driven. Chart 1Weakness In Chinese Economy Predates The Trade War... Chart 2…And Has Been A Byproduct Of Financial De-Risking Campaign Given this, investors should be more focused on identifying signs of a major reversal in policy. So far Chinese policymakers have been firmly holding their line in keeping credit growth somewhat in check.  Policy-Induced Economic Stabilization: A Tough Forecast To Make Our baseline view is that the current scale of stimulus should be sufficient to stop economic growth from decelerating further.  Two factors support our baseline view: The direct impact from tariffs on the Chinese economy is limited. Growth in China’s exports to the U.S. in 2019 is likely to be somewhere close to a 9% contraction, down from the 10.8% increase registered in 2018. Based on a simple calculation with all else being equal, this is likely to shave 1.6 percentage points off China’s total export growth and 0.3 percentage points off nominal GDP growth in 2019. This is not trivial, but arguably not devastating to China’s aggregate economy either. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting some Chinese exports have been re-routed to peripheral countries such as Vietnam and Taiwan in order to avoid the U.S. import tariffs on Chinese goods (Chart 3). This suggests that real growth in Chinese exports to the U.S. could be stronger than the current data suggests. Chart 3Exports Finding Alternative Routes? Chart 4Bottoming in the economy In Sight? Credit growth has picked up since the beginning of this year. Based on the historical relationship between China’s credit impulse (measured by the 12-month change in BCA’s adjusted total social financing as a percentage of nominal GDP) and domestic demand, the economy should bottom out at some point before the end of the year (Chart 4). Although, import growth, a key measure of China’s domestic demand, remains in deep contraction, some of its components that usually lead industrial activities are showing signs of improvement (Chart 5). Chart 5Early Signs of Improved Domestic Demand Chart 6Manufacturing Investment Growth In Contraction However, our level of confidence that the existing stimulus will be sufficient to stabilize economic growth is lower than it otherwise would be. This is due to the fact that the challenges facing the Chinese economy are unprecedented in nature.  For one, the indirect impact of the trade war on China’s economy through business sentiment and manufacturing investment has yet to be fully revealed in the data. As Chart 6 shows, manufacturing investment is already deteriorating, particularly in export-intensive sectors. The ultimate impact on investment from the trade war is still uncertain, and can pose significant downside risks to the Chinese economy in the coming year. More importantly, as Chart 7 suggests, a weak credit impulse will at best lead to a very subdued economic recovery even if growth does indeed bottom. In terms of the link between policy and the economy, Chart 8 points out a key difference between the current slowdown and previous down cycles: Monetary conditions have been ultra-loose for more than a year, but current economic conditions remain on a downward trend – much more so than in the previous cycles. This huge gap and lag in economic response to monetary stance can only be explained by an impaired policy transmission mechanism. An expansionary monetary stance has not proportionally translated into credit expansion or economic recovery. This challenges the effectiveness and timeliness of future monetary loosening in terms of its ability to revive the Chinese economy. Chart 7Current Pace Of Credit Growth Will Lead To A Fragile Recovery, At Best Chart 8An Impaired Monetary Policy Transmission The scale and timing of the current stimulus measures have been “behind the curve.” Therefore, the historical relationship between China’s credit impulse and the turning points in the economy may not apply to the current cycle. Bottom Line: China’s economy should bottom as a result of the pickup in credit that occurred earlier this year, but the circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown are unprecedented in nature. This raises the risk that policymakers will have to do more in order to stabilize growth. An Unusually Prudent Policy Bias For some, the recent slew of announcements on upcoming stimulus qualified as a major shift in policy bias. Our analysis suggests otherwise. The bank reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts announced late in August have been among the most cited policy announcements, with the PBoC stating that the new cuts will release RMB 900 billion of fresh liquidity.1 In our view, this measure is more about maintaining liquidity in China’s large commercial banks than adding to it (on a net basis). Chart 9RRR Cuts May Not Be That Stimulative Chart 9 shows that, in previous episodes of meaningful RMB depreciation against the U.S. dollar, in order to prevent the RMB from falling at an undesirable pace, PBoC has had to intervene in the spot market by selling U.S. dollars. The selling of U.S. dollars in this round of RMB depreciation has been much more muted than in 2015-2016, but we suspect some intervention has taken place following each bout of escalation in the trade war. This has had a liquidity tightening effect on banks, as selling central bank foreign-exchange reserves reduces liquidity in the banking system. It is very likely that following the PBoC’s defense of the RMB in the last two months, the RRR cuts were a measure aimed at preventing a liquidity crunch ahead of the September tax season. If true, this hardly qualifies as net new stimulus for the economy. There were also two important announcements that came out of the September 5th State Council meeting: The entire 2019 quota for local government special project bonds must be issued by the end of September, and all money raised from the bonds must be disbursed to projects by the end of October. This too is not exactly “stimulative,” as over 90% of the 2019 local government special-project bond quota has already been issued. This leaves less than 10% of the quota outstanding, an 80% decline from what was issued last September. On a quarterly basis, special-bond issuance in the third quarter of 2019 will end up being 30% lower than the same period last year.   It was also announced that, in order to meet the local needs for construction of key projects, part of 2020’s special bonds quota will be allocated in advance to ensure that the funds are available for use at the beginning of next year.2  While the announcement did not indicate how much in the way of special-purpose bonds local governments are allowed to frontload through the remainder of this year, we maintain our view that this is not a policy shift towards materially larger stimulus than we have seen so far this year: Without an additional quota, local government special-purpose bond issuance would essentially fall to zero in the fourth quarter as the 2019 target would be hit by the end of September. Thus, the frontloading of next year’s bond issuance will only “fill the gap” between now and year-end. As special-purpose bond issuance only accounts for 15% of total funding for local governments’ infrastructure spending, the new measure alone is unlikely to meaningfully accelerate investment growth.3  We have noted in previous reports that in order for local governments to accelerate spending within the current fiscal budget framework, one of three things must occur: more direct funding from the central government, an acceptance by policymakers of more shadow bank lending, or a larger quota for bond issuance. So far we have not seen any of the above-mentioned shifts in policy. Chart 10Local Governments Tightening Belt This Year The only positive sign for local government spending has been a pickup in land sales in Q2, which makes up more than 70% of local government revenues. But, it is far from making up the shortfalls in local governments’ budgets (Chart 10). Local governments are facing considerable fiscal pressure as annual tax revenue growth has fallen to near zero. Critically, the government’s regulatory stance on local government budgets has continued to tighten: Local governments have been ordered by the Ministry of Finance to liquidate state-owned assets to fund their budget deficits this year.4 This austerity measure is also being met with explicit reiteration from the Ministry of Finance on the central government not bailing out local governments, and that local government officials are held responsible for their own borrowing and spending.5   Bottom Line: Optimism surrounding recent Chinese policy announcements is misguided. For now, Chinese policymakers are not upping the pace of stimulus, which underscores the risk to our forecast that growth will soon stabilize. A more meaningful shot of reflation will occur in early 2020 if the economy slows further in Q4, but policymakers will most likely continue their reactive approach rather than proactive. RMB Depreciation: A Plus Or Peril? The RMB’s renewed depreciation since August initially raised fears among global investors that an uncontrolled decline might occur, but these fears have subsided over the past several weeks. Even though the USD-CNY exchange rate has broken the psychological 7 threshold, it is not forming a linear downward trend. Unlike after the August 2015 devaluation, it appears that the PBoC can successfully enact countercyclical measures to guide the RMB’s value higher following each large depreciation (Chart 11). Chart 11PBoC Not Panicking Over RMB Depreciation Fears of uncontrolled capital outflows following the depreciation are also abating. We presented a dashboard for monitoring short-term capital outflows from China in our March 20 Special Report,6 and an update of these indicators suggests that China’s heightened capital controls are holding – i.e., outflows have not escalated as they did in 2015 (Chart 12). Chart 12No Major Capital Outflow Chart 13RMB Depreciation Partially Offsets Tariffs Thus, the conclusion is that Chinese policymakers appear to be in control of the currency. The reduced risk of an uncontrolled decline has allowed policymakers to (passively) provide meaningful stimulus to the domestic economy via depreciation. Indeed, the RMB has not only depreciated against the USD, but also against many Asian currencies including direct trade competitors such as Vietnam and Taiwan (Chart 13). This is helping offset the negative impact of U.S. tariffs on Chinese exporters. But currency devaluation can come with a price tag – in particular for corporations that have borrowed heavily in U.S. dollar-denominated debt. We estimate that $440 billion of U.S. dollar debt will be maturing over the coming two years, for Chinese companies and banks in the aggregate.7 A 12% depreciation in the RMB since April 2018 means that debt servicing costs will be 12% higher for unhedged debtors. This is particularly painful for real estate and financial services companies, two of the largest holders of U.S. dollar-denominated loans, and the weakest sectors in the current economic downturn. Most importantly, while currency devaluation ease the slowdown, it cannot be counted on to stabilize Chinese economic activity on its own. For example, while our earnings recession model suggests that the decline in the RMB since May has reduced the odds of a major decline in economic activity by roughly 20%, the model also shows that such an event is still highly probable (current odds are roughly at 70%). Bottom Line: Barring a successful (even if temporary) trade deal, we expect more weakness in the RMB as a passive source of reflation to aid the economy. But currency devaluation is a double-edged sword, and cannot be counted on to single-handedly stabilize China’s economy if a further slowdown occurs. An Update On Corporate Earnings Against a backdrop of what may turn out to be insufficient policy support, the earnings picture is providing one modest positive for equity investors. While the growth rate in investable earnings per share has slowed significantly over the past year (Chart 14), it has merely fallen to zero and not deeply into negative territory, as what seemingly occurred in 2015-2016. In our view, the risk of a similar collapse in earnings per share (EPS) has been an important factor weighing on Chinese investable equities’ relative performance since June 2018. In reality, a closer examination of MSCI China Index earnings reveals that a huge decline in EPS this year was never really a threat, because the apparent collapse in 2015-2016 did not actually transpire. Changes to the composition in the MSCI China Index that took effect in November 2015 and June 2016 had the effect of depressing index EPS, due to the sizeable inclusion of a set of richly valued stocks. Chart 15 presents BCA’s calculation of “break-adjusted” EPS for Chinese investable stocks, which shows that EPS growth bottomed out at -10% in late-2016, as opposed to the -28% implied by the unadjusted series. Chart 14Investable EPS Has Yet To Contract Meaningfully Chart 15The Potential Downside For Earnings Is Less Than Many Fear Chart 16A Cyclical Recovery In Earnings Has Not Yet Begun The existence of less downside potential for earnings is certainly positive for investable stocks at the margin, but it does not alter the outlook for equity fundamentals over the coming year. We have shown in several previous reports that there is a strong and reliable link between investable EPS growth and China’s coincident economic activity,8 and the continued slowing in the latter does not suggest that a bottom in earnings is imminent. In addition, Chart 16 highlights that while net earnings revisions have recovered from their early-year lows, they remain in negative territory and have stopped rising over the past few weeks. Twelve-month forward EPS momentum, also presented on a break-adjusted basis, is modestly negative, and has recently weakened (panel 2). Bottom Line: The downside risk to earnings for Chinese investable equities is less than many investors fear. But absent stronger credit growth, it remains too early to confidently project a cyclical earnings recovery. Investment Conclusions The historical relationship between credit growth and economic activity suggests that the latter should soon stabilize, which is our base case view for the coming few months. Still, the risk of a further, meaningful deceleration in growth is elevated, given the unprecedented circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown. For equity investors, less potential downside risks to earnings than previously feared is a positive at the margin, but the fundamental outlook still hinges on a durable pickup in economic activity. Over a 6-12 month time horizon, this implies that one of two scenarios will unfold: The economy will stabilize in response to the easing that has already occurred (i.e. our base case view). The economy slows further in the near-term, prompting a more significant policy response that leads to an even sharper pickup in activity. Chart 17Investable Stocks: An Overshoot To The Downside? In the first scenario, investable stocks have probably overshot to the downside versus the global benchmark and thus will very likely outperform from current levels. Near-term performance is likely to be flat-to-down, as investors await hard evidence of a sequential improvement in growth (Chart 17). In the second scenario, investable stocks are at potentially acute near-term risk, but will likely eventually outperform global stocks once activity begins to pick up sharply. In this scenario, the outperformance of Chinese equities will commence later, but would likely still occur by the tail end of our cyclical investment horizon (6-12 months). As a final point, we are not ruling out the possibility of a temporary trade deal between the U.S. and China, as both sides have the incentive to avoid a further escalation and are now showing goodwill towards constructive negotiations. This may change our tactical view on Chinese stocks, but our cyclical view remains focused on China’s domestic policy and economic fundamentals.   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      PBC Official: The RRR Cut Aims at Bolstering Real Economy, September 6, 2019 2      China to accelerate the issuance and use of special local government bonds to catalyze effective investment, China State Council, September 4, 2019 3      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Chinese Infrastructure Investment: A Ramp-Up Ahead?”, dated August 1, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4      China’s Local Governments Sell Assets to Make Up for Revenue Loss, Caixin, September 3, 2019 5      http://www.mof.gov.cn/zhengwuxinxi/caizhengxinwen/201909/t20190906_3382239.htm?mc_cid=eb2b199651&mc_eid=9da16a4859 6      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China’s Foreign Debt, And A Secret Weapon”, dated September 12, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2):Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

特別レポート

Feature BCA Research (aka The Bank Credit Analyst) published its first report in 1949, a remarkable 70 years ago. This probably makes us the longest-running independent investment research firm in the world. As we age, it is normal to occasionally reflect on how the world has changed over the course of our lives. It is an interesting exercise in the case of BCA. We need to start with a little history. The Bank Credit Analyst began life as a small-circulation newsletter produced by Hamilton Bolton, a Montreal-based money manager. He had been sending out investment commentary to his clients for some time and was encouraged to start catering to a wider audience. Bolton was a visionary because he was one of the few market analysts at that time to understand the importance of money and credit in driving economic and market cycles. In those days, banks were the dominant financial intermediary, so an analysis of flows through the banking system provided accurate and leading signals about economic and market trends. That is why he named his new service “The Bank Credit Analyst”. Bolton developed a series of monetary-based indicators that allowed him to make some great market calls. He passed away in 1967, but his valuable contribution to financial research was acknowledged in 1987 when the CFA Institute posthumously awarded him the prestigious “Outstanding Contribution to Investment Research Award”.1 Hamilton Bolton was a product of his times in that his worldview was influenced heavily by having lived through the Great Depression. Like many of his generation, he had a strong aversion to excessive debt growth, and was highly sensitive to any buildup of financial imbalances that could tip the economy back into a severe downturn. In fact, widespread fears of renewed depression did not really fade until the late 1950s. That psychology helps explain why policymakers were complicit in allowing inflation to take hold in the 1960s because there is a common tendency to fight the last war. As long as depression/deflation is seen as the primary threat, then there will be complacency about inflation risks. Does This Sound Familiar? Let’s look at some of the conditions that existed in 1949, when The Bank Credit Analyst started publication. The U.S. long-term Treasury yield had been capped at 2.5% since April 1942. At the request of the Treasury Department, the Fed had given up control of the money supply by buying whatever bonds were needed to keep yields below 2.5%, in order to support the financing of war-inflated budget deficits. The level of federal debt was down from its wartime peak of 106% of GDP, but was still at a historically high 77.5%. The European and Japanese economies were in a complete mess, having been devastated during the war. As already noted, fears of renewed deflation and depression were prevalent. Inflation was tame with the U.S. personal consumption deflator declining by 0.8% in 1949 and rising by only 1.2% in 1950. There was considerable geopolitical upheaval. Most notably, the Cold War intensified as Russia extended its control over East Europe and other countries. Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China in October 1949 after his communist forces defeated the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek. There were serious border clashes between North and South Korea in August 1949, a prelude to the North’s invasion in June 1950. It does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to see some parallels with the current environment. We currently are having (or have had): Massive central bank purchases of government debt (i.e. quantitative easing) and the explicit pegging of bond yields by the Bank of Japan. A huge increase in government debt levels, albeit not because of war-related spending. In a remarkable coincidence, U.S. federal debt reached 77.8% of GDP in fiscal 2018, almost exactly the same level as in 1949. The European and Japanese economies are moribund. However, unlike in 1949, this reflects structural forces, not war-related devastation. There are widespread fears about the long-run economic growth outlook, well captured by the secular stagnation thesis, promoted by Larry Summers. Central bankers are concerned that inflation is too low. Geopolitical concerns abound. These include U.S.-China tensions, Brexit, Korea (again), rising populism and Russia’s more aggressive stance on the world stage. In the end, the fears of 70 years ago that the world might slip back into depression proved unfounded. The 1950s and 1960s, for the most part, turned out to be golden decades for consumers, businesses and equity investors. Unfortunately, this does not mean that we can look forward to a repeat experience in the decades ahead, because we must now turn to the major differences between the present and the past. The Past Worked Out Just Fine The conditions for an economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s could hardly have been better. The U.S. armed forces employed more than 12 million men and women at the end of WWII, 7.6 million of whom were stationed overseas. After the war, these people were desperate to get back to a normal life, with civilian jobs, marriage and children. The inevitable result was a population boom and a surge in growth as pent-up demand for housing and consumer goods was unleashed. It was all aided by the 1944 G.I. Bill that provided low-cost mortgages and many other benefits. The improvement in economic growth boosted government tax receipts and, coupled with a drop in defense spending, this kept fiscal finances in check. During the 1950s and 1960s, the federal deficit averaged less than 1% of GDP and debt had fallen to less than 30% of GDP by 1969. This occurred despite a surge in federal infrastructure spending, helped by the Federal Highway Act of 1956 that authorized the construction of an interstate highway system. Meanwhile, the economy did not appear to be impeded by tax rates that were far above current levels. The reconstruction of the European economies was a monumental task that was beyond the financing capabilities of those shattered countries. However, between 1948 and 1951, the U.S. European Recovery Program (The Marshall Plan) transferred $100 billion in 2018 dollars to aid the recovery effort and this helped Europe get back on its feet. There also was a huge amount of U.S. aid to support the rebuilding of Japan. Economic growth in Japan averaged almost 9% a year in the 1950s and more than 10% in the 1960s. In Germany, the comparable figures were 7.7% and 4.2%. The growth of the world economy also was boosted by steady reductions in tariffs during the 1950s and 60s. The most notable was the Kennedy Round of 1964-67 that achieved a 38% weighted average drop in tariffs. Protectionism was in strong retreat in the decades after WWII. Finally, a word on the markets. At the end of 1949, the S&P 500 was trading at seven times trailing earnings while the dividend yield was at 6¾%. The market’s earnings yield of 14% compared to a 2.2% yield on 30-year Treasuries. In other words, stocks were incredibly cheap. Moreover, when the 1951 Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord ended the bond peg, yields inevitably rose steadily over the subsequent years, making bonds a poor investment. In the 1950s, U.S. equities delivered real compound returns of 16.6% a year compared to -3.3% for 30-year bonds. In the 1960s, the annualized real returns were a still-respectable 5.3% for stocks and -1.4% for bonds. In sum, the two decades after the launch of the BCA were a very favorable time and it was largely due to a very depressed starting point. However, the current environment is very different to that of 70 years ago. It’s a Different Picture Now Perhaps the most important difference with the past is the demographic outlook. In contrast to the post-WWII baby boom, the U.S. and most other developed economies face bleak population dynamics. Almost all developed economies – and many emerging ones – have seen the birth rate drop below replacement levels with the result that population growth has slowed dramatically. In many cases, populations are in actual decline – especially in the important working-age segment. That deprives economic growth of its main driver. The annual potential growth of U.S. real GDP averaged 4% in the 1950s and 4.3% in the 1960s. Potential growth in the next decade will average only 1.8% a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And it will be even lower in Europe and Japan. As far as pent-up demand is concerned, the picture also is very different. While the consumer industry works hard to develop new must-have goods and services, the reality is that demand is satiated for a lot of products. For example, in 2017, there were 259 million registered private and commercial autos and trucks in the U.S. compared to only 225 million licensed drivers. In 1950, the number of licensed drivers (62 million) far exceeded the number of registered vehicles (48 million). And it is hard to believe that the ownership penetration of most consumer durables has much upside. Turning to government finances, the current environment of bloated deficits and debt significantly constrains the room for fiscal stimulus. Yes, there is constant talk of the need for more infrastructure spending, but this has proven very difficult to implement without offsetting cuts in other spending or measures to boost revenues. The U.S. is saddled with unprecedented peacetime fiscal deficits and the CBO projects that federal debt will approach 100% of GDP within ten years, even without factoring in another recession. The comparison between the free trade era of the 1950s and 60s and the current situation speaks for itself. It is unclear at this stage just how far the move toward protectionism will go, but one thing seems clear. The rush toward globalization that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union and the entry of China into the global trading system is in retreat. This shows up not only in rising tariffs, but also in declining cross-border direct investment flows and increased antipathy to large-scale international migration. The irony is that the developed world needs more immigration to offset the weak growth in resident populations. What about the markets? The stock market certainly is not cheap, the way it was 70 years ago, with the S&P 500 trading at more than 18 times trailing operating earnings. Low interest rates are providing support, but future returns are likely to be in low single figures in a world where economic growth is moderate and there is little scope for profit margins and/or multiples to expand. Prospects for bonds do look somewhat similar to the situation in the early 1950s. Then, there was only one way for yields to go once the Fed’s peg ended. Today, yields will only fall sustainably if the economy sinks into a protracted downturn. We will get another recession in the next few years and yields could certainly hit new lows at that point. But the resulting policy response – both fiscal and monetary – seems almost certain to lead to higher inflation down the road. That would not bode well for the bond outlook, as was the case between the second half of the 1960s and the early 1980s. Concluding Thoughts Hamilton Bolton was fortunate to launch his new investment service ahead of a powerful economic revival and an almost two-decade bull market in stocks. He did not live long enough to witness the inflation upturn and volatile economic environment of the 1970s and 1980s, but BCA’s monetary focus allowed it to prosper during that period. Under the leadership of Tony Boeckh, the company’s then owner and Editor-in-Chief, BCA was strident in warning investors about the buildup of inflationary pressures and the dangers this posed for markets. During this time, BCA also developed the concept of the Debt Supercycle which helped investors understand the complex forces driving policy and the economic/market cycles. If Bolton was alive today, he would be horrified at the state of the world. He would not be able to understand how investors could be so complacent in the face of record government deficits and debt and by what he would regard as the reckless behavior of central banks. At the same time, he would be able to identify with the renewed focus on weak growth and deflation risks. The bottom line is that he would be advising investors to be extremely cautious. Investors currently are semi-obsessed with the timing of the next recession as that would be the signal to significantly downgrade risk assets. The official BCA stance is that a recession is not imminent and this creates a window for stocks to outperform. This matters for those investors who need to be concerned with relative performance. It is painful to sit on the sidelines if markets keep rising and you underperform your peers. However, for those more concerned with absolute performance, and that was true of most investors in Bolton’s time, the upside potential currently seems unattractive relative to the downside risks. Unfortunately, economists have a poor track record of forecasting recessions and bear markets thus often come as a complete surprise. Yes, low interest rates provide a floor under stocks, with the dividend yield comfortably above the 10-year Treasury yield. But rates are low for a reason: the economy and thus corporate earnings face major downside risks. Against this background, I would tend to side with what I imagine Bolton would say: this is a time to focus on capital preservation rather than taking risks to maximize returns. Let me try to end on a more positive note. As noted earlier, the long-term outlook turned out much better than Bolton probably anticipated 70 years ago. What could make that true this time around? Some things cannot be changed, at least over the next decade: adverse demographic trends, high ownership of consumer goods, and high levels of government debt. Geopolitical developments could go either way – for the better or worse – so I will make no predictions there. The one savior would be a marked revival in productivity because, ultimately, that is the only real source of rising living standards. Technology is changing rapidly and there are lots of exciting innovations. But to make a significant and lasting difference it will require more than developments such as autonomous vehicles or 3-D printing. We will need a new General Purpose Technology (GPT) that has a profound impact on the way economies and societies are structured. Previous examples include the steam engine, electricity and of course the internet. Perhaps Artificial Intelligence will do the trick, but that does not seem likely to be a near-term cure. Chart 1Then (1949) And Now (2019) In closing, we can be sure of one thing. The world changed in ways Hamilton Bolton could not have conceived and that also will be true for us today. BCA will endeavor to evolve with the times as it has done over the past 70 years and we look forward to keep helping our clients prosper in a complex and ever-changing world. 1949 – A Very Momentous Year Hamilton Bolton launches The Bank Credit Analyst The Peoples Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) are founded Indonesia gains independence from the Netherlands The civil war in Greece ends NATO is established The Geneva Convention is agreed The Soviet Union detonates its first atomic bomb Apartheid becomes official policy in South Africa Alfred Jones creates the first hedge fund The first non-stop circumnavigation of the world by an aircraft occurs The first commercial jet airliner, the De Havilland Comet, has its maiden flight EDSAC – the first practicable stored-program computer runs its first program at Cambridge University Products introduced that year included Lego, the 45 rpm record, the first Porsche car and the Xerox photocopier. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is published People born include Ivana Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Benjamin Netanyahu, Meryl Streep and Bruce Springsteen 2019 – Not So Much Chaotic politics in the U.K., Italy and many other countries Trade wars   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Previously known as the Nicholas Molodovsky Award  

Highlights Our cyclical view is unchanged, … : Despite the evident risks from escalating trade tensions, soft global economic data, and widespread recession concerns, we expect the expansion and the bull markets in spread product and equities will remain intact. … as fiscal largesse has provided the U.S. economy with ample cushion: Per the IMF’s estimates, the fiscal stimulus package centered on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 amounted to about 70 basis points (“bps”) of fiscal thrust in 2018 and another 40 bps in 2019. But how is Congress’ unprecedented experiment shaping up beyond 2019?: The first-order impact of the tax cuts on government revenues is straightforward. The ultimate net effect turns on how lower taxes alter the course of corporate investment and work force participation. The CBO’s latest projections have the federal deficit widening by an additional $1 trillion over the next decade: Supply-side benefits from the 2017 Act have underwhelmed so far, and the fate of the federal budget depends on lawmakers’ restraint. We are long-run bearish on Treasuries and the dollar. Feature The fundamental backdrop remains mixed in the United States and the rest of the world. Global trade has slowed, and the world is experiencing a sharp manufacturing slowdown. The consensus of BCA researchers expects that manufacturing will soon find a footing, and the global economy will revive, helped along by easier monetary policy. A fiscal pick-me-up is long overdue, and would be especially welcome, but we are not holding our breath, especially when Japan finally seems prepared to impose its repeatedly-postponed VAT increase. Opinion within BCA is notably split, and the glass-half-full and glass-half-empty camps remain far apart. The mixed tone of the macro data offers something for bulls and bears, and contributed to the sharp single-day moves that characterized August’s equity action. Although the S&P 500 moved at least 1% in half of its sessions, however, it was down less than 2% for the month through Thursday. After slipping from its 3,000 perch amidst a 5% decline across August’s first three sessions on renewed trade hostilities, it traded in a narrow range between 2,825 and 2,945 the rest of the way (Chart 1). Chart 1Big Daily Swings, But A Tight Monthly Range The Fed is caught in a loop of responding to inorganic shocks. It tightened policy in 2018 while nervously looking over its shoulder at a sizable injection of procyclical fiscal stimulus that wound up exerting less overheating pressure than it had feared. Now it finds itself uncomfortably drawn into the vortex of the trade war, cutting rates to keep the expansion from being snuffed out prematurely by self-inflicted wounds. Various Fed officials seem to be chafing under the burden of serving as a bulwark against the drag from the tariff fights. As Chair Powell admonished in his Jackson Hole address, “[M]onetary policy … cannot provide a settled rulebook for international trade.” Like it or not, the Fed is stuck cleaning up other policymakers’ messes. Jackson Hole would normally have brought down the curtain on any meaningful market news until after Labor Day. But Bill Dudley, the head of the New York Fed from 2009 to 2018, had other ideas. He argued in a Bloomberg opinion column that the Fed should refuse to abet foolhardy trade policy with rate cuts that offset its ill effects. He went on to posit that it is within the Fed’s remit to set policy with an eye toward influencing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Dudley’s grenade enlivened a slow news day and had the effect of unifying the economics community in condemnation of his polemic. The Fed swiftly distanced itself from the comments, reiterating that its “decisions are guided solely by its congressional mandate,” and that “political considerations play absolutely no role.” It is hard to know what Dr. Dudley intended to accomplish, but he ensured that we will be at BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference bright and early on Friday, September 27th when he kicks off its second day. Initial Estimates Soon after the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) assessed how its provisions would affect the U.S. economy. Although calculating the components involves myriad complex estimates, the budget equation is quite simple: Budget Surplus/(Deficit) = Revenues – Outlays. Cutting taxes clearly reduces revenues, and the reductions in individual tax rates, partially offset by limits on deductions, were estimated to cost the federal government roughly $300 billion over the next decade. The 10-year tab for lower corporate rates, and immediate expensing of business investments through 2022, was estimated to run about $1 trillion. Relief from some spending constraints brought the total estimated cost to $1.7 trillion. A trillion here, and a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. Though the Act was sure to worsen the deficit, it contained provisions meant to encourage investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full immediate expensing of investments in software and eligible equipment were expected to permanently increase the nation’s capital stock, thereby boosting the trend pace of productivity growth. A reduced individual income tax burden was expected to encourage more people to enter the workforce and incumbents to work longer hours. Ultimately, the CBO projected that the Act would boost the level of real potential GDP by 0.7%, on average, through 2029.  Six Quarters On It follows that people might work more if they are able to keep more of what they earn, but the data since individual income tax rates were reduced at the beginning of 2018 are inconclusive. The labor force participation rate has been treading water for several years (Chart 2, solid line), as it battles against the drag from baby boomer aging (Chart 2, dashed line). Prime-age labor force participation has risen very slowly off of its 2015 bottom, and has spent 2019 unwinding its gains from late last year (Chart 3). Average weekly hours worked remain locked in the narrow range that has prevailed since 2012 (Chart 4). Though it is difficult to isolate the drivers of participation gains, the part rate’s erratic 2018-9 course suggests that the Act has not yet had a discernible work force impact. Chart 2The Baby Boomers Have Become A Demographic Headwind Chart 3Labor Supply ##br##Gains ... Chart 4... Have Yet To Materialize Residential investment, which lost some tax subsidies via the Act’s limits on mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions, has declined in every quarter since it was passed, and we back it out of fixed investment to assess the Act’s impact on corporate investment. As with labor supply, the record so far is mixed. Fixed investment (ex-residential investment) built on its 4Q17 acceleration over the first three quarters of 2018 only to slide in the three subsequent quarters (Chart 5). Publicly traded corporations have proven more eager to share their cash windfall with shareholders than they have been to invest it. Chart 5Investment Stimulus? What Investment Stimulus? Looking Ahead – Activity Effects We accept that lower individual income tax rates make work more attractive. People respond to incentives, and more after-tax pay, all else equal, should encourage some discouraged workers to rejoin the labor market and push some of the currently employed to want to work more. The changes are modest, though, with take-home pay increasing $324, or 2%, for someone earning $20,000, and $1,299, or 3%, for someone earning $50,000 (Table 1). We see the Act as having no more than a modest marginal effect on labor supply, though it should help boost consumption until households begin to factor in seemingly inevitable future tax hikes. Table 1Take-Home Pay Is Up, But Not By Much If the 2017 Act really is going to boost the potential trend rate of growth, it will have to do so by pushing the rate of productivity growth higher.1 Workers are able to produce more in a given block of time when they’re endowed with more and better tools, and new tools require investment. If fixed investment doesn’t accelerate, there’s no reason to expect that productivity will (Chart 6). The capex outlook from the NFIB survey and the various Fed regional manufacturing surveys is iffy, and BCA has previously noted how an aging population and a shift to more capital-light businesses may restrain investment. Chart 6Investment Drives Productivity It will not be an easy matter to boost productivity by boosting capex, though some of businesses’ after-tax cash will likely find its way to investment. To help the process along, Congress incorporated a familiar provision: accelerated depreciation. Accelerated depreciation’s empirical record as an investment catalyst is hardly clear (Box), and we don’t find its theoretical basis terribly compelling. We think the Act’s trend growth impacts are more likely to disappoint the CBO’s expectations than exceed them. Investment confronts demographic headwinds, too. Pushing trend growth higher will not be easy. Box - An Anodyne Prescription A celebrated provision of the Act allows for the immediate expensing of qualified investments until 2022. Accelerated depreciation programs, which allow for more rapid expensing of investments in property, equipment and other depreciable assets in an attempt to stimulate investment, are a stock measure in lawmakers’ stimulus toolkit, but their effectiveness is hardly assured. For one thing, they’re not new, and businesses may have built up an immunity to them, as they have been a continuous feature of the tax code since 1981. The immediate expensing allowed under the 2017 Act is a form of bonus depreciation, which was initially introduced in the wake of the September 11th attacks. It has remained in place for all but one subsequent year, and though investment peaked during the other stretch that provided for immediate write-offs (September 2010 - December 2011), we are skeptical that it will materially increase the size of the capital stock going forward. Accelerated depreciation schemes encourage investment via the time value of money. They do not increase the depreciation benefit provided by a particular investment, they simply speed up its recognition. Savvy businesses may adjust the timing of their investments to take advantage of temporary bonus periods, but they will not necessarily invest more.2 With rock-bottom interest rates squeezing the time value of money, it’s possible that bonus depreciation’s impact may be especially muted this time. Looking Ahead – The Budget Deficit The CBO’s updated projections through 2029, released two weeks ago, call for the budget shortfall to widen by $800 billion more than previously estimated in January. Despite a downward revision of over $1 trillion in projected interest expense, additional spending has weakened the deficit outlook. It appears that elected officials simply can’t help themselves. In a climate in which neither Congress nor voters evince any desire to rein in the deficit, it seems foolishly naïve to assume that future sessions of Congress will abide by built-in expenditure limits like sunset provisions and spending caps. Although the CBO projects that federal revenues will rise across its 10-year forecasting horizon, they will not do so fast enough to keep up with outlays swollen by interest payments on the growing pile of Treasuries (Chart 7). The CBO sees debt as a share of GDP rising to 95% by 2029, within reach of the all-time high recorded after World War II (Chart 8). Financial markets don’t care now, and we don’t think they will any time in the near future, but the CBO’s baseline projections, which assume future Congresses abide by their stated commitments, probably represent an optimistic scenario. We are more inclined to expect the alternative scenarios, in which sunset provisions are ignored, and pre-set spending caps are set aside, to come to pass. Chart 7A Widening Budget Gap ... Chart 8... Leads To An Increased Debt Burden Investment Implications Chart 9The Dollar's Long-Run Direction Is Down Treasury yields are currently within sight of their July 2016 Brexit-inspired lows, and may well revisit them. Negative yields are a common feature well out the maturity curve in core Europe and Japan. A sustained move higher is not in the cards in the near term, and though we do expect yields to rise as the global economy gains some traction later this year, we do not foresee a disruptive move higher even over the next couple of years. The very long-term outlook for Treasuries is lousy, however, and the dollar also faces secular pressures (Chart 9). The U.S. is not likely to turn into Japan, but the next decade’s returns will likely pale beside those earned since 1982. We are congenitally optimistic about humanity, and Americans seem to have a particular knack for pulling rabbits out of hats. We do not see the U.S. turning into Argentina, Greece or even Japan. The debt burden will weigh on potential growth down the road, however, as debt service will limit Congress’ ability to deploy countercyclical adjustments and longer-term investments, and debt issuance will eventually crimp private entities’ access to capital. All of these factors will limit potential economic growth and contribute to softening returns on equity and credit. We continue to foresee tepid returns over the next ten years relative to the returns investors have grown accustomed to over the last four decades, and we would much rather borrow at current rates for the next 20 or 30 years than lend at them.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Economic growth is the sum of growth in productivity and growth in the size of the labor force. Since the Act does not bear on immigration or birthrates, productivity represents its best shot at moving the growth needle. 2 Congressional Research Service Report RL31852, The Section 179 and Section 168(k) Expensing Allowances: Current Law and Economic Effects, by Gary Guenther, May 1, 2018.  

Highlights While a self-fulfilling crisis of confidence that plunges the global economy into recession cannot be excluded, it is far from our base case. Provided the trade war does not spiral out of control, it is highly likely that global equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. The auto sector has been the main driver of the global manufacturing slowdown. As automobile output begins to recover later this year, so too will global manufacturing. Go long auto stocks. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will weaken once global growth picks up. We expect to upgrade EM and European equities later this year along with cyclical equity sectors such as industrials, energy, and materials. Financials should also benefit from steeper yield curves. We still like gold as a long-term investment. However, the combination of higher bond yields and diminished trade tensions could cause bullion to sell off in the near term. As such, we are closing our tactical long gold trade for a gain of 20.5%. Feature “The Democrats are trying to 'will' the Economy to be bad for purposes of the 2020 Election. Very Selfish!” – @realDonaldTrump, 19 August 2019 8:26 am “The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election” – @realDonaldTrump, 15 August 2019 9:52 am Bad Juju Chart 1Spike In Google Searches For The Word Recession President Trump’s remarks, made just a few days after the U.S. yield curve inverted, were no doubt meant to deflect attention away from the trade war, while providing cover for any economic weakness that might occur on his watch. But does the larger point still stand? Google searches for the word “recession” have spiked recently, even though underlying U.S. growth has remained robust (Chart 1). Could rising angst induce an actual recession? Theoretically, the answer is yes. A sudden drop in confidence can generate a self-fulfilling cycle where rising pessimism leads to less private-sector spending, higher unemployment, lower corporate profits, weaker stock prices, and ultimately, even deeper pessimism. Two things make such a vicious cycle more probable in the current environment. First, the value of risk assets is quite high in relation to GDP in many economies (Chart 2). This means that any pullback in equity prices or jump in credit spreads will have an outsized impact on financial conditions.   Chart 2The Total Market Value Of Risk Assets Is Elevated Chart 3Not Much Scope To Cut Rates Second, policymakers are currently more constrained in their ability to react to adverse shocks, such as an intensification of the trade war, than in the past. Interest rates in Europe and Japan are already at zero or in negative territory (Chart 3). Even in the U.S., the zero-lower bound constraint – though squishier than once believed – remains a formidable obstacle. Chart 4 shows that the Federal Reserve has cut rates by over five percentage points, on average, during past recessions. It would be impossible to cut rates by that much this time around if the U.S. economy were to experience a major downturn.   Chart 4The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound Fiscal stimulus could help buttress growth. However, both political and economic considerations are likely to limit the policy response. While China is stimulating its economy, concerns about excessively high debt levels have caused the authorities to adopt a reactive, tentative approach. Japan is set to raise the consumption tax on October 1st. Although a variety of offsetting measures will mitigate the impact on the Japanese economy, the net effect will still be a tightening of fiscal policy. Germany has mused over launching its own Green New Deal, but so far there has been a lot more talk than action. President Trump floated the idea of cutting payroll taxes, only to abandon it once it became clear that the Democrats were unwilling to go along. On The Positive Side Despite these clear risks, we are inclined to maintain our fairly sanguine 12-to-18 month global macro view. There are a number of reasons for this: First, the weakness in global manufacturing over the past 18 months has not infected the much larger service sector (Chart 5). Even in Germany, with its large manufacturing base, the service sector PMI remains above 50, and is actually higher than it was late last year. This suggests that the latest global slowdown is more akin to the 2015-16 episode than the 2007-08 or 2000-01 downturns. Chart 5AThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 5BThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (II) Second, manufacturing activity should benefit from a turn in the inventory cycle over the remainder of the year. A slower pace of inventory accumulation shaved 90 basis points off of U.S. growth in the second quarter and is set to knock another 40 basis points from growth in the third quarter, according to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model. Excluding inventories, U.S. GDP growth would have been 3% in Q2 and is tracking at 2.7% in Q3 – a fairly healthy pace given the weak global backdrop (Chart 6). Chart 6The U.S. Economy Is Still Holding Up Well Outside the U.S., inventories are making a negative contribution to growth (Chart 7). In addition to the official data, this can be seen in the commentary accompanying the Markit manufacturing surveys, which suggest that many firms are liquidating inventories (Box 1). Falling inventory levels imply that sales are outstripping production, a state of affairs that cannot persist indefinitely. Third, and related to the point above, the automobile sector has been the key driver of the global manufacturing slowdown. This is in contrast to 2015-16, when the main culprit was declining energy capex. According to Wards, global vehicle production is down about 10% from year-ago levels, by far the biggest drop since the Great Recession (Chart 8). The drop in automobile production helps explain why the German economy has taken it on the chin recently. Chart 7Inventories Are Making A Negative Contribution To Growth Chart 8Auto Sector: The Culprit Behind The Manufacturing Slowdown Importantly, motor vehicle production growth has fallen more than sales growth, implying that inventory levels are coming down. Despite secular shifts in automobile ownership preferences, there is still plenty of upside to automobile usage. Per capita automobile ownership in China is only one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 9). This suggests that the recent drop in Chinese auto sales will be reversed. As automobile output begins to recover later this year, so too will global manufacturing. Investors should consider going long automobile makers. Chart 10 shows that the All-Country World MSCI automobiles index is trading near its lows on both a forward P/E and price-to-book basis, and sports a juicy dividend yield of nearly 4%.1 Chart 9The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Chart 10Auto Stocks Are A Compelling Buy   Fourth, our research has shown that globally, the neutral rate of interest is generally higher than widely believed. This means that monetary policy is currently stimulative, and will become even more accommodative as the Fed and a number of other central banks continue to cut rates. Remember that unemployment rates have been trending lower since the Great Recession and have continued falling even during the latest slowdown, implying that GDP growth has remained above trend (Chart 11). As diminished labor market slack causes inflation to rebound from today’s depressed levels, real policy rates will decline, leading to more spending through the economy.  Chart 11Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower The Trade War Remains The Biggest Risk The points discussed above will not matter much if the trade war spirals out of control. It is impossible to know what will happen for sure, but we can deduce the likely course of action based on the incentives that both sides face. President Trump has shown a clear tendency in recent weeks to try to de-escalate trade tensions whenever the stock market drops. This is not surprising: Despite his efforts to deflect blame for any selloff on others, he knows full well that many voters will blame him for losses in their 401(k) accounts and for slower domestic growth and rising unemployment. What about the Chinese? An increasing number of pundits have warmed up to the idea that China is more than willing to let the global economy crash if this means that Trump won’t be re-elected. If this is China’s true intention, the Chinese will resist making any deal, and could even try to escalate tensions as the U.S. election approaches. It is an intriguing thesis. However, it is not particularly plausible. U.S. goods exports to China account for 0.5% of U.S. GDP, while Chinese exports to the U.S. account for 3.4% of Chinese GDP. Total manufacturing value-added represents 29% of Chinese GDP, compared to 11% for the United States. There is no way that China could torpedo the U.S. economy without greatly hurting itself first. Any effort by China to undermine Trump’s re-election prospects would invite extreme retaliatory actions, including the invocation of the War Powers Act, which would make it onerous for U.S. companies to continue operating in China. Even if Trump loses the election, he could still wreak a lot of havoc on China during the time he has left in office. Moreover, as Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, has stressed, if Trump were to feel that he could not run for re-election on a strong economy, he would try to position himself as a “War President,” hoping that Americans rally around the flag. That would be a dangerous outcome for China.  Chart 12Would China Really Be Better Off Negotiating With A Democrat As President? In any case, it is not clear whether China would be better off with a Democrat as president. The popular betting site PredictIt currently gives Elizabeth Warren a 34% chance of winning, followed by Joe Biden with 26%, and Bernie Sanders with 15% (Chart 12). This means that two far-left candidates with protectionist leanings, who would stress environmental protection and human rights in their negotiations with China, have nearly twice as much support as the former Vice President. All this suggests that China has an incentive to de-escalate the trade war. Given that Trump also has an incentive to put the trade war on hiatus, some sort of détente between the U.S. and China, as well as between the U.S. and other players such as the EU, is more likely than not. Investment Conclusions Provided the trade war does not spiral out of control, it is very likely that global equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. Since it might take a few more months for the data on global growth to improve, equities will remain in a choppy range in the near term, before moving higher later this year. As we discussed last week, the equity risk premium is quite high in the U.S., and even higher abroad, where valuations are generally cheaper and interest rates are lower (Chart 13).2 Chart 13AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 13BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency (Chart 14). If global growth picks up later this year, the greenback should begin to weaken. European and emerging market stocks have typically outperformed the global benchmark in an environment of rising global growth and a weakening dollar (Chart 15). We expect to upgrade EM and European equities – along with more cyclical sectors of the stock market such as industrials, materials, and energy – later this year. Chart 14The U.S. Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15EM And Euro Area Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves     Thanks to the dovish shift by central banks around the world, government bond yields are unlikely to return to their 2018 highs anytime soon. Nevertheless, stronger economic growth should lift long-term yields at the margin, causing yield curves to steepen (Chart 16). Steeper yield curves will benefit beleaguered bank stocks. Chart 16Stronger Economic Growth Should Lift Long-Term Bond Yields, Causing Yield Curves To Steepen Finally, a word on gold: We still like gold as a long-term investment. However, the combination of higher bond yields and diminished trade tensions could cause bullion to sell off in the near term. As such, we are closing our tactical long gold trade for a gain of 20.5%. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 Evidence of Inventory Liquidation In The Manufacturing Sector Footnotes 1 The top ten constituents of the MSCI ACWI Automobiles Index are Toyota (22.6%), General Motors (7.8%), Daimler (7.3%), Honda Motor (6.2%), Ford Motor (5.7%), Tesla (4.8%), Volkswagen (4.8%), BMW (3.8%), Ferrari (3.0%), Hyundai Motor (2.4%). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Four ghosts of 2016 are knocking at the door: Brexit, Trump, Brazil, Italy. President Trump and U.S. trade policy are keeping uncertainty high. Upgrade the odds of a no-deal Brexit to about 33%. Expect limited stimulus from Italy and Germany – for now. Brazil’s pension reform is entering its final stretch – buy the rumor, sell the news. Feature Four major political events of 2016 are returning to affect the global investment landscape this fall – though only two of these ghosts are truly frightening. In order of market relevance: Trump: The election of Donald J. Trump as U.S. president, November 8, 2016 Brexit: The U.K. referendum to leave the European Union, June 23, 2016 Italy: The Italian constitutional referendum, December 4, 2016 Brazil: The removal of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, August 31, 2016 Italy and Brazil are producing market-positive political results in the short run. Brexit and Trump pose substantial and immediate risks to the global bull market. A pivot by Trump is the headline risk to our view that no trade agreement will be concluded by November 2020, as we outlined in a Special Report last week. At the moment tensions are still escalating. President Trump has ordered an increase in tariffs (Chart 1) and threatened to invoke the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977, which would give him the ability to halt transactions, freeze funds, and appropriate assets. China is retaliating proportionately and virtually incapable of softening its tone prior to its National Day celebration on October 1. The next round of negotiations, slated for Washington in September, could be a flop like the talks in July, or it could be canceled. Investors should stay defensive. The equity market will have to fall to force Trump to stage a tactical retreat. Meanwhile China could intervene violently in Hong Kong SAR. That possibility, the nationalist military parade on October 1, and U.S. actions toward the South China Sea and Taiwan, show that sabers are rattling, causing additional market jitters. Chart 1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo U.S.-China tensions underpin our tactical safe-haven trade recommendations. But we are not shifting to a cyclically bearish stance until we get clarity on Trump’s and Xi’s handling of their immediate predicament. Brexit is the other acute short-term risk. This was true even before Prime Minister Boris Johnson opted to prorogue parliament from September 10 to October 14, shortening the time that parliament has to either pass a law forbidding a no-deal exit or bring down Johnson’s government in a vote of no confidence. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” to no higher than 33%, using a conservative decision-making process (Diagram 1). No-deal is not our base case because parliament, the public, and even Johnson himself want to avoid a recession, which is the likely outcome, even granting that the Bank of England will not stand idly by. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” Brexit to about 33%. Diagram 1Brexit Decision Tree (Revised August 29, 2019) From a bird’s eye point of view, the pound is very attractive (Chart 2). But in the near-term the twists and turns of Britain’s political struggle imply that we will see wild volatility. Our foreign exchange strategists expect that a no-deal Brexit would cause GBP/USD to collapse to 1 after October 31. Assuming our one-in-three odds of such an outcome, the probability-weighted average of cable is about 1.2. Hence investors should not short sterling from here, unless they strongly believe we are underrating the odds of no-deal exit. In the worst-case scenario, a no-deal Brexit will cause an economic shock at a time when Europe is on the brink of recession – Italy and Germany are virtually there. This means there is a substantial risk of additional deflationary pressure piling onto German bunds and sustaining the global bond rally. This pressure will be sharply reduced if Johnson loses an early no confidence vote, but that is a 50/50 call so we would not call time on this rally yet. Stay cautious. Chart 2Pound Can Only Go So Low   Italy: Stimulus … Without A Bruising Brussels Battle Italy has avoided a new election by producing an unusual tie-up between the establishment Democratic Party and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S). The coalition still needs to clear some internal hurdles and an online vote by Five Star members, but an agreement is to be presented to President Sergio Mattarella as we go to press. This is the most market-friendly outcome that could have been expected, as is clear through the sharp drop in Italian government bond yields (Chart 3). Our GeoRisk indicator for Italy is also collapsing. Chart 3Markets Cheer New Italian Coalition This development marks the climax of a story line that we outlined in 2016, when Prime Minister Matteo Renzi lost a constitutional referendum that aimed to strengthen Italian governments to enable deeper structural reforms (he subsequently resigned). At that time we argued that Italy would emerge as a market-relevant political risk due to rampant anti-establishment sentiment, but that this risk would subside when Italy’s populists were shown to be pragmatic at heart, i.e. unwilling to push their conflicts with Brussels to a point that truly reignited European break-up risk. This view is now vindicated – and not only for the short-term. The new coalition comes at the nick of time, with Europe teetering on recession and the risk of a no-deal Brexit rising. The new government will have to deliver the 2020 budget to the European Commission by October 15. The budget will aim to provide fiscal support, including a delay of the legislatively mandated hike in the Value Added Tax from 22% to 24.2%, already rolled over from 2019. The Five Star Movement will demand as a price for its participation in the coalition that social spending go up; the Democratic Party will have learned a lesson while out of power and will be more fiscally permissive and strike a tougher tone with Brussels. The Italian budget talks will be a non-issue: the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. The episode demonstrates that the Italian risk to financial markets is overrated. This point goes beyond the fact that the Democrats and Five Star were able to cooperate. Italy’s leading populist parties have already shown that they are pragmatic and will play the game with Brussels to avoid a financial breakdown. In May 2018, the newly formed populist coalition proposed a gigantic “wish list” budget that would have increased the budget deficit to roughly 7.3% of GDP in 2019. They also appointed a euroskeptic economy minister who almost prevented government formation. The ensuing conflict with Brussels triggered considerable turmoil (Chart 4). Ultimately, however, the populists did precisely what we expected: they bowed to the severe financial constraint on Italy’s banking system. They agreed to a 2019 and 2020 deficit of 2.04% and 2.1%, respectively (Chart 5). Chart 4Italian Populists Prove Pragmatic Chart 5Even Salvini Compromised On Budget Clash At present, the market is relieved that an election was avoided that might have seen Salvini and the League form a government with a much smaller right-wing party (Fratelli D’Italia) (Chart 6) – but the truth is that Salvini had already capitulated to the EU, both on budget matters and the euro currency. He was hardly likely to push for a budget more aggressive than that of the initial proposal in 2018. The clash with Brussels would have been a flash in the pan; the result would have been greater fiscal thrust, which would have been market-positive in the current environment. Chart 6Election Would Have Meant More Stimulus ... And More Political Risk M5S will also push for more spending and has also moderated their stance on the euro. A coalition with the Democrats will not work if the purpose is to push a euroskeptic agenda. There will be a focus on counter-cyclical fiscal policy, pragmatic reforms that the two can agree on, and fighting corruption. The budget talks will be a non-issue: the Democratic Party is an establishment party and the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. Furthermore, the context has changed since 2018 in a way that will reduce budget frictions. There is a need for countercyclical fiscal policy in light of the global slowdown, so the European Commission will have to be more flexible on the budget. This is particularly true if Germany itself loosens its belt on a cyclical basis. The risk to the above is that the coalition shaping up between the Democrats and Five Star is an alliance of convenience that will break down over time. Five Star will remain hard-line on immigration, which is driving anti-establishment sentiment. Italian elections are a frequent affair. Salvini and the League will be waiting in the wings, especially if Brussels proves too tight-fisted or if the Democrats do not toughen their stance on immigration. But as outlined above, Salvini’s own evolution on the euro, on northern Italy, and on the budget and financial stability shows that the economy will have to get a lot worse before Italian euroskepticism presents a renewed systemic risk. Bottom Line: The tentative coalition taking shape in Italy will produce a modest increase in fiscal thrust with minimal frictions with Brussels. As such it is the most market-friendly outcome that could have occurred from Salvini’s push to seize power. Beneath this episode of government change is the political arrangement taking shape in Italy, and across Europe, which calls for a commitment to the European project and currency. The price of this commitment is a tougher line on immigration from European leaders. Germany: Fiscal Loosening, But Not For The States (Yet) Our GeoRisk indicator for Germany is pointing to an increase in risk in recent weeks. Germany is threatened by a potential technical recession and while fiscal stimulus is in preparation, there will not be a fiscal game-changer until Merkel steps down in 2021 – barring a total collapse in the economy that forces her hand in the meantime. The outlook is not improving (Chart 7, top panel). The economy shrank by 0.1% in Q2 2019, exports are falling, and passenger car production is at the lowest level ever recorded (Chart 7, bottom panels). Chart 7German Economy Gets Pummeled Chart 8Germany: Expect Orthodox Stimulus For Now Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has announced that Germany could increase government spending by $55 billion within the context of European and German budget constraints. Split proportionally between 2019 and 2020, this additional spending would not put Germany in violation of the “black zero” rule – a commitment to a balanced budget that limits the federal structural deficit to 0.35% of GDP – even without any additional revenue (Chart 8).   There will not be a fiscal game-changer in Germany until Merkel steps down – barring a crisis. The German Chancellery reports that it does not see the need for stimulus in the short term – as long as trade tensions do not escalate and there is no hard Brexit. At present, however, trade tensions are escalating and the odds of a no-deal Brexit are increasing. Moreover China’s economy and stimulus efforts continue to disappoint. In this context Germany’s ruling coalition is putting together a climate change package that would entail additional spending (while stealing some thunder from the increasingly popular Green Party). Given the European Commission’s forecast of Germany’s 2020 budget surplus, 0.8% of GDP, the government could ultimately go further than Scholz’s ~$50bn. This is because the black zero rule provides for exceptions in case of recession (or natural disasters or other crises out of governmental control) with a majority vote in the Bundestag. Hence we are not so much concerned about the magnitude of the stimulus as its timing. First, Merkel and her coalition typically move slower than the market would like in the face of financial and economic challenges. Second, according to the black zero rule, which is transcribed in the German constitution (the Basic Law), the Länder cannot run budget deficits from 2020. Amending the constitution to delay this deadline requires a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat – a much taller order than the simple majority needed to boost federal deficits. The governing coalition currently holds 56% of the seats in the Bundestag. If the Greens were brought on board, which they would be inclined to do, this number falls just short of two-thirds at 65.6%. In order to obtain a two-thirds majority in the Bundesrat, the Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, and the Greens would need the support of another party, either the Left or the Free Democrats. This could be done but it would require political will, which is only likely to be sufficient if the German and global economy get worse from here. Meanwhile financial markets will have to settle for the gradual implementation of a stimulus package on the order of 1% of GDP – the one the government is planning. Bottom Line: While Germany will likely roll out a stimulus package by Q4, if third quarter GDP data confirm that the country is in a technical recession, Merkel’s hesitation and budget limits mean that this stimulus will likely be moderate. A marginal upside surprise is possible but it will not represent a true “game changer” on fiscal policy in Germany. The game changer is more likely after Merkel steps down in 2021. The Green Party is surging in Germany and could possibly lead the next government. Even if it doesn’t, its success and Europe-wide developments are pushing German leaders to become more accommodative. Brazil: Reform Or Bust Political turmoil in Brazil over the past five years has ultimately resulted in a right-wing populist government under President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is pursuing a pension reform that is universally acknowledged as necessary to straighten out Brazil’s fiscal books, but that the previous government tried and failed to pass. On this front the news is market-positive: having cleared the lower Chamber of Deputies, the pension reforms are now likely to pass the senate. This will lift investor confidence and give Bolsonaro an initial success that he may then be able to translate into additional economic reforms. The Brazilian economy and financial markets are moving in opposite directions. The currency and equities staged a mid-year rally despite negative data releases – shrinking retail sales and industrial production amid high unemployment (Chart 9). More recently these assets relapsed despite tentative signs of improvement on the economic front (Chart 10). All the while, chaos and controversies surrounding Bolsonaro’s government have weighed on his approval rating, ending the honeymoon period after election (Chart 11). Chart 9Brazil: Signs Of Improvement   Chart 10Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Chart 11Bolsonaro’s Honeymoon Is Long Gone The mid-year equity re-rating was driven by an improvement in sentiment on the back of the government’s pension reform. The relapse occurred despite the passage of the pension reform bill in the lower house, indicating that global economic pessimism has dominated. The bill’s next step goes to the senate where it faces two rounds of voting before enactment (Diagram 2). It should clear this hurdle by a large margin, though we expect delays. Diagram 2Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline In the second round vote in the lower house on August 6 – which had a smaller margin of victory than the first round – deputies voted largely in line with party alliances (Charts 12A & 12B). Assuming legislators in the senate behave in the same way, the reform should gain the support of 64 of the 81 senators – easily surpassing the 49 votes needed. Even in a more pessimistic scenario where all opposition parties and all independent parties vote against the bill – along with two defecting senators from government-allied parties – the reform would pass by 56-25. Chart 12APension Bill Sailed Through Lower House ... Chart 12B... And Should Pass Senate In Time This favorable outlook is also supported by popular opinion, which indicates that the majority of those polled agree that pension reforms are necessary (Chart 13). This leaves two questions: How soon will the bill clear the senate? According to senate party leaders’ proposed timetable, the bill will undergo its first upper house vote on September 18 with the second round slated for October 2. This is ambitious. The strategy of Senator Tasso Jereissati – who has been appointed senate pension reform rapporteur – is to approve the text in its current form and create a parallel proposed amendment to the constitution (PEC) which will bring together the amendments that senators make to the original text. Dozens of amendments have been filed with the Commission on Constitution and Justice. These will prolong the enactment of the final bill and dilute its impact. We doubt the senate will let Jereissati have his way entirely and hence expect delays and dilution. Chart 13Brazil: Public Now Favors Pension Reform Chart 14Brazil: Pension Reform Not Enough How much savings will the bill generate? Will the reforms be sufficient to improve public debt dynamics in Brazil? The Independent Fiscal Institute of the senate estimates that the reform will generate BRL 744 billion of savings. This is significantly less than the BRL 1.2 trillion initially proposed, and lower than the BRL 860 billion that Economy Minister Paulo Guedes has indicated as the minimum fiscal savings required. Our Emerging Markets strategists argue that the bill falls short of what is needed. While the plan will reduce the fiscal deficit and slow debt accumulation, it will be insufficient to generate primary surpluses over the coming years (Chart 14).1 Moreover, estimated savings in the final bill will likely be further revised down as the bill undergoes more amendments in the senate. What comes after pension reform? The market has focused almost exclusively on this issue to the neglect of Bolsonaro’s wider economic reform agenda. The agenda includes privatization, trade liberalization, tax reforms, and deregulation. Here we are more skeptical. First, Bolsonaro will have spent a lot of political capital on pensions. Second, while the economy and unemployment are always important, they are not the foremost concern for Brazilians (Chart 15). Chart 15Bolsonaro Will Lose Political Capital After Pension Bill Third, the economic agenda is often at odds with Bolsonaro’s social, foreign, and environmental policies: The new Mercosur-European Union trade agreement and ongoing trade negotiations between Mercosur and Canada are positive developments. However the G7 summit in France highlighted that the deal with the EU is at risk due to dissatisfaction with Bolsonaro’s response to the Amazon fires. France and Ireland have threatened to withhold support of the ratification. With world leaders concerned about the political risks of trade liberalization, and with Trump having issued a license to foreign leaders for trade weaponization, an escalation of tensions between the Europeans and Bolsonaro could lead to punitive measures even beyond the delay to the Mercosur-EU deal. Brazil’s China problem: Bolsonaro has been cozying up to President Donald Trump while striking a more aggressive tone with China. This is a risky strategy as it may undermine Brazil’s economic interests. The country’s exports are much more leveraged to China than to the U.S. and have been benefitting on the back of the trade war as China substitutes away from the U.S. (Chart 16). The president’s planned trip to China in October reveals an attempt to mend ties after having accused China of dominating key Brazilian sectors during his election campaign. But it is not clear yet that Bolsonaro will stage a retreat. And if President Trump backtracks on his trade war in order to clinch a deal, Bolsonaro may have lost some goodwill with China without receiving the benefit of China’s substitution effects. Hence Bolsonaro will have to soften his approach to China to make progress on the trade aspect of the reform agenda. Chart 16Brazil: Time To Mend Ties With China Bottom Line: We expect the passage of a diluted pension reform bill that will slow the growth of public debt to some extent. However global headwinds are persisting. And any success on pensions should not be extrapolated to other items on the economic reform agenda. Bolsonaro’s trade liberalization faces difficulties on the surface. Other domestic reforms are even more difficult to achieve in the wake of painful pension cuts. Reforms that enjoy public support and do not require a complicated legislative process are the most likely to be implemented, but even then, legislation and implementation are likely to be long-in-coming in Brazil’s highly fractured congress. As a result we share the view with our Emerging Markets Strategy that the pension reform is a “buy the rumor, sell the news” phenomenon. Housekeeping We are booking gains on our long BCA global defense basket for a 17% gain since inception in October 2018. The underlying thesis for this trade remains strong and we will reinstitute it at an appropriate time, though likely on a relative basis to minimize headwinds to cyclical sectors. We are also finally throwing in the towel on our long rare earth / strategic metals equity trade. The logic behind the trade is intact but it was very poorly timed and the basket has depreciated 24% since inception.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. France: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator   Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator   Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Economic data suggest the current business cycle in China has not yet reached a bottom. Stimulus measures have not been forceful enough to fully offset a slowing domestic economy and weakening global demand. With possibly more U.S. tariffs to come, intensifying political unrest in Hong Kong and a currency set to depreciate further, the potential downside risks outweigh any potential upside over the near term. Investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long. We are still early in a credit expansionary cycle, and we expect further economic weakness to pave the way for more policy support in China. However, we recommend investors who are not yet invested in Chinese assets to remain on the sidelines until clearer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. Feature Chart 1A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks Financial market volatility surged in the first half of the month following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tweet, vowing to impose a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods by September 1st. By the end of last week, prices of China investable stocks relative to global equities had nearly wiped out all their 2019 year-to-date gains. (Chart 1) The extent of the decline has left some investors wondering whether the time has come to bottom-fish Chinese assets. In our view, the answer is no. In this week’s report we detail five reasons why the near-term outlook for China-related assets remains negative. We remain bullish on Chinese stocks over the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) horizon and recommend investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets stay long. However, we also recommend investors who are not yet invested to remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. As we go to press, the U.S. Trade Representative Office announced that the Trump administration would delay imposing the 10% tariff on a series of consumer goods imported from China — including laptops and cell phones — until December.1 Stocks in the U.S. surged on the news. Today’s rally in the equity market highlights our view, that short-term market performance can be dominated and distorted by news on the trade front. However, market rallies based on headline news will not sustain without the support of economic fundamentals. Reason #1: Chinese Economic Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed In a previous China Investment Strategy report,2  we presented some simple arithmetic to help investors formulate their outlook on the Chinese economy. We argued that in a full-tariff scenario, investors should focus on the likely outcome of one of the two following possibilities: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock ≤ 0 In scenario 1, the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand from the sharp decline in exports to the U.S. Scenario 2 denotes an outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock. For now, we remain in scenario 2 due to Chinese policymakers’ continual reluctance to allow the economy to re-leverage. The magnitude of the credit impulse so far has been “half measured” relative to previous cycles.3  More than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom. As a result, more than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom, with the main pillars supporting China’s “old economy” still in the doldrums (Chart 2 and Chart 3). Chart 2No Clear Bottom, Yet Chart 3Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher   In addition to a weakening domestic economy, China’s external sector has been weighed down by U.S. import tariffs as well as slowing global demand. (Chart 4).  The possibility of adding a 10% tariff by year end on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese goods exports to the U.S. may trigger another tariff “front-running” episode in the 3rd quarter. However, Chart 5 and Chart 6 highlight that any front-running would be against the backdrop of sluggish global demand. Therefore, not only the upside in Chinese export growth will be very limited in the subsequent months following the front-running, but export growth is also likely to fall deeper into contraction. Chart 4Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Chart 5Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Chart 6Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Reason # 2: A-Shares Are Not Yet Signaling A Sizeable Policy Response In previous China Investment Strategy reports, we have written at length about how Chinese policymakers are reluctant to undo their financial deleveraging efforts and push for more stimulus. After incorporating July credit data, our credit impulse, at a very subdued 26% of nominal GDP, was in fact a pullback from June’s credit growth number (Chart 7). This confirms our view that the current stimulus is clearly falling short compared to the 2015-2016 credit expansionary cycle. It underscores Chinese policymakers’ commitment to keep their foot off the stimulus pedal. What’s more, the recent performance of China’s domestic financial markets has been consistent with a half-measured credit response, and is not yet signaling a meaningful change in China’s policy stance. The A-share market since last summer has been trading off of the likely policy response to the trade war. Chart 8Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Chart 8 (top panel) shows that the A-share market has closely tracked China’s domestic credit growth over the past year. Given this, we believe that the A-share market is reacting more to the likely policy response to the trade war, in contrast to the investable market which rises and falls in near-lockstep with trade-related news (middle panel). The fact that A-share stocks have been trending sideways underscores that China’s domestic equity market continues to expect “half measured” stimulus. This week’s sharp decline in China’s 10-year government bond yield is in part related to escalating political unrest in Hong Kong (bottom panel), and in our view does not yet signal any major change in the PBOC’s stance. Finally, our corporate earnings recession probability model provides another perspective on the equity market implications of the current path of stimulus. If the current size of stimulus holds through the end of 2019, our model suggests that the probability of an outright contraction in corporate earnings lasting through year end remains quite elevated, at close to 50% (first X in Chart 9). The July Politburo statement signaled a greater willingness to stimulate the economy; as a result, we are penciling in a slightly more optimistic scenario on forthcoming credit growth through the remainder of the year, by adding 300 billion yuan of debt-to-bond swaps4 and 800 billion yuan of extra infrastructure spending5 to our baseline estimate for the rest of 2019. However, this would only add a credit impulse equivalent of 1 percentage point of nominal GDP and would only marginally reduce the probability of an earnings recession to 40% (second X in Chart 9). A 40% chance of an earnings recession is well above “normal” levels that would be consistent with a durable uptrend in stock prices, and in previous cycles, Chinese stock prices picked up only after business cycles and corporate earnings had bottomed (Chart 10). In sum, the current pace of credit growth, signals from the domestic equity market, and our earnings recession model all suggest that it is too early to bottom fish Chinese stocks. Chart 9A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer Chart 10Too Early To Bottom Fish Reason #3: The Trade War Is Far From Over Our Geopolitical Strategy team maintains that the U.S. and China have only a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020, and that any trade truce is likely to be shallow.6 We agree with this assessment, which has clear negative near-term implications for Chinese investable stocks, even if temporary rallies such as what took place yesterday periodically occur. Since the onset of the trade war, Chinese investable stocks appear to have traded nearly entirely in reaction to trade-related events. Hence, until global investors are given proof that much stronger stimulus can and will offset the impact of the trade war on corporate earnings, Chinese stocks are likely to continue to underperform their global peers. Reason #4: The Hong Kong Crisis Is A Near-Term Risk Another near-term catalyst for financial market turbulence in China is the worsening situation in Hong Kong. For now, we hold the view that a full-blown crisis (i.e. China intervening with military force) can be avoided, but we are not ruling out the possibility of a severe escalation or its potential impact on market sentiment towards Chinese assets.  On the surface, China investable stocks (the MSCI China Index, the predominantly investable index that now includes some mainland A-shares) are not directly linked to businesses in Hong Kong: Out of the top 10 constituents of the MSCI China Index, which account for roughly 50% of the index’s market capitalization, seven are headquartered in mainland China and do not appear to have significant revenue exposure to Hong Kong. By contrast, at least 30% of Hang Seng Index-listed companies have business operations in Hong Kong. The remaining three companies in the top 10 MSCI China Index are Tencent (the largest component of the index, with a weight of approximately 15%), Ping An Insurance (4% weight), and China Mobile (3% weight) – all of which registered large losses in the past week. Both Tencent and Ping An Insurance are headquartered in Shenzhen, a southeastern China metropolis that links Hong Kong to mainland China. China Mobile appears to have the most revenue exposure to Hong Kong of any top constituent through its CMHK subsidiary, which is the largest telecommunications provider in Hong Kong. It is true that there has been little evidence so far that Chinese investable stocks have been more impacted by the escalation in political unrest in Hong Kong than by the escalation in the trade war. Indeed, the fact that the two escalations were overlapping this past week makes it difficult to isolate their effects. But if unrest in Hong Kong spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China intervening. According to an analysis done by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team,6 the deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries. The 1989 Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions. Should this to occur, the near-term idiosyncratic risk to Chinese stocks in both onshore and offshore markets will be significant. Reason #5: Further RMB Depreciation May Weigh On Stock Prices Whether due to manipulation or market forces, last week’s depreciation in the Chinese currency (RMB) was economically justified and long overdue. Chart 11RMB Depreciation Long Overdue Chart 11 shows the close relationship between the U.S.-China one-year swap rate differential and the USD/CNY exchange rate. The true source of the correlation shown in the chart remains somewhat of a mystery, given that Chinese capital controls, particularly following the 2015 devaluation episode, prevent the arbitrage activities that link rate differentials and exchange rates in economies with fully open capital accounts. However, Chart 11 clearly shows that China’s currency would have already weakened by now if it was fully market-driven, and we do not believe that the People’s Bank of China will be inclined to tighten monetary policy in order to reverse the recent devaluation. Hence, the path of least resistance for the CNY is further depreciation.  If the threatened 10% tariff on all remaining U.S. imports from China is imposed this year, our back-of-the-envelope calculation based on Chart 12 suggests that a market-driven “equilibrium” USD/CNY exchange rate should be at around 7.6. We have high conviction, based on previous RMB devaluation episodes, that China’s central bank will not allow its currency to depreciate in a manner that invites speculation of meaningful further weakness – meaning we are not likely to see a straight-lined or rapid depreciation down to the 7.6 mark. Chart 12Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the Chinese economy. At the same time, aggressive market intervention via the PBoC burning through its foreign exchange reserves is also unlikely: A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the economy. It improves Chinese export goods’ price competitiveness and helps mitigate some of the pain caused by increased tariffs. Therefore it is in the PBoC’s every interest to allow such depreciation. However, no matter how “orderly” RMB depreciation may be, the fact that the PBoC has signaled it is no longer defending a “line in the sand” exchange-rate mark is likely to trigger another round of “race to the bottom” currency devaluation from other regional, export-dependent economies.7 A weaker RMB and emerging market currencies will also contribute to USD strength. A strong dollar has been negatively correlated with global risky assets, implying that for a time, a weaker RMB will be a risk-off event for risky assets and thus presumably for Chinese and EM equity relative performance. Investment Implications Our analysis above highlights that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is fraught with risk, and it is for this reason that we recommended an underweight tactical position in Chinese stocks for the remainder of the year in our July 24 Weekly Report.8 However, by next summer (the tail-end of our cyclical investment horizon), it is our judgement that one of two things will have likely occurred: The trade war with the U.S. will have abated or been called off, and investors will have determined that a “half-strength” credit cycle is likely enough to stabilize Chinese domestic demand and the earnings outlook. In this scenario, Chinese stocks are likely to rise US$ terms over the coming year, relative to global stocks. The trade war with the U.S. will have continued, and Chinese policymakers will have acted on the need to stimulate aggressively further in order to stabilize domestic demand. In combination with an ultimately stimulative (although near-term negative) decline in the RMB, the relative performance of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark will likely be higher in hedged currency terms. Because of the near-term risks to the outlook, we agree that investors who are not yet invested should remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. But investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long, and should bet on the latter scenario: rising relative Chinese equity performance in local currency terms, alongside a falling CNY-USD / appreciating USD-CNY exchange rate.   Jing Sima  China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “US to delay some tariffs on Chinese goods”, Financial Times, August 13, 2019. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC”, dated July 10, 2019, and “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4      The remaining of 14 trillion debt-to-bond swap program rounds up to 315 billion yuan. 5      The relaxed financing requirement for infrastructure projects can add 800 billion yuan. 6      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch. 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “The RMB: Depreciation Time?”, dated May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations