Asia

As the world’s second most populous country with an economy projected to grow over 7% annually, India’s potential as a commodity consumer is massive. However, years of distortionary and unfriendly policies have held back the Indian manufacturing sector – the prime consumer of commodities. This has translated into weak “consumption intensity” of industrial commodities. The past four years have witnessed a shift to more business-friendly policies. These policies and an eventual expansion of the manufacturing base will support steeper demand for industrial commodities over the longer term. India’s economic model stands in stark contrast with China’s, which became a voracious consumer of commodities as it industrialized. It is not “the next China” when it comes to metals demand, but it will play an important and growing global role. In terms of agricultural commodities, favorable demographic trends will raise aggregate demand, regardless of the success of India’s industrialization. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Russia’s production was down 42k b/d in January, a trifle compared to the ~ 450k b/d reduction by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in December. Officials indicate Russia will cut production by 228k b/d in 1Q19. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Indian steelmakers are seeking relief from increasing imports in the form of higher duties, as slowing Asian demand leads to higher shipments from China, Korea, and Japan, according to Reuters.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold markets appear more confident in the Fed’s capitulation on its rates-normalization policy, at least in 1H19, as prices rallied above USD 1,320/oz in end-January. Gold traded slightly lower this week. We remain long as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA releases its WASDE report tomorrow. Feature The impact of China’s rapid industrialization since 2000 on commodity markets is well known. Its share of global consumption of copper and crude oil rose from a modest 10.9% and 6.0% in 2000 to 51.1% and 13.5%, respectively (Chart of the Week). As such, China fueled global demand growth over this period (Chart 2) and, in large part, is responsible for the commodity price boom that ensued. Chart of the WeekChina Now Dominates Industrial Commodity Demand China Now Dominates Industrial Commodity Demand China Now Dominates Industrial Commodity Demand With such a large chunk of demand originating in China, its economic health remains a dominant variable in accurately predicting the path of industrial commodity prices globally. However, with economic priorities shifting from the industrial sector to consumer-driven services, the era of insatiable Chinese commodity demand growth looks to be nearing its end. Chart 2 In search of a replacement to take up the slack, India has often been singled out as a potential leading source of commodity demand growth going forward, and for good reason: India is massive. In terms of population, it is roughly on par with China, boasting a population of 1.3 billion people. And while its share of global wealth is dwarfed by China’s, India’s economy is growing at a rapid pace. According to the most recent IMF projections, its GDP will expand at a 7.5%, and 7.7% clip this year and next – faster than China’s projected 6.2% for both years. Typically, as low income economies develop, their manufacturing sector outpaces economy-wide growth, raising the contribution of industry to overall GDP. Stronger activity in this sector correlates well with industrial commodity demand, which rises accordingly. Meanwhile ag demand is determined by both population and income growth. India, however, has missed the boat (Table 1). Its share of global demand is disproportionate to its current size and its future potential. Table 1India’s Consumption Of Industrial Metals Stands Out As Disproportionately Low India's Commodity Demand, With Or Without Modi India's Commodity Demand, With Or Without Modi In fact, the intensity of commodity usage per dollar of GDP is low even relative to countries at similar income levels (Chart 3). This is most clear in the case of metals. It can be put down to the relatively small role of manufacturing in India’s economy. Chart 3 India did not follow the traditional path of growing its manufacturing base first before re-orienting its economy towards services. Rather, the manufacturing sector has been held back by poor infrastructure and distortionary policies. In fact, services – such as financial services, business services, and telecom – already dominate India’s economy, accounting for 53.9% of GDP, compared to 16.7% in the case of manufacturing (Chart 4). This is in stark contrast with other economies such as China, Korea, and Thailand, in which manufacturing accounts for 29%, 28%, and 27%, respectively (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5No Pickup In Manufacturing Yet No Pickup In Manufacturing Yet No Pickup In Manufacturing Yet Given that the services sector is relatively less metals- and energy-intensive, India’s contribution to global demand for industrial commodities has been disproportionately low. Bottom Line: India’s growth model to date is oriented toward the services sector. As a result, the intensity of industrial commodity demand there – measured as consumption per dollar of GDP – is significantly lower than its peers. This has prevented India from playing a larger role in global commodity markets. The Case For Greater Commodity Demand: Theories And Evidence Economist Walt Whitman Rostow postulated that economies develop through five distinct phases: Traditional society: subsistence agriculture, low level of technology, labor-intensive Preconditions to takeoff: regional trade, the development of manufacturing Take off: the beginning of industrialization Drive to maturity: rising living standards, economic diversification, strong use of technology High mass consumption: mass production and consumerism Along this path, economies in phases (2), (3), and (4) are the most notable in terms of rising appetite for industrial commodities. During these stages, the industrialization and urbanization processes require an expansion of electricity grids, infrastructure and housing. As such, these stages are characterized by high base metals demand. Yet as illustrated by the sigmoid, or S curve, the period of exponential growth in commodity demand eventually slows down and in many cases falls after the country reaches a certain level of GDP per capita (Chart 6). Chart 6 Evidence from metals and oil corroborate this theory. In fact, if we single out the commodity intensity path of DM economies as their incomes were rising, we find that commodity intensity there has already started to decline (Chart 7). Chart 7 This S-curve is also evident in the commodity intensity of emerging economies (Chart 8). China’s path to development stands out as an extreme case of high consumption usage. While not all economies follow China, the paths are similar. Chart 8 In the case of oil, it appears that the consumption intensity of countries that have developed more recently peaked at both a lower income level and a lower oil usage level than countries that developed earlier. This is clearly the case for Korea and Malaysia, and suggests that technology has raised the efficiency of oil. On this basis, we do not expect India’s commodity intensity to reach the same peaks as its more wealthy peers. However, India’s usage has remained stagnant and in some cases fallen. This highlights the relatively muted role of manufacturing in India’s economy. As India’s economy grows and evolves, this should change. We project India’s commodity intensity path as it grows its manufacturing base (Chart 9). Based on this exercise, we find that by the year 2040, India’s consumption of refined copper will account for 12% of global consumption -- up from 2% today.  The impact is more muted in the oil sector -- we expect it will account for almost 12% of global crude oil demand, from the current 5%. Chart 9 This trajectory reveals that the scope for rising demand is greater for metals than for the oil sector, implying that industrial commodities are set to benefit in the case of a boom in Indian manufacturing. Bottom Line: Both theory and evidence suggests that the intensity of India’s commodity usage is set to rise over time as its manufacturing sector expands. This is especially true in the case of metals. Even in our most conservative projection, India’s copper consumption is set to rise more than 10-fold by 2040. The Path Forward: “Make In India” While the Rostow model is instructive in framing our thinking on the path to development, it is a crude theory – not all countries will necessarily follow the same path to development. These are the lessons from economist Alexander Gerschenkron’s theory of economic backwardness, which highlights that countries’ growth paths may not be identical or replicable due to cross-country differences, and differences in the state of technology available at varying points of time. Applying these ideas to India means that while India is able to access current technology, which supports a more rapid industrialization process, its economic model is also very different. The China model rested on a powerful single-party state, with privileged access to the American market, that used its control of the financial system to funnel a swell of national savings into an aggressive industrialization effort. On the other