Asia

Highlights In the past week, it is becoming evident that the Chinese leadership is willing to abandon its financial de-risking agenda in exchange for a rapid economic recovery. Monetary conditions are already more accommodative than during the last easing cycle in 2015/2016. The recently announced policy initiatives on infrastructure, housing, and automobile sectors also resemble policy supports that led to a V-shaped economic recovery in 2016. As manufacturers in regions other than Hubei are returning to work and their production capacity continues to rise, the outbreak-induced economic shock may be smaller than investors currently fear. Hence, the odds are rising that the upcoming “insurance stimulus” may end up overshooting the short-term economic shock. As such, we maintain a constructive view on Chinese stocks over the next 6-12 months. Feature A surge in the number of COVID-19 infections outside of China (including South Korea, Japan, Iran, and Italy) risks delaying a global economic recovery, and has cast doubt on the outlook for the global economy beyond Q1 (Chart 1). Chart 1Pandemic Threats Expanding Globally Pandemic Threats Expanding Globally Pandemic Threats Expanding Globally Despite the sharp uptick in global investor concern, our constructive view on Chinese stocks remains unchanged for the next 6-12 months. Our view on Chinese risk assets is based on a simple arithmetic framework that we described last year when the trade war tensions between the US and China were escalating. In short, when gauging the net impact of an economic shock, investors should determine which of the following two scenarios is most likely: Scenario 1 (Bearish): Stimulus – Shock ≤ 0 Scenario 2 (Bullish): Stimulus – Shock > 0 While this framework is quite simplistic, the point is to underscore that economic shocks are almost always met with a policy response, and the goal is to determine whether this response is sufficient enough to offset the impact of the shock. If the Chinese leadership underestimates the severity of the shock and undershoots on the stimulus, this would be bearish for Chinese stocks (Scenario 1). In the current situation, however, even if the near-term economic outlook is deeply negative, investors should maintain a bullish cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) outlook for China-related assets as long as the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand (Scenario 2). Major Stimulus Around The Corner? It is becoming evident that the Chinese policymakers, when dealing with an unprecedented public health crisis, are returning to aggressive fiscal and monetary easing. In fact, the odds are rising that the magnitude of the upcoming stimulus may resemble that of 2015/2016, and has an increasing possibility to overshoot in the next 6-12 months. In the past week, there has been a clear shift of policy focus from “financial de-risking” to “mitigating the economic damage from shocks at all costs”, as indicated by high-profile policy announcements. In an unprecedented large-scale teleconference on February 23,1 President Xi stated that China will not lower its economic growth target for this year, and that fiscal policy will be “more proactive” while monetary policy was upgraded from “prudent” to “flexible and moderate". Chart 2PBoC Looks Set For Massive Stimulus PBoC Looks Set For Massive Stimulus PBoC Looks Set For Massive Stimulus Xi also pledged to “introduce new policy measures in a timely manner”. China’s central bank, the PBoC, issued a statement signaling further cuts ahead in the bank reserve requirement ratio rate and interest rate.2 The PBoC has already aggressively eased monetary conditions in the past two weeks, and both the central bank policy and average lending rates are now lower than they were during the last massive easing cycle in 2015/2016 (Chart 2).  Other policy initiatives also suggest the Chinese authorities are stepping up coordinated efforts to boost the economy, beyond short-term and targeted financial support. The stimulative measures now span from infrastructure to housing and automobile sectors, the exact “three prongs” that supported a V-shaped economic recovery in 2016.3 This is in sharp contrast with last year, when Chinese policymakers largely resisted resorting to large-scale stimulus, despite immense pressure from the US-China trade war and tariff impositions.4 The ongoing COVID-19 epidemic seems to have forced China to return to its old economic playbook, as the Xi administration is clearly unwilling to tolerate economic hardships driven by an endogenous crisis. The ongoing epidemic seems to have forced China to return to its old economic playbook, as the Xi administration is clearly unwilling to tolerate economic hardships driven by an endogenous crisis. As we predicted in November last year,5 China was to frontload additional fiscal stimulus in Q1 this year to secure an economic recovery, which started to bud in Q4 last year. The increase in January’s credit numbers confirms our projection: local government bond issuance picked up significantly from last year while the contraction in shadow bank lending continued to ease, signaling a less restrictive policy bias on both the monetary and fiscal fronts (Chart 3).  Chart 3Stronger Fiscal Support Likely To Soon Follow Stronger Fiscal Support Likely To Soon Follow Stronger Fiscal Support Likely To Soon Follow The exact economic and monetary expansion growth targets will be officially set at the National People’s Congress meeting, which has been postponed from its usual schedule on March 5. Compared with the 6.1% real GDP growth achieved in 2019, we now think a growth target of 5.6% would be conservative for this year. According to an estimate by BCA’s Global Investment Strategy,6 China’s real GDP growth in Q1 could slow to 3.5% on a year-over-year basis. To achieve 5.6% growth, China would need at least 6.3% average real growth (year-over-year) for the next three quarters, 0.3 percentage points higher than in the second half of 2019. The growth in credit expansion, infrastructure spending and government expenditures will need to significantly outpace last year in the next 6-12 months. Bottom Line: The government appears to be willing to abandon its financial de-risking agenda to secure economic recovery. There is an increasing possibility that the stimulus may overshoot the economic shock this year. China’s Economic Engine Warms Up There are increasing signs that the scale of the upcoming stimulus may match that of the 2015/2016 cycle. The likely magnitude of the shock, on the other hand, might be smaller than investors fear as the evidence is mounting that production is returning to normality in China. Despite a lack of employees and raw materials, industrial activity in regions outside of Hubei is resuming. Chart 4…Small Companies Are Not Far Behind China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? A survey of China’s 500 top manufacturers by China Enterprise Confederation7 indicated that most of the 342 respondents had resumed production as of February 20. They also reported that more than half of their employees had returned to work and the average capacity utilization rate had reached nearly 60% (Table 1). Furthermore, the China Association of Small and Medium Enterprises8 survey of 6,422 small businesses showed that as of February 14, more than half of the companies have resumed operations (Chart 4). By February 21, the daily coal consumption in China’s six largest power plants has reached 62% of the consumption from the same period last year (adjusted for Lunar Year calendar), 14 percentage points higher than February 10 - the first day officially scheduled for people to return to work.9 Table 1Large Manufacturers Have Reached More Than Half Of Their Production Capacity… China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? The resurgence in the number of new infections has not slowed those regions down from reopening businesses, particularly along the manufacturing belt in China’s coastal regions (Chart 5). China’s leadership has repeatedly urged local governments to relax aggressive containment measures to allow production to resume. Unless the number of new cases in China picks up again, we expect business operations in regions outside of Hubei to continue re-opening in the coming weeks. Chart 580% Of China’s Coastal Regions Are Back To Work China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? Most manufacturers in regions other than Hubei are returning to work and are running at about half of last year’s production capacity. Bottom Line: The aggressive containment measures seem to be effective inside China. Most manufacturers in regions other than Hubei are returning to work and are running at about half of last year’s production capacity. We expect the rate to improve. This will mitigate the impact of the virus outbreak on the Chinese economy.  “Scenario 2” Implies An Upturn In The Corporate Earnings Cycle The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on China’s economy may be smaller than investors currently fear. The country is also in a better economic condition than in 2015/2016. If the Chinese leadership believes an “insurance stimulus” is warranted and allows credit growth in 2020 to reach near 28% of GDP, as in 2015-2016, then the stimulus will more than offset the outbreak-induced economic shock from Q1 and lead to a meaningful rise in this year’s corporate earnings (Chart 6): China’s households and corporates are actually more willing to spend now than in 2015-2016. We agree that China’s households and companies are both highly leveraged, and re-leveraging may further diminish their debt-servicing ability and willingness to invest or spend. Debt as a share of Chinese household disposable income has climbed by 33 percentage points compared with five years ago (Chart 7). The increase in debt load makes Chinese households particularly vulnerable to income reductions. But this supports our view that policymakers will make every reflationary effort to avoid massive layoffs. Additionally, the willingness to spend among Chinese households is not less than during the down cycle in 2015-2016 (Chart 7 bottom panel). Chart 6A 2015/2016-Style Stimulus Will Likely Triumph Over Short-Term Economic Shocks A 2015/2016-Style Stimulus Will Likely Triumph Over Short-Term Economic Shocks A 2015/2016-Style Stimulus Will Likely Triumph Over Short-Term Economic Shocks Chart 7Chinese Households Are More Indebted, But Are Also More Willing To Spend Than In 2015/2016 Chinese Households Are More Indebted, But Are Also More Willing To Spend Than In 2015/2016 Chinese Households Are More Indebted, But Are Also More Willing To Spend Than In 2015/2016 The debt-to-GDP ratio and debt-servicing cost-to-income ratio in China’s non-financial private sector have trended sideways in the past five years (Chart 8). The corporate cash flow situation is only slightly worse than in 2015 (Chart 9). The virus outbreak and drastic containment measures will temporarily weaken the corporates’ cash positions, but this negative situation can be partially offset by tax, fee and interest relief measures.10 Chart 8Chinese Corporates Are In Fact Not More Indebted Than In 2015/2016... Chinese Corporates Are In Fact Not More Indebted Than In 2015/2016... Chinese Corporates Are In Fact Not More Indebted Than In 2015/2016... Chart 9...And Their Cash Flow Situation Is Only Slightly Worse ...And Their Cash Flow Situation Is Only Slightly Worse ...And Their Cash Flow Situation Is Only Slightly Worse   Furthermore, China’s non-financial corporates’ marginal propensity to spend is actually higher than in 2015-2016 (Chart 10). This may be due to the more accommodative monetary backdrop than in 2015-2016. If Chinese authorities are to significantly step up their reflationary efforts, the easy monetary policy stance may be here to stay throughout 2020. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the mild deflation in China’s PPI growth was already turning slightly positive on the heels of an improving economy. The historical relationship between China’s producer prices and industrial profits suggests that profit growth for both China’s onshore and offshore markets is highly linked to fluctuations in producer prices (Chart 11). An ultra-easy monetary policy, a weak RMB, and a more forceful boost to domestic demand will provide strong reflationary support to producer prices and industrial profits. Chart 10Chinese Corporates' Willingness To Spend Also Higher Than In 2015/2016 Chinese Corporates' Willingness To Spend Also Higher Than In 2015/2016 Chinese Corporates' Willingness To Spend Also Higher Than In 2015/2016 Chart 11A 2015/2016-Style Reflation Will Likely Lead To A Strong Rebound In Corporate Profits A 2015/2016-Style Reflation Will Likely Lead To A Strong Rebound In Corporate Profits A 2015/2016-Style Reflation Will Likely Lead To A Strong Rebound In Corporate Profits   Bottom Line: Despite a short-term economic shock, China’s economy is at a better starting point than in 2015-2016. If monetary and fiscal easing in 2020 reaches the same magnitude as five years ago, then the economy and corporate profits will likely begin to respond to the stimulus. Investment Conclusions The clear sign of policy shift to shoring up the economy suggests that, our Scenario 2 is the most likely outcome. The fiscal and monetary easing initiatives seem to resemble those of 2015/2016. The short-term outbreak-induced economic shock, on the other hand, looks to be smaller than the market anticipates. Manufacturers in China continue to resume production in regions outside of Hubei, a trend we believe will go on unless there is a significant threat that the virus will break out again in these Chinese regions. This supports our constructive view on China-related assets over a 6-12 month time horizon. The fiscal and monetary easing initiatives seem to resemble those of 2015/2016, and will likely overshoot the short-term economic shock. There is a risk to our constructive view, though, that the more forceful policy response from the Chinese leadership may imply a greater than anticipated short-term economic shock from the outbreak. This would challenge our bullish stance on Chinese stocks in the next three months. Substantially weaker economic data in Q1 would likely trigger a selloff in Chinese risk assets, both onshore and offshore. However, a severe short-term economic shock, followed by a burst of stimulus, would create strong investment opportunities. If the scale of Chinese policymakers’ reflationary measures ramps up significantly in the coming months, they will likely overshoot the short-term economic shock. Another reflationary cycle would certainly have a positive impact on global investors’ sentiment and Chinese financial assets. Stay tuned.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    http://english.www.gov.cn/news/topnews/202002/23/content_WS5e5286cdc6d0… 2   http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3975864/index.html 3   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 4   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports "Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC," dated July 10, 2019, "Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?," dated July 24, 2019, "Don’t Bottom-Fish Chinese Assets (Yet)," dated August 14, 2019 and "Mild Deflation Means Timid Easing," dated October 9, 2019. available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Questions From The Road: Timing The Turn," dated November 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6   Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus," dated February 21, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7   http://www.cec-ceda.org.cn/view_sy.php?id=42633 8   http://www.ce.cn/xwzx/gnsz/gdxw/202002/18/t20200218_34298844.shtml 9   http://www.21jingji.com/2020/2-21/wOMDEzNzhfMTUzNjAwOA.html 10  China has announced targeted measures to defer or lower taxes and administrative fees. It will also provide interest rate subsidies to affected businesses. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Demand for construction machinery in China will contract by 10-15% over the next 12-18 months. Diminishing replacement demand, deteriorating property construction activity and only a moderate acceleration in infrastructure investment will weigh on construction machinery sales in China. We recommend avoiding or underweighting global construction machinery stocks. Feature China is the largest manufacturer and consumer of construction machinery in the world. The country accounts for about 30% of global construction machinery demand in unit terms. Construction machinery includes heavy-duty vehicles performing earthwork operations or other hefty construction tasks. In this report, our coverage of construction machinery refers to the seven most-used construction machines in the world – excavators, loaders, cranes, road rollers, bulldozers, ball-graders and spreaders. Between 2016 and 2019, machinery sales surged by  close to 170%. However, unlike during the 2009-2011 boom, sales were not  widespread across all types of machinery. Sales of these machines are often used by investors and strategists as a microcosm to detect the potency of an economy’s business cycle. An increase in machine sales is usually interpreted as a sign of an acceleration in real estate construction and/or infrastructure spending. Chart I-1Excavators In China: Robust Sales Vs. Diminishing Working Hours Excavators In China: Robust Sales Vs. Diminishing Working Hours Excavators In China: Robust Sales Vs. Diminishing Working Hours Are machinery sales a good measure of construction activity in both the real estate and infrastructure development? Not really. In this report we make the point that sales of construction machinery do not always reflect construction activity in the mainland. Specifically, Chart I-1 demonstrates that sales of excavators in China have differed from Komatsu’s Komtrax index for China. The latter is the average hours of operation per excavator. What explains this gap between resilient excavator sales and diminishing hours of excavator usage? This divergence has been due to the fact that robust excavator sales numbers have been supported by replacement demand as well as a changing product mix (a rising share of smaller and cheaper excavators bought by small entrepreneurs). China’s machinery imports have also been crowded out by a growing roster of domestically made models (import substitution). Boom-Bust Machinery Cycles Chart I-2Chinese Construction Machinery Demand Is Likely To Shrink Chinese Construction Machinery Demand Is Likely To Shrink Chinese Construction Machinery Demand Is Likely To Shrink Chinese sales1 of construction machinery (thereafter, machinery) skyrocketed between 2009 and 2011, when China drastically boosted its infrastructure spending and property construction surged. The 2009-2011 boom was followed by a bust: Between 2012 and 2015, total machinery sales dropped by nearly 70%, (Chart I-2). That bust was succeeded by another boom: between 2016 and 2019, machinery sales surged by close to 170%. However, unlike during the 2009-2011 boom, sales were not widespread across all types of machinery: only excavator and crane sales boomed (Chart I-3). The other five categories – loaders, road rollers, bulldozers, ball-graders and spreaders – experienced a relatively muted sales recovery; their 2019 unit sales were well below their respective 2011 highs (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The 2016-2019 Boom: Only Sales Excavators And Cranes Hit A New High... The 2016-2019 Boom: Only Sales Excavators And Cranes Hit A New High... The 2016-2019 Boom: Only Sales Excavators And Cranes Hit A New High... Going forward, we expect sales of construction machinery in China to experience a 10-15% downturn over the next 12-18 months (Chart I-2 on page 2). The basis for such a contraction is diminishing replacement demand, deteriorating property construction and only a moderate acceleration in infrastructure investment growth. Chart I-4...While Many Others Had A Relatively Muted Sales Recovery ...While Many Others Had A Relatively Muted Sales Recovery ...While Many Others Had A Relatively Muted Sales Recovery   Understanding Construction Machinery Demand China’s property construction and infrastructure development have been the main drivers behind construction machinery demand. Chart I-5 shows construction machinery sales in China are highly correlated with building floor space started. Meanwhile, Chart I-6 reveals that infrastructure investment distinctively led construction machinery sales between 2007 and 2013, but that relationship has broken down since 2014. Chart I-5Main Drivers For Construction Machinery Demand In China: Property Construction... Main Drivers For Construction Machinery Demand In China: Property Construction... Main Drivers For Construction Machinery Demand In China: Property Construction... Chart I-6...And Infrastructure Spending ...And Infrastructure Spending ...And Infrastructure Spending   Crucially, in the past three years, property and infrastructure development alone have not been enough to explain the surge in construction machinery sales. In particular, between 2018 and 2019, growth of both building floor areas started and infrastructure investment were weak, yet construction machinery sales still surged by an astonishing 50%. Crucially, in the past three years, property and infrastructure development alone have not been enough to explain the surge in construction machinery sales. Specific developments in the excavator market were behind this surge. Excavators are the largest component of China’s construction machinery market, with a 52% market share (Chart I-7). The decoupling of excavator sales from property construction and infrastructure investment has been due to non-macro forces such as: Replacement demand: Given the average lifespan of an excavator is about eight years, the excavators bought in 2009-2011 were likely replaced during 2017-2019. Meanwhile, strengthening environmental regulations on emissions of heavy construction machinery also accelerated the pace of replacement. According to the China Construction Machinery Association, replacement demand accounted for about 60% of all excavator sales last year. Price drop: The significant reduction in excavator prices, ranging from 15%-30% since the middle of 2018, spurred more purchases. Prices of excavators imported into China have also dropped about 30% in the past 18 months (Chart I-8). The fundamental reason behind excavator producers cutting prices was weak demand amid lingering excess capacity. Chart I-7The Breakdown Of China’s Construction Machinery Sales Chinese Construction Machinery Demand: Going Downhill Chinese Construction Machinery Demand: Going Downhill Chart I-8A Sizeable Drop In Prices Of Imported Excavators A Sizeable Drop In Prices Of Imported Excavators A Sizeable Drop In Prices Of Imported Excavators   Cranes are the only other construction machinery whose sales reached an all-time high last year. Similar to excavators, replacement demand has been the main factor behind sales. Excluding excavators and cranes, machinery sales have been lackluster, as illustrated in Chart I-4 on page 3. Bottom Line: Property construction and infrastructure development alone do not explain the strong growth in construction machinery sales between 2017 and 2019. Considerable replacement demand prompted by a sizable reduction in excavator prices also facilitated sales in China. A Downbeat Cyclical Demand Outlook Chart I-9Chinese Property Construction Is Very Weak Chinese Property Construction Is Very Weak Chinese Property Construction Is Very Weak We remain downbeat on Chinese construction machinery demand going forward. Chinese sales of construction machinery will likely contract 10-15% over the next 12-18 months (Chart I-2 on page 2). First, the Chinese property market remains vulnerable to the downside in 2020. A comprehensive measure of Chinese property construction activity – the “building construction” dataset2 – shows that “building construction” floor area started, under construction and completed are all either stagnant or in contraction (Chart I-9). Real estate is still facing considerable headwinds. The COVID-19 outbreak will reduce household income growth and hence weigh on home purchases in the months to come. In the meantime, structural impediments such as poor housing affordability, slowing rural-to-urban migration, demographic changes and the promotion of the housing rental market will also curtail housing demand. Further, the drop in sales will shrink developers’ cash flow, curbing their already feeble financial position to undertake new construction or complete already started projects. Second, the growth rate of China’s infrastructure investment will likely rebound only moderately from its current nominal 3% pace (Chart I-6 on page 4). Even though the central government is likely to implement more fiscal stimulus due to the current coronavirus outbreak, the infrastructure investment growth rate will still be well below the double digits it registered for most of the past decade. Local government special bond quotas are currently a moving target. No doubt, if economic conditions continue to deteriorate, the central government will continue to increase quotas. However, there are several critical points about the importance of special bond issuance that are worth emphasizing: Special bonds accounted for 14% of total infrastructure investment in 2019. Special bond issuance amounted to 7% of combined local government and government-managed funds expenditures last year. Aggregate infrastructure spending was equal to 30% of fixed asset investment excluding the value of land, and 18% of nominal GDP in 2019. It is roughly equal to property construction. Therefore, modest acceleration in infrastructure spending will likely be offset by shrinking property construction. On the whole, barring irrigation-style fiscal and credit stimulus – which has been repeatedly rejected by Beijing – infrastructure spending is unlikely to surge to the extent it did in 2009-‘10, 2013 and 2016-‘17. It is critical to realize that infrastructure spending during those episodes was funded not by Beijing-approved debt but via bank and shadow-banking credit that was beyond Beijing's control. Chart I-10Excavator Sales Are Likely To Fall Excavator Sales Are Likely To Fall Excavator Sales Are Likely To Fall Third, two specific factors below may result in a considerable reduction in excavator sales. Replacement demand will crater starting in 2020. Excavator sales in 2012 were 35% below their 2011 peak. Given the average eight-year replacement cycle, demand for excavators in 2020 and 2021 will be significantly below 2019 levels (Chart I-10). The price war in the excavator sector will continue, but it will fail to lift overall excavator demand. There are signposts that there is an oversupply of excavators in operation. Last year, excavator drivers (individual entrepreneurs) accounted for a large share of purchases, with the bulk of them opting for small-sized machines – the latter contributed about 70% of the total excavator sales growth. The surge in small service providers amid stagnant construction activity has intensified competition and hence depressed income among these individual owners. This will discourage new demand in the coming one to two years. A risk to this view is that replacement demand could be supported to some extent by increasingly stringent environmental rules. This year, the government will accelerate the scrapping process of off-road heavy vehicles below National III emission standards. Bottom Line: Chinese sales of construction machinery will likely experience a 10-15% downturn over the next 12-18 months, with the largest category – excavator sales – falling by 20% or more. Rising Competitiveness Of Chinese Machinery Producers China’s machinery producers have significantly enhanced their competitiveness. This has led to import substitution. For instance, sales of domestic-brand excavators accounted for 65% of total Chinese excavator sales, a considerable rise from 43% in 2014 and only 26% in 2009. Chinese sales of construction machinery will likely  experience a 10-15% downturn over  the next 12-18 months,  with the largest category  – excavator  sales – falling by  20% or  more. The increasing competitiveness of domestic producers has resulted in not only shrinking imports but also rising exports of construction machinery. As a result, Chinese construction machinery net exports have been on the rise (Chart I-11). In fact, excavators, loaders, cranes, and spreaders have all shown increasing net exports in both volume and value terms (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Chinese Construction Machinery: Flat Exports, Less Imports Chinese Construction Machinery: Flat Exports, Less Imports Chinese Construction Machinery: Flat Exports, Less Imports Chart I-12Increasing Net Exports Of Chinese Construction Machinery Increasing Net Exports Of Chinese Construction Machinery Increasing Net Exports Of Chinese Construction Machinery   We expect this trend to continue in the coming years. The ongoing Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will facilitate construction machinery exports to BRI recipient countries. For example, on January 12, Chinese construction machinery manufacturer Zoomlion delivered its first batch of an order of 100 excavators to Ghana as part of a BRI agreement. Total BRI investment with Chinese financing will fall moderately in 2020, as the Chinese government will be applying greater scrutiny and tighter oversight over lending for BRI projects. However, we believe this moderate decline in BRI investment will not affect the country’s construction machinery exports by much. Chinese construction machinery companies are highly focused on technology improvements and 5G applications for their products. This will continue to increase the competitiveness of Chinese construction machinery producers. For example, last May, the 5G-based unmanned mining truck made its debut in China’s Bayan Obo mining region. Autonomous vehicles are more efficient and cheaper to maintain. The Bayan Obo mining area plans to purchase more unmanned mining trucks and transform existing traditional vehicles, with plans to make over 65% of its future fleet of mining cars autonomous. Technology improvements and 5G application will further enhance Chinese construction machinery producers’ productivity, making their products more competitive in the global marketplace. Bottom Line: China’s construction machinery net exports will continue to rise, implying a rising market share for mainland producers. This is a bad sign for foreign producers. Investment Implications Global construction machinery stock prices correlate closely with China’s domestic machinery sales (Chart I-13). This confirms the importance of the mainland, which accounts for 30% of global construction machinery demand. There are 30 stocks in the MSCI global construction machinery stock index, including Caterpillar, Komatsu, Paccar, Cummins and Volvo B.  China’s construction machinery  net exports  will continue to rise, implying a rising market share for  mainland producers. This is a bad sign for  foreign producers. Global machinery producers will likely suffer from both shrinking demand in China and a loss of market share to mainland producers. In fact, both Caterpillar and Komatsu excavator sales are already in contraction, even though mainland excavator sales did not contract in 2019 (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Global Construction Machinery Stocks: Closely Correlate With Chinese Demand Global Construction Machinery Stocks: Closely Correlate With Chinese Demand Global Construction Machinery Stocks: Closely Correlate With Chinese Demand Chart I-14Caterpillar And Komatsu Sales: Shrinking Caterpillar And Komatsu Sales: Shrinking Caterpillar And Komatsu Sales: Shrinking   However, a caveat is in order: both Caterpillar and Komatsu have manufacturing factories in China, ranking the third and seventh place in terms of domestic excavator sales, respectively. Hence, domestic producers also include some multinationals that have established operations on the mainland. A point on equity valuations is also in order: Chart I-15 demonstrates the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio for Caterpillar. This stock is not yet cheap. As its sales contract, the stock price will fall further. Chart I-15Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio For Caterpillar: Not Cheap Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio For Caterpillar: Not Cheap Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio For Caterpillar: Not Cheap Chart I-16Global Machinery Stocks Are At Risk Global Machinery Stocks Are At Risk Global Machinery Stocks Are At Risk Overall, trailing EPS of both global construction machinery companies and mainland producers listed on the A-share market are beginning to contract (Chart I-16). This entails that their share prices are at risk.   On the whole, we recommend avoiding or underweighting global machinery stocks. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Please note that all the Chinese construction machinery sales data used in this report are compiled by China Construction Machinery Association. Based on the Association’s definition, its sales data Include exports and domestic sales of domestically produced machineries, but exclude imports. However, exports are small so this sales data can be used as a proxy of domestic demand. 2 This measure includes not only “commodity buildings” but also buildings built by non-real estate developers.

Highlights The coronavirus is a wild card that may have a significant impact on the global economy, … : The COVID-19 outbreak is unfolding in real time, half a world away, and its ultimate course is uncertain. For now, our China strategists think the worst-case scenarios are unlikely, but we will not remain constructive if the virus outlook materially worsens. … but as long as there is not a significantly negative exogenous event, the US economy will be just fine, … : From a domestic perspective, the US expansion is in very good shape. Easy monetary conditions will support a range of activities, and a potent labor market will give increasing numbers of households the confidence and wherewithal to ramp up consumption. … and if there’s no recession, there will not be a bear market: Recessions and equity bear markets coincide, with stocks typically peaking six months ahead of the onset of a recession. If the next recession doesn’t come before late 2021/early 2022, the bull market should remain intact at least through the end of this year. What We Do US Investment Strategy’s stated mission is to analyze the US economy and its future direction for the purpose of helping clients make asset-allocation and portfolio-management decisions. As important as the economic backdrop is, however, we never forget that we are investment strategists, not economic forecasters. We don’t belabor the state of every facet of the economy because neither we nor our clients care about 10- to 20-basis-point wiggles in real GDP growth in themselves. They do want us to keep them apprised of the general trend, though, and we are always trying to assess it. Ultimately, macro analysis benefits investors by providing them with timely recognition of the approach or emergence of an inflection point in the cycles that matter most for financial assets. We view investment strategy as the practical application of the study of cycles, and we are continuously monitoring the business cycle, the credit cycle, the monetary policy cycle and the squishy and only sporadically relevant sentiment cycle. This week, we turn our attention to the business cycle, and the ongoing viability of the expansion, which is already the longest on record at 128 months and counting. If it remains intact, risk assets are likely to continue to generate returns in excess of returns on Treasuries and cash. The Message From Our Simple Recession Indicator We have previously described our simple recession indicator.1 It has just three components, and all three of them have to be sounding the alarm to conclude that a recession is imminent. Our first input is the slope of the yield curve, measured by the difference between the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month T-bill.2 The yield curve inverts when the 3-month bill yield exceeds the 10-year bond yield, and a recession has followed all but one yield curve inversion over the last 50 years (Chart 1). The yield curve inverted from May through September last year, and the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) has driven it to invert again, but the unprecedentedly negative term premium (Chart 2) has made the curve much more prone to set off a false alarm. Chart 1An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... Chart 2... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields ... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields ... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields The indicator’s second input is the year-over-year change in the leading economic index (“LEI”). When the LEI contracts on a year-over-year basis, a recession typically ensues. As with the inverted yield curve, year-over-year contractions in the LEI have successfully called all of the recessions in the last 50 years with just one false positive (Chart 3). The LEI bounced off the zero line thanks to January’s strong reading, and the year-ago comparisons are much easier than they were last year, but we are mindful that it is flirting with sending a recession warning. Chart 3Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... It takes more than tight monetary conditions to make a recession, but you can't have one without them. To confirm the signal from the yield curve and the LEI and make it more robust, we also consider the monetary policy backdrop. Over the nearly 60 years for which BCA’s model calculates an equilibrium rate, every recession has occurred when the fed funds rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 4). Tight monetary policy isn’t a sufficient condition for a recession – expansions continued for six more years despite tight policy in the mid-‘80s and mid-'90s – but it is a necessary one. Our indicator will not definitively signal an approaching recession until monetary conditions turn restrictive. Chart 4... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession ... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession ... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession Bottom Line: In our view, the yield curve and the LEI both represent yellow lights, though the LEI has a greater likelihood of turning red, especially in the wake of COVID-19. Monetary policy is unambiguously green, however, and we will not conclude that a recession is imminent until the Fed deliberately attempts to rein in the economy. Bolstering Theory With Observation A potential shortcoming of our recession indicator is its reliance on a theoretical concept. The equilibrium (or natural) rate of interest cannot be directly observed, so our judgment of whether monetary policy is easy or tight turns on an estimate. To bolster our assessment of whether or not the expansion can continue, we have been tracking the drivers of the main components of US output. Going back to the GDP equation from Introductory Macroeconomics, GDP = C + I + G + (X - M), we look at the forces supporting Consumption (C), Investment (I) and Government Spending (G). (Because the US is a comparatively closed economy in which trade plays a minor role, we ignore net exports (X-M).) Consumption is by far the largest component, accounting for two-thirds of overall output, while investment and government spending each contribute a sixth. As critical as consumption is for the US economy, it is not the whole story; smaller but considerably more volatile investment is capable of plunging the economy into a recession on its own. The Near-Term Outlook For Consumption Chart 5Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Consumption depends on household income, the condition of household balance sheets, and households’ willingness to spend. The labor market remains extremely tight, with the unemployment rate at a 50-year low, and “hidden” unemployment dwindling as the supply of discouraged (Chart 5, top panel) and involuntary part-time workers (Chart 5, bottom panel) has withered. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio trails only the peak reached during the dot-com era (Chart 6), which bodes well for household income. The historical correlation between the prime-age non-employment-to-population ratio and wage gains has been quite robust, and compensation growth has plenty of room to run before it catches up with the best-fit line (Chart 7). Chart 6Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Chart 7... And Wages Will Eventually Follow Suit Back To Basics Back To Basics Chart 8No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt Households can use additional income to increase savings or pay down debt instead of spending it, but it doesn’t look like they will. The savings rate is already quite elevated, having returned to its mid-‘90s levels (Chart 8, top panel); households have already run debt down to its post-dot-com bust levels (Chart 8, middle panel); and debt service is less demanding than it has been at any point in the last 40 years (Chart 8, bottom panel). The health of household balance sheets, and the recent pickup in the expectations component of the consumer confidence surveys, suggest that households have the ability and the willingness to keep consumption growing at or above trend.   Household balance sheets are healthy enough to support spending income gains; there's even room to borrow to augment them.           The Near-Term Outlook For Investment Table 1GDP Equation Recession Probabilities Back To Basics Back To Basics Chart 9A Budding Turnaround A Budding Turnaround A Budding Turnaround We previously identified investment as the individual component most likely to decline enough to zero out trend growth from the other two components (Table 1), and it was a drag in 2019, declining in each of the last three quarters to end the year more than 3% below its peak. We expect it will hold up better this year, however, as the capital spending intentions components of the NFIB survey of smaller businesses (Chart 9, top panel) and the regional Fed manufacturing surveys (Chart 9, bottom panel) have both pulled out of declines. The trade tensions with China weighed heavily on business confidence in 2019, but the signing of the Phase 1 trade agreement lifted that cloud, and we expect that capex will revive in line with confidence once COVID-19 has been subdued. Government Spending In An Election Year Chart 10State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported Heading into the most hotly contested election in many years, we confidently assert that federal spending is not going to go away. Regardless of party affiliation, everyone in Congress sees the appeal of distributing pork to their constituents. Spending by state and local governments, which accounts for 60% of aggregate government spending, should also hold up well, as a robust labor market will support state income tax (Chart 10, top panel) and sales tax (Chart 10, middle panel) receipts. Healthy trailing home price gains will support property tax assessments, keeping municipal coffers full (Chart 10, bottom panel). Coronavirus Uncertainties The coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) is unfolding in real time, generating daily updates on new infections, deaths and recoveries. Any opinion we offer on the economy’s future is conditioned on the virus' ongoing course. If it takes a sharp turn for the worse, with more severe consequences than we had previously expected, it is likely that we will downgrade our outlook. For now, we are operating under the projection that the virus will cause China’s first quarter output to contract sharply enough to zero out global growth in the first quarter. Our base-case scenario, following from the work of our China Investment Strategy service, is fairly benign from there. For now, we are expecting that the worst of the effects will be confined to the first quarter, and that the Chinese economy and the global economy will bounce back vigorously in the second quarter and beyond, powered by pent-up demand that will go unfilled until the outbreak begins to recede. Our China strategists continue to be heartened by Chinese officials' aggressive (albeit belated) measures to stem the outbreak, revealed in the apparent slowing of the rate of new infections in Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak (Chart 11, top panel), and in the rest of China (Chart 11, bottom panel). They also expect a determined policy response to offset the drag from the epidemic (Charts 12 and 13), as officials pursue the imperative of meeting their goal to double the size of the economy between 2010 and 2020. Chart 11Stringent Quarantine Measures May Be Gaining Traction Back To Basics Back To Basics Chart 12The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... Chart 13... By Easing Monetary Conditions ... By Easing Monetary Conditions ... By Easing Monetary Conditions If the economy is expanding, investors' bar for de-risking should be high. Bottom Line: Our China strategists’ COVID-19 view remains fairly optimistic, though it is subject to unfolding developments. Our US view is contingent on BCA’s evolving COVID-19 views. Investment Implications As we noted at the outset, we are not interested in the economy for the economy’s sake; we are only interested in its impact on financial markets. The key business-cycle takeaway for markets is that bear markets and recessions typically coincide, as it is difficult to get a 20% decline at the index level without a meaningful decline in earnings, and earnings only decline meaningfully during recessions. No recession means no bear market, and it also means no meaningful pickup in loan delinquencies and defaults. The bottom line is that it is premature to de-risk while the expansion remains intact. We reiterate our recommendation that investors should remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios, and at least equal weight spread product within fixed income allocations, though we may turn more cautious as we learn more about the progression of COVID-19.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the August 13, 2018 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use the 3-month/10-year segment instead of the more common 2-year/10-year because the 3-month bill is a cleaner proxy for short rates than the 2-year note, which incorporates estimates of the Fed’s future actions.

Highlights Global equities have benefited from the fact that the number of new coronavirus (COVID-19) cases continues to drift lower. Falling bond yields have also supported stocks. Nevertheless, risks remain. Even if the outbreak recedes, global growth is still set to fall to zero in the first quarter, before bouncing back over the remainder of the year. Thus, a near-term hit to corporate earnings now looks unavoidable. More worryingly, the possibility remains that the number of new cases will spike again as Chinese workers return to their jobs over the next few weeks. While we and others have compared the current outbreak to the SARS episode, a more relevant comparison could be the H1N1 (swine flu) outbreak of 2009-2010. Despite early efforts to contain it, 61 million Americans ended up catching the H1N1 virus, resulting in about 12,000 US deaths over a 12-month period. Globally, at least 150,000 people perished. It appears that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is significantly higher than for H1N1, though well below that of SARS and MERS. A full-blown pandemic with a fatality rate of 2% could lead to 20 million deaths worldwide. This would likely trigger a global downturn as deep as the Great Recession of 2008/09. The only consolation is that the recovery would be much more rapid than the one following the financial crisis. Although we are inclined to lean on the side of optimism, the truth is that neither we nor anyone else knows what the likelihood of such a pandemic scenario is. Thus, while we continue to maintain our positive 12-month view on global stocks, we recommend a more cautious near-term stance. Global Growth Set To Grind To A Halt In Q1 Based on the SARS example, we noted three weeks ago that risk assets were likely to bottom once the number of new coronavirus cases peaked. Sure enough, Chinese shares troughed on January 31st, just as the number of confirmed infections had begun to level off. The S&P 500 has been on a tear since then, hitting one record high after another (Chart 1). Falling bond yields have also supported stocks. Despite the decline in new infections, we think it is too early for investors to breathe a sigh of relief. For one thing, the economic data out of China remains abysmal. Real-time indicators of economic activity have been off-the-charts bad – much worse than what we saw during the SARS outbreak. While there has been some recovery in recent days, road congestion remains well below normal levels. In Shanghai, property sales are currently about four times lower than what is usual for this time of  year. Movie ticket sales have all but disappeared. Daily coal consumption, which tracks electricity consumption, has fallen by 70% (Chart 2). More than three-quarters of companies surveyed last week by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai said that they cannot run a full production line due to a lack of staff. Chart 1Just As In The SARS Episode, Stocks Bottomed Around The Same Time The Number Of Infections Peaked Just As In The SARS Episode, Stocks Bottomed Around The Same Time The Number Of Infections Peaked Just As In The SARS Episode, Stocks Bottomed Around The Same Time The Number Of Infections Peaked   Chart 2Chinese Daily Activity Has Fallen Off A Cliff Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus In our preliminary estimate of the impact of the virus on global growth, we penciled in zero growth for China on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1 of 2020, implying that the level of output in the first quarter would be the same as in the fourth quarter. Unfortunately, at this point, that looks far too optimistic. Chinese economic output will decline on a sequential basis. The only question is by how much. Despite the decline in new infections, we think it is too early for investors to breathe a sigh of relief. Chart 3 shows our updated baseline profile for global growth in Q1 and the remainder of this year. Assuming that production returns to normal over the coming weeks, it should be possible to limit the unannualized quarter-over-quarter decline in Chinese real GDP in Q1 to 1% (4% annualized). On a year-over-year basis (2020Q1 versus 2019Q1), this would drag Chinese growth down to 3.5%, the slowest pace in three decades. Relative to our earlier estimates, we expect larger spillover effects to the rest of the world, mainly stemming from the severe contraction in global tourism. Chart 3The Global Economy Will Come To A Standstill In Q1 Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus The direct and indirect effects of the outbreak should be enough to push global growth down to zero on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1. Under our baseline scenario, growth will recover in the second quarter, leaving the level of global GDP down 0.5 percentage points for the year as a whole compared to what would have transpired if the virus had never emerged.   The Calm Before The Storm? Even after this downgrade to our assessment, we still see the risks to global growth from the COVID-19 outbreak as being tilted to the downside. This largely reflects our concern that contrary to our baseline scenario, the outbreak could reintensify over the next few weeks as more Chinese workers return to their jobs. As the dire situation on the Diamond Princess cruiseliner docked in the port of Yokohama illustrates, the COVID-19 virus remains highly contagious. Despite numerous efforts by medical authorities to keep those on board at a safe distance from one another, 621 of the 3,011 passengers and crew aboard the ship who have been tested have been infected with the virus. Worryingly, the virus also appears to be contagious even when carriers are not showing any symptoms. Just this week, the Japanese media reported on a case where the son of an infected doctor tested positive for the virus even though he had last seen his father three days before the doctor started displaying symptoms.  While the number of new infections has fallen in China, new clusters have appeared elsewhere. South Korea just reported 73 new cases in a little more than two days. Iran disclosed two deaths from the virus in Qom, a holy city just outside Tehran that receives 20 million visitors annually. This suggests that there are probably at least 100 infected people in the city. The World Health Organization has estimated RO, the average number of people someone with the COVID-19 virus will infect, to be between 1.4 and 2.5. A recent survey of 12 studies found a larger mean RO of 3.28.1  An RO above one would produce an exponential increase in the number of cases. Heavy-handed quarantine measures such as those imposed by China could probably drive RO below one. However, some governments may not be able to implement such measures, and even if they could, they might not be sustainable for months on end.  The H1N1 (Swine Flu) Template? All this raises the possibility that the COVID-19 outbreak could end up resembling the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic of 2009-10. Despite initial hopes, early efforts to contain the H1N1 outbreak failed. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculated that 61 million Americans caught the virus over the course of the proceeding 12 months, resulting in over 12,000 deaths. Globally, an estimated 700 million-to-1.4 billion people contracted the virus. A paper published in the Lancet put the number of fatalities worldwide at 151,700-to-575,400.2 The reason one hears less about H1N1 than SARS is that the latter killed 5%-to-10% of those who contracted it, whereas the former killed 0.01%-to-0.08%. Based on very preliminary evidence, it appears that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is significantly higher than for H1N1, though well below that of SARS, and lower still than for MERS, a particularly nasty strain of the coronavirus that killed about one-third of those who contracted it. That said, COVID-19’s true fatality rate remains highly uncertain. In Hubei province, the fatality rate is running at 3.1%. Elsewhere in China, it stands at 0.9%. Outside China, the fatality rate appears to be 0.5%. Part of the gap between Hubei and elsewhere may be due to greater underreporting of mild and moderate cases in the stricken province. However, it is also likely that Hubei’s higher fatality rate reflects the tremendous pressures its medical system is currently under. If the COVID-19 outbreak were to morph into a pandemic, such pressures would only escalate since medical resources from less-afflicted areas could no longer be deployed to fight every local breakout. The Economic Impact Of A Pandemic: Deep But Brief Chart 4The Private-Sector Surplus In Developed Economies Is In Good Shape The Private-Sector Surplus In Developed Economies Is In Good Shape The Private-Sector Surplus In Developed Economies Is In Good Shape Assuming the COVID-19 virus infects a billion people with a fatality rate of 2%, this would translate into 20 million deaths worldwide. Such a pandemic would rattle the global economy, leading to a recession as deep as the one in 2008/09. Demand for most items other than necessities would collapse. Business and leisure travel would fizzle. The global supply chain would seize up. The only consolation is that the recession would likely be followed by a vigorous “V-shaped” recovery. Sluggish “U-shaped” recoveries tend to occur when there are many imbalances that need to be worked off. For example, the recovery in the US following the Great Recession was impeded by the need for households to pare back debt and for the excess supply of newly built homes to be run down. Today, the larger developed economies are in decent shape. The private-sector financial balance in advanced economies – the difference between what the private sector earns and spends – stands at a surplus of 3.4% of GDP. In 2007, the private-sector financial balance fell to 0.4%, hitting a deficit of 2% in the US. The private-sector balance also deteriorated sharply in the lead-up to the 2001 recession (Chart 4). Chinese debt levels have soared over the past decade. However, it is worth noting that China’s private-sector financial surplus reached 7.1% of GDP in 2019 – higher than in Japan or Germany (Chart 5). Rather than suffering from excess debt levels, China suffers from excess savings. It is these excess savings that have forced the authorities to push state-owned companies and local governments to engage in debt-financed investment spending in order to prop up aggregate demand and employment. It is also these savings that will allow the government to stimulate the economy to prevent an outright economic collapse. Chart 5The Private Sector Spends Less Than It Earns In Most Economies Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Life Goes On… For Most Chart 6'Til Death Do Us Part Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus While it would take time, as horrific as a pandemic would be, most people would eventually adjust to living in a world where one’s longevity is less assured than it is today. That is the world in which humanity lived for centuries. It is also the world that prevailed during the Cold War. Keep in mind that in the US, an average 59 year-old man has a 1% chance of dying at some point within one year, and a 6% chance of dying over five years (Chart 6). Death is a part of life. As the virus circulates throughout the population, some people will perish. However, the vast majority will acquire immunity either by fighting off the disease or, if a vaccine becomes available later this year or in 2021, by being inoculated. All this will bring the pandemic to an end.  Investment Conclusions No one knows if the COVID-19 outbreak will recede or whether it will morph into a true pandemic. As macro strategists, all we can do is run through various scenarios and try to figure out the likely market impact. Chart 7Global Manufacturing Was On The Upswing Before The Outbreak Occurred Global Manufacturing Was On The Upswing Before The Outbreak Occurred Global Manufacturing Was On The Upswing Before The Outbreak Occurred If the number of new infections continues to decline, investors will likely look through the Q1 plunge in growth. Judging from the purchasing manager indices, global growth had already turned the corner in the weeks before the viral outbreak (Chart 7). With pent-up demand having accumulated in the intervening weeks, growth would bounce back in the second quarter. Under this benign scenario, equities still have upside, while bond yields will start rising again. As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar would also give up some of its recent gains. In a pandemic scenario, the recovery in growth will obviously be delayed. And when output does recover, it will be from significantly lower levels. Markets will end up going through their own version of Kubler-Ross' five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Unfortunately, before we reach the acceptance stage, global equities could easily fall by 20% from current levels. On balance, while we continue to lean on the side of optimism by maintaining our positive 12-month view on global stocks, we recommend a more cautious near-term stance until there is greater clarity as to how the outbreak will evolve.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Ying Liu, Albert A Gayle, Annelies Wilder-Smith, and Joacim Rocklöv, “The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus,” Journal of Travel Medicine, February 2020. 2 Please see Sundar S. Shrestha, et al., “Estimating the Burden of 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) in the United States (April 2009–April 2010),” Clinical Infectious Diseases (52:1), January 2011; Peter Doshi, “The 2009 Influenza Pandemic,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases (13:3), March 2013; and Heath Kelly, et al., “The Age-Specific Cumulative Incidence of Infection with Pandemic Influenza H1N1 2009 Was Similar in Various Countries Prior to Vaccination,” PLoS ONE 6(8), August 2011. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The COVID-19-induced demand shock in China – and a stronger USD – will reduce growth in global crude oil consumption to just over 1mm b/d this year, vs. earlier expectations of ~ 1.4mm b/d. Significant fiscal and monetary stimulus from China will be required to put economic growth back on track over the critical 2020-21 interval. An accommodative monetary-policy backdrop globally also will support demand. On the supply side, OPEC 2.0 likely will cut output by an additional 600k b/d in 2Q20, which will remove 2.3mm b/d off member states’ official quotas. For 2H20, we expect the coalition to revert to its 1.7mm b/d in cuts to keep markets balanced. US shale-oil output growth will continue to slow under market-imposed capital discipline. We are revising our baseline price forecasts in 2020 lower to $62/bbl and $58/bbl for Brent and WTI, respectively (Chart of the Week). This is down $5/bbl vs our previous forecast. Price risk is to the upside, however. 2021 Brent and WTI forecasts remain at $70/bbl and $66/bbl, respectively, as we do not expect long-lived demand destruction from the COVID-19 outbreak. A growing consensus around policy stimulus and production cuts makes us leery. Feature Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 continues to hammer Chinese oil demand, forcing refiners there to drastically reduce output. This crude oil is ending up in inventories, but, so far at least, overall storage capacity in China is not being maxed out by the unintended accumulations of crude and product inventories. Data are difficult to come by, but there are a few observations that provide some insight into the state of the refining market in China as the COVID-19 episode unfolds. Platt’s reported independent refiners in Shandong Province, which has ~ 3.4mm b/d of refining capacity, cut runs to a four-year low of ~ 40% of capacity this month, down from a January rate of 63.5%. Shandong refiners represent 50%-60% of China’s independent refining capacity.1 We estimate EM demand – led by downward revisions in China – will fall by ~900k b/d in 1Q20 – when most of the damage to the economy likely will occur – and by an average 300k b/d for the year vs. our previous estimates. Ursa Space Systems’ radar satellite monitoring of inventories close to coastal refineries indicated Chinese oil storage at the beginning of the month was at 60% of capacity.2 This figure likely is higher, given refinery runs remain low, but it does not yet suggest storage capacity in China will be exhausted in the near future. In our modeling of the COVID-19 impact on oil demand, we estimate EM demand – led by downward revisions in China – will fall by ~900k b/d in 1Q20 – when most of the damage to the economy likely will occur – and by an average 300k b/d for the year vs. our previous estimates. This leads us to believe EM oil demand will increase by 1mm b/d this year, down from our earlier expectation of 1.26mm b/d pre-COVID-19. For DM economies, demand growth also will disappoint, revised down by 100k b/d on the back of a warmer-than-expected winter and stop-and-go growth in manufacturing induced by COVID-19. Policy Stimulus Will Revive Chinese Demand The COVID-19 outbreak will result in a significant hit to China’s GDP, which will require substantial stimulus to put growth back on a 6% p.a. track this year. This growth rate is required for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to deliver on its pledge to double GDP and per-capita income over 2010-20, a pledge that was memorialized in writing following the Party’s 2012 Congress. In addition, next year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP, and, we believe, it is an all-but-foregone conclusion the Party’s leadership will not want a faltering economy on display as it celebrates this important milestone. Given these considerations, the possibility policymakers will over-stimulate the economy to get it back on track is a non-trivial upside risk.3 We do not think it is unreasonable to expect policymakers to lean into reviving growth this year and next with policy stimulus. Our baseline 2020 forecast envisions prices will falter somewhat versus our previous expectation – with Brent averaging $62/bbl this year, and WTI trading $4/bbl below that, vs. $67/bbl and $63/bbl previously. We are mindful of the impact Chinese policy stimulus can have on the global oil markets. The effects on GDP growth following demand shocks of past stimulus can be seen in the response of China’s GDP following the 2003 SARS outbreak; the 2008-09 GFC; the 2011-12 eurozone debt crisis; and even in China’s 2015-16 slowdown (Chart 2). For this reason, we do not think it is unreasonable to expect policymakers to lean into reviving growth this year and next with policy stimulus. And it is for this reason that we believe price risk tilts to the upside this year. Our updated Ensemble price forecast includes two additional demand-side simulations to assess its sensitivity to changes in EM oil demand: Chart 2Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Higher EM demand scenario (20% weight): We model the impact of the coronavirus as short-lived, with only a temporary impact on China’s economy. Consumer demand and industrial production in China converge to pre-COVID-19 levels rapidly in 2H20. Chinese policymakers overstimulate in 2Q20, over fears the virus could have severe long-term consequences on the economy. This scenario assumes EM demand increases by 100k b/d vs. our base case in 2020 and 2021. Lower EM demand scenario (10% weight): We model the impact of the coronavirus as a severe and long-lasting event. This triggers a negative feedback loop for EM oil demand; collapsing demand forces production lower, which reduces employment and pushes demand further down. This reverberates to other EM economies and affects global supply chains. This scenario assumes EM demand decreases by 240k b/d in 2020 and returns to our base case in 2021, supported by China stimulus. Oil-Demand Reduction (Not Destruction) The outbreak also is contributing to greater global economic uncertainty, which continues to support the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB). The COVID-19 outbreak in China caused us to reduce our expectation for global oil demand growth by ~ 360k b/d, taking 2020 year-on-year growth to ~ 1.04mm b/d, versus our earlier expectation of 1.4mm b/d. The outbreak also is contributing to greater global economic uncertainty, which continues to support the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB). Dollar strength produces a headwind for EM GDP growth, which suppresses oil-demand growth. The combination of the COVID-19-induced demand reduction and the stronger USD TWIB likely will compel OPEC 2.0 to maintain its production discipline until the global policy uncertainty abates and the USD TWIB retreats. Such a reversal in trend would become a tailwind for commodity demand (Chart 3). Chart 3Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global supply growth will continue to be constrained by demands from investors to return capital to shareholders. We expect the hit to global demand to be offset by increased production cuts from OPEC 2.0, which will be agreed next month. OPEC 2.0 production also will be impacted by continued output losses in Iran and Venezuela, which have seen y/y production fall by ~ 1.8mm b/d in 2019. Global supply growth will continue to be constrained by demands from investors to return capital to shareholders – via stock buybacks – and for steady and increasing dividends to make their equity competitive with alternative sectors (e.g., tech). These capital-market pressures – in addition to growing pressure from Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investors – will continue to have a profound effect on capital availability for oil and gas E+P companies for decades to come. This is a theme we will return to often in future research. We summarize these supply-demand dynamics in Chart 4. For OPEC 2.0, the 1.7mm b/d reduction in output the coalition agreed for 1Q20 remains in place, as do losses from Iran and Venezuela. For 2Q20, we assume the coalition adds another 600k b/d of production cuts. After that, we assume OPEC 2.0 reverts to its earlier production cuts of 1.7mm b/d for 2H20. In 2021, we assume OPEC 2.0 takes production cuts back down to 1.2mm b/d in January 2021, then gradually increases its production over 1H21 to balance the market and to avoid spiking prices. We also expect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to remove 300k b/d of overcompliance next year, as markets tighten. In 2H21, we see OPEC 2.0 production levels remaining flat at ~ 44.8mm b/d (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Chart 4Supply-Demand Balances Supply-Demand Balances Supply-Demand Balances Chart 5Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing For 2021, we are leaving our Brent forecast unchanged at $70/bbl, and WTI at $66/bbl. For the US, we reduced our Lower 48 production assumptions, and now have 740k b/d growth in 2020 and 300k b/d in 2021. Shales account for almost all of this increase. We also include a scenario in which US production comes in lower in our ensemble forecast. These fundamentals combine to put global oil inventories back on a downward trajectory in 2H20 (Chart 5). That said, there is an important caveat going into 2H20: If the US Economic Policy Uncertainty Index starts rising in 2H20 on the back of US election risks, markets will continue to price in a stronger USD in 2020 vs. what we now expect. For 2021, we are leaving our Brent forecast unchanged at $70/bbl, and WTI at $66/bbl. Odds favor a return to the pre-COVID-19 price trajectory for oil next year, with continued upside risk from Chinese fiscal and monetary stimulus, and a globally accommodative monetary-policy backdrop. Higher Spare Capacity Reduces Risk Premium The market remains partly balanced by OPEC 2.0’s production cuts. This means that the group’s spare capacity is increasing, reducing the risk premium the market typically includes in crude oil prices to reflect sudden output losses. The risk premium in oil prices evaporated following the drop in demand and the increase in spare capacity due to the large OPEC 2.0 cuts. When China’s economy resumes its normal activity, demand will pick up and the market will balance, increasing the impact of possible supply disruptions. However, the market remains partly balanced by OPEC 2.0’s production cuts. This means that the group’s spare capacity is increasing, reducing the risk premium the market typically includes in crude oil prices to reflect sudden output losses. In addition, if production capacity of ~ 300k-500k b/d in the Neutral Zone shared by KSA and Kuwait is restored, the risk premium could drop even lower, given this production is expected to be retained as spare capacity. If this is the case we could have lower prices in 2020 vs. our current forecast (down to ~ $60/bbl). We will be exploring the changes in OPEC 2.0 spare capacity and the consequences for overall production in future research. Bottom Line: Assisted by Chinese policy stimulus, oil demand will recover this year from the COVID-19-induced demand shock. On the supply side, the combination of deeper OPEC 2.0 production cuts – which we expect will be settled at the upcoming March meeting – and capital-market-imposed reduction in US oil production will push oil markets to a supply deficit. The ongoing demand shock forces us to reduce our 2020 Brent price forecast to $62/bbl from $67/bbl previously. For 2021, we maintain our $70/bbl target. Risks to our view are mounting. Three crucial pieces to our 2020 and 2021 expectations remain uncertain: The duration and magnitude of the impact of the coronavirus shock, The level of production cuts by OPEC 2.0 and the degree of compliance by all members, and The trajectory of the US dollar – if global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated the USD could remain well bid, which would continue to pressure EM GDP growth – and commodity demand – at the margin. Our base case remains that prices will rise from here, but our conviction level is slightly lower. One reason for this is the apparent consensus emerging around the likelihood of Chinese stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. If either of these assumptions prove wrong, oil prices likely would move lower.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight As of Tuesday’s close, Brent prices were up 8% from their Feb 10 low of $53.27/bbl, supported by receding COVID-19 fears and rising expectations OPEC 2.0 will deepen its production cuts at its March meeting. Earlier this week, oil prices received an additional lift from the newly-imposed US sanctions on Rosneft Trading SA – a subsidiary of Russia’s state-own company – for its activities with Venezuela’s PDVSA. Rosneft Trading intensified its involvement in Venezuela’s oil sector and now handles the majority of the country’s crude exports, providing vital support to the Maduro government. The US restrictions include a 90-day wind-down period for companies to end their activities with Rosneft Trading. Base Metals: Neutral Chinese steel consumption – which accounts for ~50% of global demand – has been hit hard by the coronavirus outbreak. Steel and iron ore prices in China plunged 11% and 3% YTD (Chart 6). Steel mills’ inventories increased to record levels, reaching full capacity. Mills are now forced to export their surplus at reduced prices – flooding seaborne steel markets – or to cut output. Accordingly, more than 33% of steel mills are considering cutting steel production, according to a recent Platts survey. Margins at producing mills are declining and could harm high-grade iron ore prices. This is a short-term risk to our view. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices surged past $1,600/oz on Tuesday – overlooking positive manufacturing data in the US. Silver shadowed gold’s movement, closing at $18.13/oz. Precious metals are bought as insurance against risks of a wider-than-expected spread of the coronavirus and should remain well bid until uncertainty dissipates. Gold is somewhat overbought based on sentiment, momentum and technical indicators (Chart 7). If, as we expect, the daily increase in confirmed cases ex-Hubei slows meaningfully over the coming months, gold and silver prices will lose some steam. Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT March wheat futures surged 4.4% on Tuesday after Australia’s government sharply lowered its estimate of the country’s wheat harvest as severe drought affected crops. The Australian agricultural agency said the crop totaled 15.17 mm MT, the lowest since 2008, paving the way for stronger US exports. Corn also moved higher, with the prompt contract gaining 1.26% on the back of a new round of Chinese tariff exemptions on US goods. A USDA report showed US soybean export inspections bound for China were still half of last year's volumes. Soybeans futures closed 1.25 cents lower at $8.915/bu as markets await large Chinese purchases of US soybeans. Chart 6Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Chart 7Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market     footnotes 1     Please see China's Shandong independent refiners cut run rates to 4-year low of 40% in Feb, published by S&P Global Platts February 13, 2020. 2     Please see Oil demand falls on coronavirus: how much will inventories rise? posted by Ursa Space Systems February 7, 2020. 3     Please see Iron Ore, Steel Poised For Rally, published January 13, 2020, for a discussion of the significance of 2020 vis-à-vis the Communist Party’s pledge to double GDP and per-capita income vs. 2010 levels, memorialized by the CCP at its 2012 Peoples Congress.  We also discuss the 100th anniversary of the Party’s founding next year, which also will be a significant milestone for the CCP – and another reason the Party will not want the Chinese economy faltering as it is celebrated.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20

Global semiconductor share prices have continued to hit new highs, even though there has not been any recovery (positive growth) in global semiconductor sales or in their corporate earnings (EPS). Global semiconductor sales bottomed on a rate-of-change basis in June, but their annual growth rate was still negative in December. In the meantime, global semi share prices have been rallying since January 2019. This divergence between stock prices and revenue of global semiconductor stocks is unprecedented (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Global Semiconductor Market: Sales & Share Prices Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Global Semiconductor Market: Sales & Share Prices Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Global Semiconductor Market: Sales & Share Prices Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Odds are that global semi stocks in general, and Asian ones in particular, will experience a pullback in the coming weeks. The coronavirus outbreak will likely dampen expectations related to the speed of 5G adoption and penetration in China. Critically, China accounted for 35% of global semiconductor sales in 2019, versus 19% for the US and 10% for the whole of Europe. In brief, semiconductor demand from China is now greater than the US and European demand combined. Furthermore, the latest news that the US administration is considering changing its regulations to prevent shipments of semiconductor chips to China’s Huawei Technologies from global companies - including Taiwan's TSMC - could hurt chip stocks further. Since Huawei Technologies is the global leader in 5G networks and smartphones, the ban, if implemented, will instigate a sizable setback to 5G adoption in China and elsewhere. Our updated estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments is between 160 million and 180 million units in 2020, which is below the median of industry expectations of 210 million units (Table II-1). The key reasons why the industry’s expectations are unreasonably high, in our opinion, are as follows: Chinese demand for new smartphones will likely stay weak (Chart II-2). The mainland smartphone market has become extremely saturated, with 1.3 billion units having been sold in just the past three years – nearly equaling the entire Chinese population. Table II-1Industry Forecasts Of The 2020 Global 5G- Smartphone Shipments EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown Chart II-2Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020     Chinese official data show that each Chinese household owned 2.5 phones on average in 2018, and that the average household size was about three persons (Chart II-3). This suggests that going forward nearly all potential phone demand in China is for replacement phones, and that there is no urgent need for households to buy new phones. Chart II-3Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone The Chinese government’s boost to 5G infrastructure investment will likely increase annual installed 5G base stations from 130,000 units last year to about 600,000 to 800,000 this year. However, the total number of 5G base stations will still only account for about 7-9% of total base stations in China in 2020. Hence, geographical coverage will not be sufficiently wide enough to warrant a very high rate of 5G smartphone adoption and penetration. From Chinese consumers’ perspectives, a 5G phone in 2020 will be a ‘nice-to-have,’ but not a ‘must-have.’ Given increasing economic uncertainty and many concerns related to the use of 5G phones, mainland consumers may delay their purchases into 2021 when 5G phone networks will have more geographic coverage.  The number of 5G phone models on the market is expanding, but not that quickly. Consumers may take their time to wait for more models to hit the market before making a 5G phone purchase. For example, Apple will release four 5G phone models, but only in September 2020. Moreover, the price competition between 5G and 4G phones is getting increasingly intense. Smartphone producers have already started to cut prices of their 4G phones aggressively. For example, the price of Apple’s iPhone XS, released in September 2018, has already dropped by about 50% in China. Outside of China, 5G infrastructure development will be much slower. The majority of developed countries will likely give in to pressure from the US and limit their use of Huawei 5G equipment. This will delay infrastructure installation and adoption of 5G throughout the rest of the world because Huawei has the leading and cheapest 5G technology. In 2019, China accounted for about 70% of worldwide 5G smartphone shipments. We reckon that in 2020 Chinese 5G smartphone shipments will be between 120 million and 130 million units. Assuming this accounts for about 70-75% of the world shipment of 5G phones this year, we arrive at our estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments of between 160 million and 180 million units. Overall, investors are pricing global semi stocks using the pace and trajectory of 4G smartphones adoption. However, in 2020 the number and speed of 5G phone penetration will continue lagging that of 4G ones when the latter were introduced in December 2013 (Chart II-4). We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary, and its adoption and penetration will surge in the coming years. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections (Chart II-5).  Chart II-4China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G Chart II-5Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic? Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic? Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic?   Investment Implications Global semi stocks’ valuations are very elevated, as shown in Chart II-6 and Chart II-7. Besides, semi stocks are overbought, suggesting they could correct meaningfully if lofty growth expectations currently baked into their prices do not materialize in the first half of this year. Chart II-6Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Chart II-7Global Semi Stocks’ Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated   The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020, along with US pressure on global semi producers not to sell to Huawei, will likely trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. We recommend patiently waiting for a better entry point for absolute return investors. Within the EM equity universe, we have not been underweight Asian semi stocks because of our negative outlook for the overall EM equity benchmark. We remain neutral on Taiwan and overweight Korea. The reason is that DRAM makers such as Samsung and Hynix have rallied much less than TSMC. Besides, geopolitical risks in relation to Taiwan in general and TSMC in particular are rising, warranting a more defensive stance on Taiwanese stocks relative to Korean equities. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com