hand, the India model required the government to move forward incrementally. Indian leaders had to pursue industrialization while grappling for democratic consensus in the context of extreme social diversity and a more restrictive trade environment. Thus, India is likely to mimic the circuitous path of emerging markets like Brazil or Mexico. Over the past four years, Indian policymakers have tried to unwind unfavorable business policies and spur growth in the manufacturing sector. The “Make in India” initiative of Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeks to encourage both foreign and domestic investment, and to raise the manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP to 25% by the year 2025. In the process it aims to create 100 million jobs. This target is unrealistic. In fact, the manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP has come down slightly, with economists blaming the demonetization drive and the chaotic, complicated and unclear roll out of the new Goods and Services Tax. Modi also faces tough elections this spring, which could put his initiative on ice. Nevertheless, there is a positive omen in the automobile industry. According to figures from the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, roughly 4 million cars were manufactured last year – up from 3.2 million just five years ago (Chart 10). This is in line with India’s Automotive Mission Plan 2026, which aims for the auto industry to become one of the top three, accounting for 40% of the manufacturing sector and contributing 12% to India’s GDP by 2026. Chart 10An Encouraging Trend For Manufacturing An Encouraging Trend For Manufacturing An Encouraging Trend For Manufacturing Moreover, Modi’s impact has been a net positive in making India more welcoming for investment. While poor infrastructure, red tape, and restive labor laws are still constraining industry, measures of institutional performance are improving (Chart 11). This is a prerequisite for a brighter manufacturing future. As for the election, even if India’s opposition Congress Party should come to power, it will have learned from its five years in the political wilderness that Modi’s message of economic development resonates with the public. Their current stance on economic policy calls for import substitution, economic liberalization, and a faster pace of development – consistent with a growing manufacturing sector. Chart 11The Business Environment Is Improving The Business Environment Is Improving The Business Environment Is Improving The Business Environment Is Improving The Business Environment Is Improving The Business Environment Is Improving Bottom Line: While the “Make In India” campaign says as much about Modi’s flair for public relations as anything, India’s business environment is now more conducive to growth and investment. This bodes well for commodity demand going forward. Ags In The Age Of Manufacturing While a much-needed push in India’s manufacturing sector would clearly have a direct impact on its demand for industrial metals, the resulting improvement in the economy and employment would also raise incomes. In theory, this would support the consumption of agricultural commodities. Nonetheless, a couple of observations suggest that India is less of an opportunity for ags as it is for metals (Chart 12): Chart 12 In terms of the level of ag consumption per capita, rice usage is actually relatively high in India. While corn intensity levels are still quite low, wheat consumption per capita is near the level at which China plateaued. The differences across these grains likely reflects differences in preferred sources across countries and implies there is not as much room for catch up. Furthermore, ag consumption per capita generally plateaus at fairly low-income levels, in stark contrast to the industrial metals. A clear outlier is corn consumption in the United States, where high-usage patterns can be put down to the rising use of corn for ethanol production on the back of biodiesel mandates. We do not expect growth in ag consumption intensity on the back of rising incomes. Nevertheless, India’s population is projected to continue rising, in turn supporting aggregate food consumption there. That said, policies promoting India’s self-sufficiency in agriculture have generally prevented rising demand from spilling over into global markets. In fact, in terms of the trade balance, India is usually a net exporter of these grains, especially in the case of rice (Chart 13). This is a positive for India – in that it has so far avoided the risk of food shortage that occasionally rears its head – but it is a negative for global ag demand. Chart 13Self-Sufficiency Policies Insulate The Indian Ag Sector Self-Sufficiency Policies Insulate The Indian Ag Sector Self-Sufficiency Policies Insulate The Indian Ag Sector Bottom Line: Unlike industrial commodities, we do not anticipate a rise in per capita ag consumption in India. Nevertheless, a rapidly growing population will mean that aggregate demand for ags will grow briskly.    Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy PavelB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see “Exclusive: Indian steel firms seek higher duties on steel imports as prices drop,” published by Reuters.com on February 5, 2019. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 4Q18 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Trades Closed in 2018   Image

Highlights The current trajectory in global share prices resembles what took place in 2000 and early 2001. The early 2001 rebound in global and EM stocks lasted several weeks only, despite ongoing easing by the Federal Reserve. Corporate profits – not the Fed – was the key driver in 2001 and remains the principal driver of global and EM stocks today. EM corporate profits are set to contract this year due to China’s continuing slowdown and weakening global trade. This suggests the current EM rally is unsustainable; continue underweighting EM. In Chile, bet on lower swap rates. Continue shorting the peso but overweight the local bourse within an EM equity portfolio. Feature The dovish shift by the U.S. Federal Reserve in the past month has boosted EM risk assets and currencies. Yet, we find that in the medium and long term there is a very low correlation between Fed policy and U.S. interest rates, on the one hand, and EM financial markets on the other. Instead, EM risk assets and currencies correlate with EM/China business cycles and global trade (Chart I-1). We have not detected any improvement in China/EM growth, nor in global trade (Chart I-1). What’s more, we expect Chinese growth and world trade to continue to weaken in the coming six months. Therefore, the EM rebound and outperformance will be reversed sooner than later. Chart I-1Global Growth Indicators Do No Confirm EM Rally Global Growth Indicators Do No Confirm EM Rally Global Growth Indicators Do No Confirm EM Rally Please note this is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team. BCA’s house view is presently positive on global risk assets and global growth. The basis for this difference between our current position and that of the majority of our colleagues is the outlook for China’s growth. A Replay Of 2016 Or 2001? Most investors are betting that 2019 will be a replay of 2016, when the Fed’s dovish turn and China’s stimulus propelled the EM and global equity rallies. It is enticing to compare the current episode in financial markets to the one that occurred only three years ago. To be sure, there are a lot of similarities: the global trade slowdown driven by China/EM, selloffs in global equity and credit markets, a dovish shift in the Fed’s stance and policy stimulus in China are all reminiscent of early 2016. Not surprisingly, this has created a stampede into EM. According to the most recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, as of mid-January some 29% of investors were overweight EM stocks compared to 1% overweight in the U.S., 11% underweight in the euro area and 1% underweight in Japan. By now, the overweight in EM equities is most likely even higher, given the stampede into EM assets that has occurred over the past several weeks. This stands in contrast to the 33% underweight in EM equities in January 2016. It is apparent that the majority of investors are indeed extrapolating 2016 into 2019. We hold a different view and believe China’s slowdown will be more protracted than in 2015-’16, and that EM corporate earnings are set to contract (please refer to Chart I-5 on page 6). A key distinction between China’s current policy efforts and what was implemented in 2015-‘16 is the absence of stimulus for real estate. The odds are that China’s property market will continue to languish, weighing on household and business sentiment as well as spending. Further, the efficiency of monetary transmission mechanisms could be lower today than it was in 2016 due to the regulatory tightening on both banks and non-banks. The fiscal multiplier could also be lower due to the fragile sentiment among consumers and businesses. We discussed these issues in detail in our January 17, 2019 report. Remarkably, it appears that global share prices are tracking the pattern of 1998-2001 – their trajectories are identical in terms of both magnitude and duration (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Global Stocks Are Tracking Pattern Of 1998-2001 In Magnitude And Duration Global Stocks Are Tracking Pattern Of 1998-2001 In Magnitude And Duration Global Stocks Are Tracking Pattern Of 1998-2001 In Magnitude And Duration That said, there are substantial differences between today and 2001 in respect to the economic backdrops in the U.S. and China. Our focal point is to demonstrate that the Fed easing is not sufficient to prop up share prices if it does not lead to a recovery in corporate earnings. We conclude that the latest rebound in EM risk assets is probably late because neither the Fed’s pause nor China’s stimulus will revive EM corporate profits in the next nine months. In terms of market action, one can draw a number of parallels between the trajectory in global share prices today and in 2000-’01. Following an exponential rally in 1999, the global equity index peaked in January 2000 (Chart I-3). The equity selloff accelerated in the last quarter of 2000, with stocks plunging in December of that year. Chart I-3Is Rebound In Global And EM Stocks Late? Is Rebound In Global And EM Stocks Late? Is Rebound In Global And EM Stocks Late? Oversold conditions in global share prices and the Fed’s intra-meeting 50-basis-point rate cut on January 3, 2001, generated a 7% and 15% rebound in global and EM stocks, respectively. The bounce lasted from late December 2000 until early February 2001. The current trajectory in global share prices – the rollover in late January 2018, the top formation lasting several months followed by a dramatic plunge, the bottom in late December, 2018 and the subsequent rebound – closely resemble the path global share prices took in 2000 and early 2001 (Chart I-3, top panel). The same holds true for EM share prices (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Critically, the Fed continued to cut interest rates in 2001 and 2002, yet the bear market in global equities, including EM, persisted until March 2003 (Chart I-4A and I-4B, top panels). The culprit was shrinking corporate profits (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B, bottom panels). Chart I-4AFed Easing Did Not Help Global Stocks In 2001 Fed Easing Did Not Help Global Stocks In 2001 Fed Easing Did Not Help Global Stocks In 2001 Chart I-4BFed Easing Did Not Help EM Stocks In 2001 Fed Easing Did Not Help EM Stocks In 2001 Fed Easing Did Not Help EM Stocks In 2001 Odds are that EM earnings are set to contract this year as discussed below and shown in Chart I-5. As a result, this view bolsters our conviction that EM equities are likely to roll over soon and plunge anew in absolute terms, and certainly underperform U.S. stocks. Bottom Line: There are many economic differences between today and 2001. Our main point is that the Fed easing-inspired rally in global equities in early 2001 lasted several weeks only and was followed by a new cycle low. The key factor was not Fed policy but corporate profits. Provided our view that corporate earnings in EM and global cyclical sectors will contract this year, the rally in these segments is not sustainable regardless of Fed policy. What Drives EM: Chinese Or U.S. Growth? Predicting the outlook for China and global trade correctly is key to getting the EM call right. First, China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads EPS growth of companies included in the EM MSCI equity index by nine months, and it currently points to continued deceleration and contraction in EM EPS in the months ahead (Chart I-5, top panel). The average of new and backlog orders within China’s manufacturing PMI also portends a negative outlook for EM corporate earnings (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Chart I-5EM Profits Are Heading Into Contraction EM Profits Are Heading Into Contraction EM Profits Are Heading Into Contraction The primary linkage between China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse and EM profits is as follows: China impacts EM and the rest of the world via its imports. This explains why EM share prices correlate with Chinese PMI imports (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Chinese Imports And EM Equities Chinese Imports And EM Equities Chinese Imports And EM Equities Second, China’s imports are to a large extent driven by capital spending, especially construction. Some 85% of mainland imports are composed of various commodities, industrial goods and materials, and autos. Consumer goods make up only about 15% of imports. Major capital expenditures in general and construction, in particular, cannot be undertaken without financing. This is why the country’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads its imports cycles (Chart I-7). This impulse is presently foreshadowing a deepening slump in mainland imports and by extension its suppliers’ revenues and profits. Chart I-7Chinese Imports Are Heading South bca.ems_wr_2019_02_07_s1_c7 bca.ems_wr_2019_02_07_s1_c7 Third, as EM shipments to China dwindle, not only will EM corporate revenues and profits disappoint but EM currencies will also depreciate. The latter bodes ill for EM U.S. dollar and local currency bonds. The basis is that exchange rate depreciation makes U.S. dollar debt more expensive to service, and also pushes up local bond yields in high-yielding EM fixed-income markets. Fourth, The majority of developing economies sell more to China than to the U.S. Remarkably, global trade and global manufacturing decelerated in 2018, even though U.S. goods imports were booming (Chart I-8). Crucially, the more recent strength in the U.S.’s intake of goods was in part due to frontloading of shipments to the U.S. before the import tariffs went into effect on January 1, 2019. Chart I-8U.S. Imports Are Very Robust U.S. Imports Are Very Robust U.S. Imports Are Very Robust Yet despite robust U.S. demand, aggregate exports of Korea, Taiwan, and Japan have done poorly and their manufacturing have slumped (Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B). Chart I-9AAsian Exports: Flirting With Contraction Asian Exports: Flirting With Contraction Asian Exports: Flirting With Contraction Chart I-9BAsian Manufacturing: Flirting With Contraction Asian Manufacturing: Flirting With Contraction Asian Manufacturing: Flirting With Contraction This highlights the increased significance of Chinese demand and the diminished importance of U.S. domestic demand in world trade. In particular, at $6 trillion, EM aggregate goods and services imports, including Chinese imports (but excluding China’s imports for processing and re-exporting), is greater than the combined imports of the U.S. and EU, which currently stand at $4.7 trillion ($2.5 trillion plus $2.2 trillion, respectively). Finally, the media and many investors have exaggerated the impact of U.S. tariffs on the Chinese economy. We are not implying that the tariffs are not relevant at all, or that they have not damaged sentiment among mainland businesses and households. They have. The point is that China’s exports to the U.S. constitute 3.8% of Chinese GDP only (Chart I-10). This compares to Chinese capital spending amounting to 42% of GDP and total annual credit origination and fiscal spending of 26% of GDP. Chart I-10China's Exports To U.S. Are Small (3.8% of GDP) China's Exports To U.S. Are Small (3.8% of GDP) China's Exports To U.S. Are Small (3.8% of GDP) Overall, China’s growth slowdown in 2018 was not due to its plunging shipments to the U.S. – actually, the latter were rising strongly till December due to frontloading – but due to weakness in credit origination, primarily among non-banks (shadow banking). Bottom Line: The Chinese business cycle – not the U.S.’s – is the key driver of EM share prices and currencies and more important than the Fed. EM And The Fed On the surface, it seems that EM is tracking Fed policy. To us, however, this is akin to“not seeing the forest for the trees”. Investors need to stand back and examine the medium- and long-term relationships between U.S. interest rates, DM central banks’ balance sheets, and EM financial markets. In this broader context, the following becomes apparent: There is no stable correlation between EM share prices, EM currencies and EM sovereign credit, on the one hand, and U.S. 10-year bond yields, on the other (Chart I-11). Chart I-11EM And U.S. Bond Yields: No Stable Correlation EM And U.S. Bond Yields: No Stable Correlation EM And U.S. Bond Yields: No Stable Correlation Historically, the correlation between EM share prices and the Fed funds rate has been mixed, albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-12). On this 40-year chart, we shaded the periods when EM stocks did well during periods of a rising fed funds rate. These time spans are 1983-1984, 1988-1989, 1999-2000, 2003-2007 and 2017. Chart I-12EM Stocks And Fed Funds Rate: A Historical Perspective EM Stocks And Fed Funds Rate: A Historical Perspective EM Stocks And Fed Funds Rate: A Historical Perspective The only two episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates were the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican peso crisis. Yet, it is essential to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals: elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-1998. However, these late-1990s crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields. Remarkably, there is also no correlation between the size and the rate of change of DM central banks’ balance sheets, on the one hand, and EM risk assets and currencies on the other. In particular, Chart I-13 validates that the annual growth rate of G4 central banks’ balance sheets does not correlate with either EM share prices or EM local currency bonds’ total returns in U.S. dollars. Chart I-13Pace Of QEs And EM: No Correlation Pace Of QEs And EM: No Correlation Pace Of QEs And EM: No Correlation Finally, there is a low correlation between U.S. real interest rates and the real broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-14). Notably, Chart I-15 illustrates that the greenback often acts as a countercyclical currency, appreciating when global growth is slowing and depreciating when the global business cycle accelerating. Please note that the dollar is shown inverted on this chart. Chart I-14The U.S. Dollar And U.S. Real Rates The U.S. Dollar And U.S. Real Rates The U.S. Dollar And U.S. Real Rates Chart I-15The U.S. Dollar Is Countercyclical The U.S. Dollar Is Countercyclical The U.S. Dollar Is Countercyclical Bottom Line: Many analysts and investors assign more significance to the Fed policy’s impact on EM risk assets than historical evidence warrants. Unless Fed policy easing coincides with EM growth recovery, the Fed’s positive impact on EM will prove to be fleeting. Investment Considerations Widespread bullish bias on EM among investors currently and a continuous slew of poor growth data in China and global trade give us the conviction to argue that the current EM rally is not sustainable. Even if the S&P 500 drifts higher, EM stocks and credit will underperform their U.S. counterparts (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Stay Short EM / Long S&P 500 Stay Short EM / Long S&P 500 Stay Short EM / Long S&P 500 The EM equity index is sitting at a major technical resistance, and a decisive break above this level will challenge our view (Chart I-17, top panel). The same holds true for many EM currencies and copper (Chart I-17, bottom panel). However, for now, we are maintaining our negative bias. Chart I-17EM Equities And Copper Are Facing Resistance EM Equities And Copper Are Facing Resistance EM Equities And Copper Are Facing Resistance Within the EM equity universe, our overweights are Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Korea, and Thailand. Our underweights are Indonesia, India, Philippines, South Africa, and Peru. We continue to recommend shorting the following EM currency basket versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, IDR, MYR, CLP, and KRW. The full list of our recommended positions across EM equities, local rates, credit, and currencies is available on pages 17-18. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks Local currency bonds will outperform equities in Chile over the next six to nine months (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks The central bank is raising interest rates to cap inflation. However, we believe this is misguided because China’s ongoing deceleration along with lower copper prices, will slow growth in Chile over the course of this year. In addition, the current domestic inflation dynamics are less worrisome than the central bank contends. There is ongoing debate in the policy circles of Santiago over whether the recent large net immigration wave, particularly from Venezuela, is inflationary or disinflationary. On the one hand, net immigration expands the supply of labor and puts downward pressure on wages, and hence is disinflationary (Chart II-2). On the other hand, net immigration bolsters demand, and thereby inflation. Chart II-2Chile: Labor Force Is Expanding At 2% Chile: Labor Force Is Expanding At 2% Chile: Labor Force Is Expanding At 2% The central bank has acknowledged both effects but has cited that the latter will overwhelm the former. We disagree with this assessment and believe that current immigration in Chile will be more disinflationary. There are a number of factors that make us believe so: Both nominal and real wage growth are cooling off rapidly (Chart II-3). This corroborates the thesis that the expanding supply of labor is capping wage increases. Chart II-3Chile: Wage Growth Is Decelerating Chile: Wage Growth Is Decelerating Chile: Wage Growth Is Decelerating Central banks in any country need to be concerned with rising unit labor costs and service sector inflation. Energy and food prices are beyond a central bank’s control. Monetary policy should not respond to fluctuations in these prices unless there are second-round effects on wages and other prices.  There is presently no genuine inflationary pressures in Chile. The average of Chile’s core and trimmed mean inflation rates stands at 2.5%, and service sector inflation is at 3.7% (Chart II-4). This is within the central bank’s inflation target range of 3% +/-1%. Chart II-4Chile: Inflation Is Within Target Range Chile: Inflation Is Within Target Range Chile: Inflation Is Within Target Range Finally, Chile’s exports are set to shrink due to the ongoing deceleration in China and lower copper prices (Chart II-5). With exports accounting for 30% of GDP, a negative external shock will slow domestic demand too. This will be disinflationary. Chart II-5Chilean Exports Are About To Contract Chilean Exports Are About To Contract Chilean Exports Are About To Contract The fixed-income market in Chile is pricing in rate hikes (Chart II-6). We continue to recommend receiving 3-year swap rates. Even if the central bank continues to tighten, long-term interest rates will decline, anticipating rate cuts down the road. Chart II-6Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chilean share prices, in absolute terms, are at risk from the EM and commodities selloff. However, we recommend dedicated EM equity portfolios overweight Chile. The economy is fundamentally and structurally solid, and local equity markets are supported by large local investment pools. Importantly, unlike many other commodity producers, currency depreciation in Chile does not stop the central bank from cutting interest rates. Banco Central de Chile does not target the exchange rate and will cut rates to mitigate the adverse external shock. This will ensure that business cycle fluctuations in Chile will be milder than in other developing economies where central banks tighten to defend their currencies. This is positive for Chilean stocks versus other EM bourses. Finally, the peso is at risk of depreciation from lower copper prices. Bottom Line: Local investors should favor domestic bonds over stocks. Fixed-income traders should bet on lower three-year swap rates. Dedicated EM investors should overweight Chilean equities. Currency traders should maintain a short CLP / long USD trade. Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Our main leading indicator for China’s economy and the broad trend in coincident measures both suggest that investment-relevant Chinese growth is set to slow over the coming months. Even in a trade deal scenario, an earnings recession for Chinese investable stocks looks likely unless the flow of credit soon increases to an annual pace of RMB 26 Trillion. The recent trend in money & credit growth is not yet consistent with this outcome. The RMB has risen relative to several currencies over the past two months, meaning that it does not simply reflect a weaker dollar. The RMB rally is linked to the trade negotiations with the U.S., suggesting that further gains are likely if a genuine truce emerges. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, our Li Keqiang (LKI) leading indicator continues to point to weaker activity over the coming 6-12 months, even though the LKI itself has actually trended higher over the past year. We maintain that trade frontrunning has caused this gap (which is in the process of unwinding), as broader measures of coincident activity have been trending lower and are poised to decelerate further. The growth rate of housing construction also seems set to decline, given that the current pace of starts is still running substantially above the pace of sales volume. Finally, while we do not expect the speed at which Chinese import and export growth decelerated in December to continue, the export components of China’s PMIs and the end of trade frontrunning both suggest that trade growth will remain weak over the coming few months. Table 1China Macro Data Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review   Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review From an investment strategy perspective, we continue to recommend a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio over a 6-12 month horizon, and remain tactically long until the end of this month. The recent outperformance of investable stocks vs. the global benchmark reflects global investor expectations of a trade deal between China and the U.S. later this month, but a deal alone will not reverse slowing domestic demand (which will negatively impact earnings). Even in a trade deal scenario, an earnings recession looks likely unless the flow of credit soon increases to an annual pace of RMB 26 Trillion, and the recent trend in money & credit growth is not yet consistent with this outcome. Finally, the rally in the RMB over the past two months does not simply reflect a weaker dollar, as it has risen relative to several currencies. The timing of the rally is clearly linked to the trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, suggesting that further gains are likely if a genuine truce emerges later this month. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data below: Both the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index (LKI) and our alternative LKI rose to 9.3 in December, maintaining an uptrend that has been in place for the majority of the past 12 months. As we noted in last week’s report,1 this uptrend is not only in contrast to our leading indicator for China’s old economy, but also other coincident measures of economic activity. Chart 1 highlights that China’s investment-relevant economic activity is trending lower when broadly measured, implying that the uptrend in the LKI over the past 12 months is anomalous and is set to wane. Chart 1China's Investment-Relevant Economic Activity Is Trending Lower China's Investment-Relevant Economic Activity Is Trending Lower China's Investment-Relevant Economic Activity Is Trending Lower Our LKI leading indicator ticked down in December, as a rise in the RMB reversed some of the improvement in monetary conditions that had previously lifted the indicator. More important, however, is the very recent trend in the money & credit components of the indicator: while the YoY growth rates in M2, BCA’s calculation of M3, and adjusted total social financing (TSF) have recently stabilized, Chart 2 shows that the trend over the past three months has been down. We highlighted in last week’s report that Chinese credit growth needs to accelerate this year to avoid an earnings recession even assuming a trade deal with the U.S., and Chart 2 illustrates that the recent trend in money & credit growth is not yet consistent with this outcome. Chart 2The Recent Trend In Money & Credit Growth Is Down The Recent Trend In Money & Credit Growth Is Down The Recent Trend In Money & Credit Growth Is Down Based only on the trend in construction, China’s housing market is healthy and growing at a robust pace. However, fundamental support for the housing market is materially weaker: housing sales volume growth is in negative territory, growth in PBOC pledged supplementary lending injections has turned negative, and our house price diffusion indexes are rolling over from elevated levels. Housing sales volume has historically led the trend in construction, suggesting that China’s housing inventories are rising anew and that the pace of construction is set to cool significantly. The NBS and Caixin manufacturing PMIs for January provided conflicting readings: the former ticked up fractionally, whereas the latter deteriorated meaningfully further. The fact that the new export orders components of both PMIs moved higher in January suggests two things: 1) exporter sentiment is stabilizing (at a low level) in response to expectations of a trade truce with the U.S., and 2) the domestic demand outlook is weaker than the external outlook. This underscores that a framework trade deal with the U.S. at the end of the month is not, on its own, likely to lead to a significant reacceleration in the Chinese economy. Chinese investable stocks have rallied significantly in absolute US$ terms since the beginning of 2019, up over 11% year-to-date. Given that Chinese stocks are comparatively high-beta, most of this performance can be attributed to the rally in global stocks (up 8% YTD). However, it is notable that Chinese stocks outperformed global stocks both when the latter sold off aggressively in December, and in response to the recent global rally. This likely reflects global investor expectations of a trade deal between China and the U.S., which was the basis for our recommendation of a tactical overweight towards Chinese stocks in our December 5 Weekly Report.2 Chart 3 provides some additional evidence that global investors have driven the recent rally in investable stocks. First, panel 1 highlights that domestic stocks have underperformed investable stocks meaningfully over the past two months. Second, panel 2 shows that domestic infrastructure stocks, likely beneficiaries of a policy-driven reaccleration in domestic demand, have not rallied at all in absolute terms over the past few months. Chart 3Global Investors Drove The Recent Rally In Investable Stocks Global Investors Drove The Recent Rally In Investable Stocks Global Investors Drove The Recent Rally In Investable Stocks Within the equity sector space, the most notable development over the past month has been the substantial outperformance of Chinese consumer discretionary stocks (up almost 11% relative to global consumer discretionary in US$ terms year-to-date). For the most part, these gains reflect the idiosyncratic performance of Alibaba, due to recent changes to the global industrial classification standard (GICS).3 Prior to the changes, the automobiles & components industry group competed with retailing as a driver of the Chinese investable consumer discretionary sector; today, retailing accounts for 3/4ths of the index, with Alibaba accounting for all of the increase in retailer market cap (from 26% in November). Alibaba’s stock price recently bounced in response to a positive Q4 earnings surprise, but disappointing revenue growth underscores the challenges facing investable consumer discretionary stocks from deteriorating consumer sentiment in China.4 Despite the rally in China-related global financial assets over the past two months, Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads remain elevated in reflection of concerns over rising defaults (Chart 4). While we believe that investors are pricing in excessively high default rates over the coming year (i.e. the level of spreads is probably wider than warranted), the trend in onshore corporate spreads is highly informative and served as an early indicator that China’s economy was set to slow. Somewhat concerningly, the trend in spreads of different quality are not moving in a direction that would be consistent even with a stabilization in the Chinese economy. Panel 2 shows that AAA-rated corporate bond spreads have recently been trending higher, in contrast to that of bonds rated AA-. The former has reliably led the latter over the past year, implying that the odds of overall onshore spreads rising have gone up. Chart 4High-Quality Corporate Spreads Are Moving Higher High-Quality Corporate Spreads Are Moving Higher High-Quality Corporate Spreads Are Moving Higher The budding rally in the RMB that we identified last month has continued, with CNY-USD having recently broken above its 200-day moving average (Chart 5). Panels 2 and 3 highlight that this does not simply reflect a weaker dollar, as the RMB has risen relative to the euro and the basket of currencies included in the Bloomberg U.S. dollar spot index. It remains unclear whether this recent strength has been driven by trade talk-related intervention or market expectations of a trade deal, but its link to the negotiations is clear. This suggest that further gains are likely if a genuine truce emerges later this month. Chart 5A Genuine Rebound In The RMB A Genuine Rebound In The RMB A Genuine Rebound In The RMB   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes   1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “A Gap In The Bridge”, dated January 30, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year”, dated December 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “GICS Sector Changes: The Implications For China”, dated September 26, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Chinese Household Consumption: Full Steam Ahead?”, dated November 14, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights So What? The late-cycle rally faces non-trivial political hurdles. Why? The rally is based on a too-sanguine view of the Fed, China, and the trade war. Other issues – like Brexit and the U.S. border showdown – are also problematic. Venezuela still has the potential to push oil prices sharply upwards. Feature All is well. Global equities are on the path of recovery, as should be the case at the end of an economic cycle. The U.S. S&P 500 has gained 16% since the bottom on December 24, with healthy technicals suggesting a breakout is ahead (Chart 1). The S&P 500 may be entering one of its typical late-cycle rallies, which tend to be the second best-performing decile of a bull market (Chart 2).1 Meanwhile, emerging market equities and currencies are outperforming developed market peers (Chart 3), a reversal from 2018 Chart 1Late Cycle Rally Ahead? Late Cycle Rally Ahead? Late Cycle Rally Ahead?   Chart 2 Chart 3...As Does Current Global Outperformance ...As Does Current Global Outperformance ...As Does Current Global Outperformance Typically, global risk assets outperform American risk assets at the end of an economic cycle. While institutional investors can use these rallies to lighten the load ahead of a recession, most investors cannot afford to miss such a rally. As such, BCA (and others) are calling for investors to play what is expected to be a yearlong rally in global risk assets and the S&P 500. Our view at BCA Geopolitical Strategy is more cautious, perhaps because it is informed by a methodological bias rooted in geopolitics. We believe that the reversal in U.S. outperformance relative to global risk assets rests on three pillars: The Federal Reserve remains dovish throughout 2019; China begins a major reflationary effort;  The U.S.-China tariff truce results in a trade deal. In addition, a consensus is emerging that a “no deal” Brexit will not occur, that U.S. polarization cannot get worse, and that President Trump eschews foreign interventionism. While we hold a nuanced view on each of these assertions, the mix is far less bullish than investors may think. We see a witches’ brew of factors that is murky at best and bearish at worst. The Three Pillars Of The Bullish View Before we turn to geopolitics, let us examine the three pillars underpinning the bullish view. Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, remains bullish on the U.S. economy and expects the Fed to resume hiking rates by mid-year.2 The Conference Board’s Leading Credit Index remains in expansionary territory (Chart 4). While business capex intention surveys have come off their highs, they still point to robust spending plans over the next few quarters (Chart 5). Chart 4Little Sign Of A Looming Credit Crunch Little Sign Of A Looming Credit Crunch Little Sign Of A Looming Credit Crunch Chart 5Capex Plans Still Solid Capex Plans Still Solid Capex Plans Still Solid It is no surprise that the BCA Fed Monitor continues to suggest that “tighter monetary policy is required” (Chart 6). This is a far cry from 2016, when our indicator was in deeply “tightening” territory and the Fed paused for 12 months. If we compare 2019 to 2016, it is difficult to see how the market expectation of 4.72 bps of rate cuts will occur over the next 12 months (Chart 7). Of the three components that make up the BCA Fed Monitor, only the financial conditions have fallen into “easing required” territory (Chart 8), and they are already shifting back to “tightening required” territory with the stock market rally underway (Chart 9). Chart 6A Hawkish Fed Is Needed A Hawkish Fed Is Needed A Hawkish Fed Is Needed Chart 7 Chart 8BCA Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Policy BCA Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Policy BCA Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Policy Chart 9Financial Conditions Starting To Ease Financial Conditions Starting To Ease Financial Conditions Starting To Ease In addition, in 2016 the Fed was not contracting its balance sheet. Today it is doing so, although the pace has moderated. As such, the Fed’s rate hike pause is occurring amidst an ongoing effort to normalize monetary policy and to transfer rate risks back to the private sector. By chance, this is also occurring at a time when the Treasury Department must issue more debt to cover a larger deficit, a process that could significantly pull U.S. rates higher and, by extension, yields on assets further down the risk curve. This would be a particular problem for global risk assets given the exposure of several EM economies to dollar-denominated debt.  The bottom line for investors is that a rate hike pause is not a pause in the overall hawkish policy of the U.S. Fed, which acts as a global central bank. The fall in the amount of dollars available for the international financial system acts as a brake on growth. Over the past 10 years, each time money supply growth fell below the loan uptake of the U.S. corporate sector, BCA’s Global Industrial Activity Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, Korean exports, and global export prices all deteriorated considerably (Chart 10). Chart 10Deteriorating Excess Liquidity Hurts Global Growth Deteriorating Excess Liquidity Hurts Global Growth Deteriorating Excess Liquidity Hurts Global Growth Our muted view on Chinese reflation is unnecessary to repeat here. There is no doubt that Chinese policymakers are stimulating the economy, but the question is whether they are willing to pull the credit lever as aggressively as they have done in the past (Chart 11).So far, all of the evidence we have reviewed point to a cautious effort to stabilize growth, not reflate the entire planetary economy as Beijing did in 2016. If our BCA House View on the Fed is correct, a tepid Chinese effort to stimulate the domestic economy will fall short of lighting the flame of a global risk rally in 2019. Chart 11Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts The BCA China Play Index, which in the past has tracked EM vs. DM equity outperformance, is sending mixed signals today (Chart 12). Enthusiasm for global risk assets has not been confirmed by the most China-sensitive plays. Chart 12Mixed Signals From China-Sensitive Plays Mixed Signals From China-Sensitive Plays Mixed Signals From China-Sensitive Plays Finally, there is the trade truce that should produce a trade deal. The logic is clear: President Trump sets aside the political constraints working against a deal and focuses on ensuring that he wins 2020 by avoiding a recession. The near bear market in the S&P 500 was a game changer that focused the White House on averting any further downside to markets and the economy from the trade war. But if the current rally proves that the selloff in December was a temporary pullback, the White House may be emboldened to play hard-to-get with China. After all, the electorate is generally supportive of getting tough on China (Chart 13) and there is no demand from either Trump voters or Democrats for a quick deal. The Fed pause and lower oil prices also give Trump some space to push negotiations a bit harder. Chart 13 Already there are leaks from the negotiations that the U.S. is asking for a lot from China, which could prolong the talks. This includes genuine structural changes to the economic relationship that would address long-standing U.S. concerns of forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and foreign investor access to the Chinese domestic market. It also includes U.S. demands that these changes be verifiable and enforceable. China is likely to balk at some of the U.S. demands, particularly if the U.S. is indeed pushing for regular reviews of China’s progress, a condition that implicitly creates a hierarchy between the two economies and would thus represent a loss of face for Beijing.3 Table 1 presents our latest expectations of where the U.S. and China will be on March 1. We assign only 10% each to “black and white” outcomes, a “Grand Compromise” and “No deal, with major escalation.” The remaining 80% is divided between “mushy” outcomes, including a 25% probability that negotiations simply continue. Table 1Updated U.S.-China Trade War Probabilities Witches' Brew: How Geopolitical Risks May Short-Circuit The Late-Cycle Rally Witches' Brew: How Geopolitical Risks May Short-Circuit The Late-Cycle Rally How would the market react to such uncertain outcomes? We think that almost anything other than a “Grand Compromise” would be greeted with limited relief, if not outright market correction. A vaguely positive meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi, and a memorandum of understanding, would not remove long-term risks in the relationship, especially if the parallel “tech war” is not resolved. On top of the ongoing U.S.-China negotiations, there is one remaining trade issue that investors should keep in mind: auto tariffs. The Section 232 investigation into whether auto imports are a national security threat is ongoing and U.S. authorities are expected to present their conclusions on February 17. We fear that the Trump administration could still stage a surprise and impose tariffs on auto imports. This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production within the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. An extended truce with China could provide the opportunity. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but the timing of this decision could upset the market’s perception of Trump’s commitment to free trade once again. Bottom Line: The conventional narrative is that global markets are experiencing a late-cycle rally, one that is worth playing given its usual duration and amplitude. This view rests on three pillars: that the Fed has backed off from tightening, that China is stimulating in earnest, and that the trade deal will produce a definitive outcome. We fear that all three pillars are shaky. First, the Fed is not easing. Its balance sheet contraction process, which is ongoing, is a form of tightening. And the U.S. economy remains healthy. As such, the expectation of a 12-month Fed pause is overly optimistic. Second, China is stimulating, but only tepidly. Third, “black and white,” definitive outcomes are unlikely in the U.S.-China negotiations. In fact, more protectionism could be around the corner if U.S.-China tech issues continue to flare or if the U.S. announces the conclusion of its investigation into auto imports. Geopolitical Factors To Monitor Aside from shaky pillars, markets will also have to contend with several uncertain geopolitical processes this year. While we are not necessarily bearish on each one, we are concerned that the collective investment community is overly bullish. Take Brexit. We agree with the conventional view that the chances of a no-deal Brexit outcome are below 10%. Political betting markets have only priced in an actual exit on March 29, which is in ink in British legislation, at just above 30% (Chart 14). Chart 14Online Betters Expect A Brexit Delay Online Betters Expect A Brexit Delay Online Betters Expect A Brexit Delay The problem is not with the conventional view but with its timing. While Prime Minister Theresa May will ultimately be forced to extend the Article 50 deadline, it may take a lot of brinkmanship and eleventh hour negotiations to do so. Getting from here – collective bullishness – to there – an actual extension of Article 50 – may require a downturn in GBP/USD or other U.K. assets. Furthermore, several scenarios could produce a downturn in GBP/USD (Diagram 1). For example, the Labour Party remains neck-and-neck with the Tories in the polls, despite being led by the most left-leaning leader since the 1970s. Although a new election that produces a Labour government would likely reduce the odds of Brexit eventually occurring, it would raise the odds of Corbyn pursuing unorthodox economic policy while also trying to negotiate his own version of Brexit with the EU. Diagram 1Brexit: The Path To Salvation Remains Fraught With Dangers Witches' Brew: How Geopolitical Risks May Short-Circuit The Late-Cycle Rally Witches' Brew: How Geopolitical Risks May Short-Circuit The Late-Cycle Rally The point is that it is tough to recommend that investors close their eyes and buy GBP/USD, no matter how cheap the currency may look, unless one has a very long time horizon and a high threshold for pain. The second issue where we take a more nuanced position is the ongoing U.S. executive-legislative standoff over the border. The government shutdown is only on pause until February 15. The House Democrats are demanding that a solution be found by Friday, February 8 if it is to be voted on in time. Meanwhile President Trump’s popularity is in the doldrums (Chart 15). His supporters note that President Reagan was even less popular at this point in his term, but that is because unemployment hit 10.4% in January 1983 (Chart 16). The grave risk for President Trump is that he is as unpopular as Reagan, even though unemployment is at 4% and the U.S. economy is on fire. Chart 15President Trump Is Unpopular... President Trump Is Unpopular... President Trump Is Unpopular... Chart 16...And It Can't Be Blamed On Unemployment ...And It Can't Be Blamed On Unemployment ...And It Can't Be Blamed On Unemployment As such, the real risk is not another shutdown, but rather political dysfunction in Congress that imperils the legislative process. The current two-year budget deal, which raised spending levels in January 2018, is set to expire when the FY2019 ends. Democrats and Trump have to come to an agreement to avert the “stimulus cliff” expected in 2020 (Chart 17). If they cannot conclude the border issue and the FY2019 appropriations, then Trump may declare a national emergency (or act unilaterally in other ways) and spark a new conflict with the courts. He could also threaten not to raise the debt ceiling in spring or summer. This is not an atmosphere in which a FY2020 deal looks very easy. Chart 17Stimulus Cliff Ahead Stimulus Cliff Ahead Stimulus Cliff Ahead Ultimately, we expect Democrats to succumb to the pressure from their voters for more spending. But a total failure to cooperate is a risk. Furthermore, the greatest political risk in the U.S. is that the 2020 election will not be contested on the same issues as in 2016: trade and immigration. Instead, income inequality is rearing its head, as Democratic candidates jostle for attention and as they test various messages on focus groups. If income inequality catches fire as the issue of 2020, we will know it soon. And it may begin to impact the markets as Democrats begin to campaign on, for instance, reversing President Trump’s income tax cuts. While the market may ignore headline election risks for some time, we do not think that non-financial corporates can do the same. Any hint that President Trump’s pro-business policies will be reversed could send shivers down the spines of CEOs and negatively impact capex intentions, hurting the real economy well before the next election. Finally, there is the issue of foreign policy. President Trump has abandoned his maximum pressure tactic on Iran and has begun withdrawing the remaining troops in the Middle East. These trends are likely to continue in 2019 as President Trump focuses on China and lesser issues like Venezuela. There is one important area of alignment between him and the defense and intelligence community, notwithstanding recent scuffles: less focus on the Middle East means more focus on Asia and specifically China. However, President Trump is facing a dilemma. Despite an extraordinary economic performance, his popularity remains in the doldrums. When faced with similar situations in the past, presidents far more orthodox than Trump have sought relevance abroad, by means of military interventions. A convenient opportunity has presented itself in Venezuela, where a revolution against Chavismo could give the U.S. an opening to intervene. On paper, we see how such a scenario could look appealing for a quick, and relatively painless, intervention. The problem is that it could also get messy and, in the analysis of BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy, raise oil prices to nearly $100 per barrel by mid-year if a total loss of Venezuelan production ensues (Chart 18). This is a non-negligible risk. Chart 18A Venezuela Collapse Could Send Brent Crude Prices Toward $100/Bbl A Venezuela Collapse Could Send Brent Crude Prices Toward $100/Bbl A Venezuela Collapse Could Send Brent Crude Prices Toward $100/Bbl Bottom Line: Geopolitical risks still abound. We are not alarmist. However, there is little reason to believe that Brexit, U.S. polarization, U.S.-China tensions, or a potential U.S. intervention in Venezuela will end painlessly for the market. An unpopular U.S. president is seeking to remain relevant and a global populist wave is continuing to create unorthodox and anti-establishment policy prescriptions. Given that the current rally is supported by three shaky pillars, any one of these geopolitical risks could catalyze a relapse, the history of late-cycle rallies be damned.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Late-Cycle Blues,” dated October 29, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Patient Jay,” dated January 18, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see Reuters, “Exclusive: U.S. demands regular review of China trade reform,” dated January 18, 2019, available at reuters.com.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Chinese reflation, the ongoing global capex upcycle, and the Fed induced cap on the greenback with the knock-on effect of higher commodity prices, all signal that it still pays to overweight S&P cyclicals at the expense of S&P defensives.  Sustained EM stock outperformance, a soft U.S. dollar, improving semi equipment operating metrics, along with compelling relative valuations and technicals, all suggest that there are high odds that the recent semi equipment run up has more upside.   Recent Changes There are no changes in the portfolio this week. Feature The SPX consolidated the 350 point advance since the Christmas Eve trough last week, setting the stage for a durable advance in the coming months. The Fed stood pat last Wednesday, and signaled a much more dovish policy stance going forward. Chairman Powell was clearly humbled by last December’s convulsing equity market and abrupt tightening in financial conditions. On that front, in the latest FOMC statement the explicit mention of patience is significant: “the Committee will be patient as it determines what future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate may be appropriate”. A definitively more dovish Fed, which will help restrain the greenback, remains one of the three key catalysts for a durable equity market advance as we have highlighted in recent research.1 Encouragingly, our proprietary Equity Capitulation Indicator (ECI) has bottomed at two standard deviations below the historical mean (Chart 1). Over the past two decades, such a depressed level in our ECI has marked previous equity market troughs including the early-2016, 2011, 2002 and 1998 iterations. Only the GFC episode was lower, falling to three standard deviations below the mean. Clearly the late-December selling frenzy registers as another investor capitulation point and, if history at least rhymes, more gains are in store for the broad equity market. Chart 1Capitulation Capitulation Capitulation Chart 2 shows some other measures of breadth that corroborate our ECI’s message: investors hit the panic button and exited equities in droves in Q4. The upshot is that with selling exhausted, stocks can now stage a durable recovery as long as profits continue to expand. As a reminder, the continuation of the earnings juggernaut is the second key catalyst we identified two weeks ago.2 Midway through earnings season, SPX EPS have held up well with growth approaching 16%. For calendar 2019 we expect mid-single digit EPS growth in line with the signal from our macro driven S&P 500 EPS growth model (please refer to Chart 4 from the mid-January Weekly Publication).3 Chart 2Selling Is Exhausted Selling Is Exhausted Selling Is Exhausted A positive resolution to the U.S./China trade spat is the third catalyst we highlighted recently in order for equities to break out to fresh all-time highs.4 Related to this, China’s reflation efforts are equally important. On that front, news of quasi QE from the PBOC suggests that the Chinese authorities remain committed to injecting liquidity into their economy.5 Already, the PBOC balance sheet, with over $5.5tn in assets, is expanding anew. Empirical evidence suggests that SPX momentum and the ebb and flow of the PBOC balance sheet are joined at the hip, and the current message is positive (second panel, Chart 3). Chart 3Heed The PBoC Message Heed The PBoC Message Heed The PBoC Message Beyond the PBOC balance sheet expansion, the Chinese six-month credit impulse is also in a sling shot recovery. This Chinese credit backdrop is enticing and moves more or less in tandem with the SPX six-month impulse (top panel, Chart 4). Chart 4Reflating Away Reflating Away Reflating Away Two forces explain these relationships. First, China’s rise to become the second largest economy in the world along with its insatiable appetite for commodities and durable goods. Second, 40% of S&P 500 sales are international and an increasing share now originates in emerging markets in general and in China in particular. Keep in mind that the S&P cyclicals/defensives ratio is not only a high beta play on the SPX itself (top panel, Chart 3), but also an S&P global versus domestic gauge. Thus, both of these Chinese indicators also enjoy a positive correlation with the cyclicals vs. defensives tilt (bottom panels, Charts 3 & 4). With that in mind, this week we are drilling deeper into why we continue to prefer S&P cyclicals over S&P defensives and also highlight a highly cyclical index we went overweight in mid-December that has gone parabolic. Double Down On Cyclicals Vs. Defensives Early-October 2017 marks the initiation of our cyclical vs. defensive preference. Initially, this tilt jumped and peaked in mid-2018 returning 18% since inception. Since then, it has given up all of those gains and then some before troughing with the market on Christmas Eve, suffering a 6% drop since inception. Currently, the ratio has moved full circle and is back to where it was when we first recommended this portfolio bent (Chart 5). Chart 5Full Circle Full Circle Full Circle Should investors commit capital to this tilt at this stage of the cycle and given the current global macro backdrop? The short answer is yes. Charts 3 & 4 show that China’s reflation efforts and the fate of the S&P cyclicals/defensives ratio are closely correlated. In addition to the PBOC’s expanding balance sheet and rising Chinese credit impulse, Chinese monetary easing also benefits S&P cyclicals at the expense of S&P defensives. The Chinese reserve requirement ratio (RRR) has plummeted to the lowest point since the GFC and Chinese interest rates are also plumbing multi-year lows (RRR shown inverted, top panel, Chart 6). Chart 6China Flashing Green China Flashing Green China Flashing Green Tack on a resurgent currency with the CNY briefly breaking 6.70 with the U.S. dollar, and factors are falling into place for a playable rally in the cyclicals/defensive ratio. Likely, the Chinese are trying to appease President Trump by underpinning the yuan, but the Fed’s recent more dovish stance on interest rate hikes is also pushing the greenback lower. Taken together, this is a boon for the commodity exposed U.S. cyclicals that also garner a significant share of their sales from abroad (bottom panel, Chart 6). Commodity prices troughed last September, staying true to their leading properties and have been in recovery mode ever since (top panel, Chart 7). Now that the Fed has capped the U.S. dollar, more gains are in store for commodities and that is a boon for commodity producers’ top line growth prospects. Chart 7Capex Remains Healthy Capex Remains Healthy Capex Remains Healthy The demand backdrop is also enticing at the current stage of the business cycle, not only domestically, but also in China. Capital outlays remain upbeat and despite some recent turbulence, U.S. capex intentions are near multi-year highs (third panel, Chart 7). In China, recent piece meal fiscal easing announcements are far from negligible; already infrastructure spending has jumped after contracting late last year (second panel, Chart 7). Were these announcements to get supplemented by a bigger and more comprehensive package, then commodity-levered equities will excel further. A look at the relative balance sheet health of cyclicals versus defensives is revealing. Cyclicals are paying down debt and their cash flow continues to improve, still recovering from the late-2015/early 2016 global manufacturing recession. On the flipside, defensives are piling on debt. All four safe haven sectors have been degrading their balance sheets (relative net debt-to-EBITDA shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 8). Interest coverage sends a similar message: cyclicals are in excellent health both in absolute terms and compared with defensives (top panel, Chart 8). Chart 8B/S Improvement Continues B/S Improvement Continues B/S Improvement Continues Sell-side analysts have not yet taken notice of the macro tide that is turning in favor of cyclicals over defensives. Relative forward profit growth has collapsed to nil and net EPS revisions are at previous nadirs (fourth & fifth panels, Chart 9). Chart 9Oversold And Unloved Oversold And Unloved Oversold And Unloved In sum, if our thesis pans out that China will continue to reflate, global capex will remain vibrant, the greenback will drift lower (U.S. dollar shown inverted, top panel, Chart 9) courtesy of a dovish Fed that will push the broad commodity complex higher, then a significant valuation rerating looms for the cyclicals/defensives tilt (second panel, Chart 9). Bottom Line: Continue to the prefer S&P cyclicals to S&P defensives. We also reiterate our recent long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade.6 Semi Equipment: Buy Into Strength In mid-December we boosted the S&P semi equipment index to overweight from underweight and since then this niche chip subindex has outperformed the broad market by 17%.7 Semi equipment stocks are high beta (bottom panel, Chart 10) and, while we are recommending to buy into strength, from a portfolio risk management perspective, today we are also setting a trailing stop at the 10% return mark in order to protect profits in this tactical (three-to-six month time horizon) position. Chart 10Buy Into Strength... Buy Into Strength... Buy Into Strength... These high-octane highly-cyclical tech stocks move in lockstep with other volatile asset classes. Rebounding emerging market (EM) stocks and FX confirm the S&P semi equipment breakout, and signal additional gains in the coming months (Chart 11). Not only do they share the high-beta status, but also semi equipment stocks garner 90% of their sales outside U.S. shores and 21% of total revenues come from China (please refer to Table 3 in our December 17, 2018 Weekly Report). Thus, the tight inverse correlation with the greenback and positive correlation with the outperforming EM stocks comes as no surprise (Chart 11). Chart 11...But Expect Heightened Vol ...But Expect Heightened Vol ...But Expect Heightened Vol Importantly, Taiwan and Korea are chip manufacturing hubs and semi equipment stocks are levered plays on the macro backdrops of these two economies. Recent data suggests that a turn is in the making in two key indicators in these countries, respectively. Taiwanese tech capex has likely troughed at a depressed level (middle panel. Chart 12), and Korean electronic components manufacturing capacity is now contracting for the first time since late-1997 (bottom panel, Chart 12). The latter is significant as this abrupt and sizable reining in of productive capacity will soon help arrest the fall in chip prices, which serves as an excellent pricing power proxy for the semi equipment industry. Chart 12Green Shoots Green Shoots Green Shoots Historically, relative forward profit growth and DRAM price momentum are joined at the hip. Therefore, were DRAM prices to exit deflation on the back of constrained Korean capacity, that would be a boon for relative profit prospects (second panel, Chart 13). Chart 13Analysts Have Thrown In The Towel Analysts Have Thrown In The Towel Analysts Have Thrown In The Towel Despite these marginal positive developments, sell-side analysts’ pessimism reigns supreme. Industry revenue and profit growth expectations trail the broad market by a wide margin and net EPS revisions remain as bad as they get. The upshot is that these lowered profit and sales growth bars will be easy to surpass in 2019 (Chart 13). With regard to technicals and valuations, oversold conditions bounced, as we posited in mid-December using history as a guide, but still remain depressed (middle panel, Chart 14). Valuations are compelling with the S&P semi equipment forward P/E trading at a roughly 40% discount to the overall market (fourth panel, Chart 13). Chart 14Technicals Remain Depressed Technicals Remain Depressed Technicals Remain Depressed Finally, earnings season has revealed that the bifurcated semiconductor market has staying power with semi equipment stocks (we are overweight) outperforming their ailing semi producer brethren (we remain underweight). Netting it out, sustained EM stock outperformance, a soft U.S. dollar, improving industry operating metrics, along with compelling relative valuations and technicals, all suggest that there are high odds that the recent semi equipment run up has more upside. Bottom Line: Maintain the overweight stance in the S&P semi equipment index for a while longer, but set a trailing stop at the 10% relative return mark in order to protect profits in this tactical (three-to-six month time horizon) position. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SEEQ – AMAT, LRCX, KLAC.   Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting 2019 Earnings” dated January 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Ibid. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Catharsis” dated January 14, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting 2019 Earnings” dated January 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see Bloomberg Article, “PBOC Sets Up Swap Tool to Aid Bank Capital via Perpetual Bonds” dated January 24, 2019, available at www.bloomberg.com. 6      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Trader’s Paradise” dated January 28, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Signal Vs. Noise” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps