Asia

Highlights Our forecast of higher geopolitical risk in 2018 is coming to fruition; President Trump's two key policies, economic populism (fiscal stimulus) and mercantilism (trade tariffs), will counteract each other; Stimulus is leading to trade deficits and a stronger dollar, while a stronger dollar encourages trade deficits. This is a problem for Trump in 2020; The administration will seek coordinated international currency moves, but the U.S. has less influence today than it did at the time of key 1971 and 1985 precedents; Favor DM over EM assets; favor U.S. over DM stocks; and expect Trump to threaten tariffs against currency manipulation. Feature "China, the European Union and others have been manipulating their currencies and interest rates lower, while the U.S. is raising rates while the dollars [sic] gets stronger and stronger with each passing day - taking away our big competitive edge. As usual, not a level playing field... The United States should not be penalized because we are doing so well. Tightening now hurts all that we have done. The U.S. should be allowed to recapture what was lost due to illegal currency manipulation and BAD Trade Deals. Debt coming due & we are raising rates - Really?" - President Donald Trump, tweet, July 20, 2018 "The dollar may be our currency, but it is your problem." - Treasury Secretary John Connally, 1971, speaking to a group of European officials Chart 1A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation In April 2017, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," but also "Understated In 2018."1 At the heart of our forecast was the interplay between three factors: "Domestic Policy Is Bullish USD:" We argued in early 2017 that the political "path of least resistance" would lead to "tax cuts in 2017" and that President Trump's economic policies "will involve greater budget deficits than the current budget law augurs." The conclusion was that "even a modest boost to government spending will motivate the Fed to accelerate its tightening cycle at a time when the output gap is nearly closed and unemployment is plumbing decade lows" (Chart 1). "Chinese Growth Scare Is Bullish USD:" We also correctly predicted that "Chinese data is likely to decelerate and induce a growth scare." Even though Chinese data was peachy in early 2017, we pointed out that "Chinese policymakers have gone forward with property market curbs and begun to tighten liquidity marginally in the interbank system." We would go on to produce several in-depth research reports throughout the year that outlined these reform efforts and linked them to President Xi Jinping's reduced political constraints following the nineteenth National Party Congress in October.2 "European Political Risks Are Bullish USD:" Finally, we argued that a combination of political risks - e.g., the 2018 Italian election - and the slowdown in China would reverberate in Europe, forcing "the ECB to be a lot more dovish than the market expects." Our conclusion in April 2017 - quoted verbatim below - was that these three factors would combine to force President Trump to try to talk down the greenback: The combination of Trump's domestic policy agenda and these global macro-economic factors will drive the dollar up. At some point in 2018, we assume that USD strength will begin to irk Donald Trump and his cabinet, particularly as it prevents them from delivering on their promise of shrinking trade deficits. We suspect that President Trump will eventually reach for the "currency manipulation" playbook of the 1970s-80s. On July 20, President Trump put a big red bow on our forecast by doing precisely what we expected: talking down the USD by charging the rest of the world with currency manipulation. Speaking with CNBC, Trump pointed out that "in China, their currency is dropping like a rock and our currency is going up, and I have to tell you it puts us at a disadvantage." President Trump is correct: Beijing is definitely manipulating the currency, as we pointed out last week (Chart 2).3 Chart 2The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies Chart 3U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD But President Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too. His economic stimulus is inevitably leading to a widening trade deficit. With tax cuts and increased capital spending, U.S. demand is growing faster than demand in the rest of the world. This economic outperformance in the context of stalling global growth is leading to the greenback rally that we forecast (Chart 3). When the U.S. economy outperforms the rest of the world, the Fed tends to be in the lead of tightening policy among G10 economies, spurring a rally in the trade-weighted dollar index (Chart 4).4 A rising currency then reinforces the trade deficit. Chart 42018 Rally Is Not Over 2018 Rally Is Not Over 2018 Rally Is Not Over There is much uncertainty regarding President Trump's true preferences, but we know two things: he is an economic populist and a mercantilist. He has been clear on both fronts throughout his campaign. The problem for President Trump is that the two policies are working against one another. His stimulus has spurred a USD rally that will likely offset the impact of his tariffs, particularly the more modest 10% variety he has said he will impose on all Chinese imports (Chart 5). Chart 5Trump Threatens Tariffs On All ##br##Chinese Imports (And Then Some) The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Trump administration is therefore facing a choice: triple-down on tariffs, potentially causing a market and economic calamity in the process; or, use protectionism as a bargaining chip in a bout of orchestrated and negotiated, global, currency manipulation. As we pointed out last April, President Trump would not be the first to face this choice: 1971 Smithsonian Agreement President Richard Nixon famously closed the gold window on August 15, 1971 in what came to be known as the "Nixon shock."5 Less understood, but also part of the "shock," was a 10% surcharge on all imported goods, the purpose of which was to force U.S. trade partners to appreciate their currencies against the USD. Much like Trump, Nixon had campaigned on a mercantilist platform in 1968, promising southern voters that he would limit imports of Japanese textiles. As president, he staffed his cabinet with trade hawks, including Treasury Secretary John Connally who was in favor of threatening reduced U.S. military presence in Europe and Japan to force Berlin and Tokyo to the negotiating table. Connally also gave us the colorful quote for the title of this report and also famously quipped that "foreigners are out to screw us, our job is to screw them first." The economists in the Nixon cabinet - including Paul Volcker, then the Undersecretary of the Treasury under Connally - opposed the surcharge, fearing retaliation from trade partners, but policymakers like Connally favored brinkmanship. The U.S. ultimately got other currencies to appreciate, mostly the deutschmark and yen, but not by as much as it wanted. Critics in the administration - particularly the powerful National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger - feared that brinkmanship would hurt Trans-Atlantic relations and thus impede Cold War coordination. As such, the U.S. removed the surcharge merely four months later without meeting most of its objectives, including increasing allied defense-spending and reducing trade barriers to U.S. exports. Even the currency effects dissipated within two years. 1985 Plaza Accord The U.S. reached for the mercantilist playbook once again in the early 1980s as the USD rallied on the back of Volcker's dramatic interest rate hikes. The subsequent dollar bull market hurt U.S. exports and widened the current account deficit (Chart 6). U.S. negotiators benefited from the 1971 Nixon surcharge because European and Japanese policymakers knew that the U.S. was serious about tariffs and had no problem with protectionism. The result was coordinated currency manipulation to drive down the dollar and self-imposed export limits by Japan, both of which had an almost instantaneous effect on the Japanese share of American imports (Chart 7). Chart 6Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance In 1980s-90s Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance In 1980s-90s Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance In 1980s-90s Chart 7The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The Smithsonian and Plaza examples are important for two reasons. First, they show that Trump's mercantilism is neither novel nor somehow "un-American." It especially is not anti-Republican, with both Nixon and Reagan having used overt protectionism and currency manipulation in recent history. Second, the experience of both negotiations in bringing about a shift in the U.S. trade imbalance will motivate the Trump administration to reach for the same "coordinated currency manipulation" playbook. In fact, Trump's Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, is a veteran of the 1985 agreement, having negotiated it for President Ronald Reagan. Should investors get ahead of the Plaza Accord 2.0 by shorting the greenback? The knee-jerk reactions of the market suggest that this is the thinking of the median investor. For instance, the DXY fell by 0.7% on the day of Trump's tweet. We disagree, however, and are sticking with our long DXY position, initiated on January 31, 2018, and up 6.17% since then.6 Why? Because 2018 is neither 1985 nor 1971. President Trump, and America more broadly, is facing several constraints today. As such, we do not expect that he will find eager partners in negotiating a coordinated currency manipulation. Chart 8Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Chart 9Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Economy: Europe and Japan were booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and had the luxury of appreciating their currencies at the U.S.'s behest. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China (now in Japan's place) can afford significant monetary policy tightening that would engineer structural bull markets in their currencies. For Europe, the risk is that the peripheral economies may not survive a back-up in yields. For China, if the PBOC engineered a persistently strong CNY/USD, it would tighten financial conditions and hurt the export sector. Apex of Globalization: U.S. policymakers were able to negotiate the 1971 and 1985 currency agreements in part because of the underlying promise of growing trade. Europe and Japan agreed to a tactical retreat to get a strategic victory: ongoing trade liberalization. In 2017-18, however, this promise has been muted. Global trade has peaked as a percent of GDP (Chart 8), average tariffs have bottomed (Chart 9), and the number of preferential trade agreements signed each year has collapsed (Chart 10). Temporary trade barriers have ticked up since 2008 (Chart 11). To be clear, these signs are not necessarily proof that globalization is reversing, but merely that it has reached its apex. Nonetheless, America's trade partners will be far less willing to agree to coordinated currency manipulation in an era where the global trade pie is no longer growing. Chart 10Low-Hanging Fruit Of Globalization Already Picked The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem Chart 11Temporary Trade Barriers Ticking Up The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem Multipolarity: The U.S. is simply not as powerful - relatively speaking - as it was at the height of the Cold War (Chart 12). As such, it is difficult to see how President Trump can successfully bully major economies into self-defeating currency manipulation. The Cold War gave the U.S. far greater leverage, particularly vis-à-vis Europe and Japan. Today, Trump's threats of pulling out of NATO are merely spurring Europeans to integrate further as Russia is no longer the threat it once was. There are no Soviet tank divisions arrayed across the Fulda Gap in Eastern Germany. In fact, Russia is cutting defense spending and further integrating into the European economy with new pipeline infrastructure (which Trump has pointedly criticized). And China is overtly hostile to the U.S. and thus completely unlike Japan, which huddled under the American nuclear umbrella during the U.S.-Japan trade war. Chart 12The U.S. Has Less Weight To Throw Around The U.S. Has Less Weight To Throw Around The U.S. Has Less Weight To Throw Around Is the Trump administration ignoring these major differences? No. There may be a much simpler explanation for President Trump's dollar bearishness: domestic politics. We only see a probability of around 20% that the U.S. trade deficit will shrink during the course of Trump's first term in office. Most likely, the trade deficit will widen as domestic stimulus supercharges the U.S. economy relative to the rest of the world and the greenback rallies. Economic slowdown in China and EM will likely further expand the U.S. trade deficit as these economies cut interest rates and allow their exchange rates to drop. President Trump therefore has a problem. The only way the trade deficit will shrink by 2020 is if the U.S. enters a recession and domestic demand shrinks - but presidents do not survive re-election during recessions. If a recession does not develop, he will have to explain to voters in early 2020 why the trade deficit actually surged, despite all his tough rhetoric, tariffs, and trade negotiations. The charge of currency manipulation could therefore do the trick, blaming the rest of the world for the USD rally that was largely caused by U.S. stimulus. Bottom Line: We do not expect the Fed to respond to President Trump's rhetoric. The current Powell Fed is not the 1970s Burns Fed. As such, we would fade any upcoming weakness in the USD. We expect the dollar bull market to carry on in 2018 and to continue weighing on global risk assets, namely EM equities and currencies. Investors should remain overweight DM assets relative to EM in terms of broad global asset allocation, and overweight U.S. equities in particular relative to other DM equities. The major risk to our bullish USD view is not a compliant Fed but rather a China that "blinks." Beijing has begun some modest stimulus in the face of the economic slowdown produced by the Xi administration's aforementioned efforts to contain systemic financial risk. Over the next month, we will dive deep into Chinese politics to see if the trade conflict will prompt Xi to reverse his attempt to tighten policy and once again embrace a resurgence in credit growth. In the long term, however, we expect that the Trump administration will grow frustrated with the fact that its two main policies - economic populism at home and mercantilism abroad - will offset each other and that the U.S. trade imbalance will continue to grow apace. At that point, President Trump may decide to reach for two levers: staffing the Fed with über doves and/or ratcheting up tariffs to much higher levels. We expect the latter to be the more likely outcome than the former, and either would result in a serious blowback from the rest of the world that would unsettle markets. More importantly, it would be the death knell of globalization, stranding trillions of dollars of capex behind suddenly very relevant national borders. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China Down, India Up," dated March 15, 2017, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, "China's Nineteenth Party Congress: A Primer," dated September 13, 2017, "China: Party Congress Ends... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, "A Long View Of China," dated December 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing?" dated July 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The S&P Doesn't Abhor A Strong Dollar," dated July 20, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Douglas A. Irwin, "The Nixon shock after forty years: the import surcharge revisited," World Trade Review 12:01 (January 2013), pp. 29-56, available at www.nber.org; and Barry Eichengreen, "Before the Plaza: The Exchange Rate Stabilization Attempts of 1925, 1933, 1936, and 1971," Behl Working Paper Series 11 (2015). 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "America Is Roaring Back! (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?)," dated January 31, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The 2016-2017 China/EM recovery was not the beginning of a new economic and financial cycle. We view it as a mid-cycle recovery, or hiatus, in an unfinished downtrend that began in 2011. Our basis: In EM at large and especially in China, the excesses and "deadwood" left from the 2009-2011 credit boom were not cleansed. Easy money masked the negative fundamentals in 2016-2017. Yet as Chinese money and credit growth continues to fall and the Federal Reserve steadily shrinks its balance sheet, cracks are re-surfacing in EM and China. In Thailand, continue overweighting equities, currency and fixed-income market versus their respective EM benchmarks. Feature The most striking difference between our view on EM and that of the overwhelming majority of investors and experts is as follows: Most investors and commentators view the 2016-2017 EM recovery as the beginning of a new economic and financial cycle. Hence, the narrative goes that both the EM economic expansion and the rally in EM financial markets are still at an early stage, and barring severe tightening from the U.S. Federal Reserve, it is unlikely that EM growth will slump much. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team regards the 2016-2017 revival in EM economies in general and China in particular as a mid-cycle recovery, or hiatus, in an unfinished downtrend that began in 2011. This is why we were reluctant to turn bullish after EM financial markets rallied in 2016-2017. China is more important to EM than the U.S. In our opinion, it was only a matter of time before China's and the Fed's tightening would lead to a considerable relapse in EM financial markets. In brief, the rally of last year was nothing more than a bull trap. In this week's report we highlight where EM and China are in their respective economic cycles, and elaborate on why we believe their pre-2016 downturns and adjustments remain incomplete.1 EM/China Cycles Chart I-1 presents the best way to visualize the EM/China cycles. Chart I-1Where Are EMs & Commodities In The Cycle? Where Are EMs & Commodities In The Cycle? Where Are EMs & Commodities In The Cycle? Following the devastating crises of 1997-'98, the new structural bull market in EM began in 1999-2001. By the early 2000s, crises-hit EM banks had recognized and provisioned for their bad assets, and were in the process of restructuring. In turn, companies had considerably ameliorated their financial health by restructuring debt (including foreign debt), and cutting capital spending and employment, thereby boosting their free cash flows. By 2004, China completed aggressive structural reforms, such as shutting down unprofitable SOEs, tolerating massive layoffs and allowing market forces to play a greater role in the economy (Chart I-2, top panel). The Middle Kingdom also joined the WTO in 2001, which opened global markets for Chinese exports (Chart I-2, bottom panel). The structural reforms of the late 1990s and the WTO accession created fertile ground for China's structural growth boom in the 2000s. Chart I-2China Implemented Structural ##br##Reforms In Late 1990s China Implemented Structural Reforms In Late 1990s China Implemented Structural Reforms In Late 1990s China's nominal manufacturing output growth - depicted on the top panel of Chart I-1 on page 2 - accelerated throughout the 2000s, reaching a 20% annual growth rate in 2007. Consistently, commodities prices and EM share prices were in a structural bull market over that period (Chart I-1, bottom panel). The U.S. credit crisis in 2008 compelled a vicious, but relatively brief, bust in commodities and EM equities. Following the Lehman crash that year, China and many other developing nations injected considerable monetary and fiscal stimulus into their economies. As a result, Chinese and EM domestic demand boomed well before the DM recovery in the second half of 2009. It was in 2009-2011 that EM and China were in the late cycle phase. This period was characterised by booming credit and capital spending, strong income growth, capacity shortages, and a surge in inflation across many economies. Starting in 2011-2012, China and EM economies entered a major downtrend. Consistently, the bear market in commodities began in 2011.2 In 2015, the downtrend escalated, and the selloff became vicious. In the second half of 2015, Chinese policymakers became unnerved and, once again, injected enormous amounts of credit and fiscal stimulus into the mainland economy. These reflationary efforts led to a revival in China's economy, which in turn lifted commodities prices in 2016-2017. China's growth impulse boosted many EM economies that are more leveraged to China than to the U.S. It is this 2016-2017 mid-cycle revival in EM/China/commodities'- that we refer to as a hiatus in a bear market. Chart I-3Chinese Money Growth ##br##Points To More Downside bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c3 bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c3 Recognizing the long-run unsustainability of this easy money-based growth model and the need to manage escalating financial risks (China's official code word for "bubbles") motivated Chinese policy makers to begin tightening in late 2016. Consequently, money/credit have decelerated, and with a time lag, the business cycle has rolled over (Chart I-3, top panel). In turn, EM risk assets and commodities have been suffering since early 2018 (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Diagnosis Of EM Fundamentals Like doctors examining and diagnosing patients in regard to their medical conditions and prescribing medicines to cure them, the global investment community attempts to diagnose the health of economies and companies, and predict their outlook. In turn, a forecast of the future will have higher odds of being right if the diagnosis it relies upon is correct. Applying this reasoning to EM and the Chinese economies, we need to diagnose their conditions: Have the hangovers following their respective credit/easy money booms dissipated? What are the productivity trends in these economies, and are they in a position to embark on a structural growth trajectory? Our hunch has been and remains that EM economies have not sufficiently dealt with their excesses and are therefore not ready to embark on a new structural growth trajectory for the following reasons: First, China's credit and money excesses remain enormous (Chart I-4). Mild deleveraging has been occurring only in the past 12 months. Importantly, the consequence of this deleveraging is that the current growth slowdown will deepen. Domestic credit has tightened somewhat in the past 12 months, but Chinese companies' and banks' foreign indebtedness has surged (Chart I-5, top panel). Remarkably, external debt repayments and interest payments due in 2018 amount to $125 billion (Chart I-5, bottom panel). This presents a risk to the value of the yuan. Chart I-4China: Not Much Deleveraging So Far bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c4 bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c4 Chart I-5China: A Lot of Foreign Debt Is Due In 2018 China: A Lot of Foreign Debt Is Due In 2018 China: A Lot of Foreign Debt Is Due In 2018 Second, the mainland's economy recovered in 2016 due to exceptionally soft budgets for SOEs and local governments as well as easier access to credit for the private sector. Notably, consistent with skyrocketing credit, money supply has been exploding in China. Chart I-6 illustrates that broad money in China has expanded by RMB 170 trillion (equivalent to $28 trillion) in the past 12.5 years - which is equal to the entire money supply in the U.S. and the euro area combined, i.e., the same as the money created by the U.S.'s and euro area's respective banking systems over their entire history. Chart I-6Helicopter Money' In China bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c6 bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c6 The overwhelming majority of commentators mistakenly believe that China's money and credit excesses are due to households' high savings rates. We have documented - in a series of Special Reports3 on money, credit and savings - that banks do not need savings to originate loans - i.e., there is no relationship between the savings rate of a nation and the rate of deposits growth in the banking system (Chart I-7). Banks create money (deposits) out of thin air when they originate loans or buy assets from non-banks. This is true for any country, regardless of income level and type of economic system. Chart I-7No Link Between Savings And Deposits No Link Between Savings And Deposits No Link Between Savings And Deposits In short, the enormous money boom in China is just the mirror image of the gigantic credit bubble. The bottom panel of Chart I-6 illustrates that money growth in China has hugely exceeded money growth in countries that have undertaken QE programs. Hence, one can argue that China has done more than QE - it is fair to say the Middle Kingdom has dropped "helicopter money." And if the supply of money has any relevance to its price, the RMBs value is set to drop relative to other countries. The behavior of mainland households corroborates that there is an oversupply of local currency. Eagerness among households in China to exchange their RMBs for foreign currency and assets confirms that they are very concerned about preserving the purchasing power of their savings. This pent-up demand for dollars from mainland firms and banks due to forthcoming foreign debt servicing obligations - see Chart I-5 on page 5 - along with lingering pent-up demand for foreign assets among households and companies will weigh on the RMB's value. On top of that, the narrowing interest rate differential between China and the U.S. also points to further yuan depreciation (Chart I-8). Do the authorities hold enough international reserves to satisfy Chinese individuals' and companies' demand for foreign currency? Chart I-9 reveals the central bank's foreign exchange reserves including gold (about US$3 trillion) are equal to 10% and 14% of broad money (M3) and total deposits, respectively. In brief, the US$3 trillion foreign exchange reserves are not sufficient to back up the enormous deposit base which has been created by banks out of thin air. Chart I-8More RMB Weakness Ahead More RMB Weakness Ahead More RMB Weakness Ahead Chart I-9China: FX Reserves Are Thin ##br##Relative RMB Deposits bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c9 bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c9 Importantly, these money excesses and ultimately Chinese households' willingness to hold RMBs - with the exchange rate acting as the litmus test - represent a major constraint on policymakers to indefinitely stimulate the economy. Third, the mainland's real estate market bubble has in recent years moved from coastal areas to third- and fourth-tier cities. Consistently, construction activity has recovered in the past two years, but the sustainability of the revival is dubious. The decline in inventories in third- and fourth-tier cities has been achieved via the monetization of excess housing inventories. The central bank has been funding "slum" development in smaller cities via cheap and direct financing. Since the start of 2014, the PSL program has injected RMB 3 trillion into housing and construction in tier-3 and smaller cities. In brief, the authorities have extended the property cycle by a few more years by conducting outright monetization of housing stock. In the process, property developers' leverage has continued surging, while their net cash flows have more recently deteriorated (Chart I-10). In short, the adjustment in the real estate market has been delayed, and imbalances have become larger. Fourth, consistent with easy money policies and soft budget constraints for government entities, efficiency and productivity continue to deteriorate in China (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Chinese Property Developers: ##br##Leverage And Cash Flow Chinese Property Developers: Leverage And Cash Flow Chinese Property Developers: Leverage And Cash Flow Chart I-11China: Declining Efficiency ##br##And Productivity China: Declining Efficiency And Productivity China: Declining Efficiency And Productivity In any economy, easy money leads to less productivity. Other EMs are no different (Chart I-12). Fifth, easy money in China finds its way into many other developing economies via mainland imports. As such, slower Chinese growth will translate into weaker mainland imports of commodities, materials and industrial goods. As a result, EM ex-China trade balances will deteriorate. In turn, EM corporate profits are at major risk of plunging due to a slowdown in China. Chart I-13 illustrates that the mainland's money/credit cycle leads EM corporate profits. This is why we spend ample time understanding and discussing China's cycle and fundamentals. Chart I-12EM Ex-China: Weak Productivity Growth EM Ex-China: Weak Productivity Growth EM Ex-China: Weak Productivity Growth Chart I-13EM Corporate Earnings Are At Risk bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c13 bca.ems_wr_2018_07_19_s1_c13 Remarkably, EM non-financial companies' return on assets and profit margins are at levels that prevailed at the height of previous major downturns/crises (Chart I-14). If they relapse from these levels, this would entail very poor corporate profitability, and investors may question the multiples they are paying for EM equities. Finally, there has been little deleveraging in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan: External debt and debt servicing in 2018 remains elevated (Chart I-15). Chart I-14EM Non-Financials: Return On Assets Are ##br##At Levels Seen In Major Downturns EM Non-Financials: Return On Assets Are At Levels Seen In Major Downturns EM Non-Financials: Return On Assets Are At Levels Seen In Major Downturns Chart I-15EM Ex-China: External Debt And Servicing EM Ex-China: External Debt And Servicing EM Ex-China: External Debt And Servicing Local currency debt has been reduced in the Brazilian, Russian and Indian corporate sectors only. There has been little deleveraging outside of these segments. In Brazil, loan contraction in the banking system has been offset by a surge in public debt. Public debt dynamics in Brazil are unsustainable - the result will be either the monetization of public debt or severe fiscal contraction and renewed recession. We will discuss the outlook for Brazil in a Special Report next week. More importantly, banking systems not only in China but in most EM countries, have not provisioned for non-performing loans (NPLs). NPL recognition and provisioning are very low relative to the magnitude of preceding credit booms. Notably, with nominal GDP growth relapsing in many EM economies, their NPL provisions should rise, as demonstrated in Chart I-16A and Chart 16 I-B (nominal GDP growth is shown inverted in this chart). Chart I-16AEM Banks' Provisions Are Set To Rise EM Banks' Provisions Are Set To Rise EM Banks' Provisions Are Set To Rise Chart I-16BEM Banks' Provisions Are Set To Rise EM Banks' Provisions Are Set To Rise EM Banks' Provisions Are Set To Rise Bottom Line: In EM at large and in China above all, the excesses and "deadwood" of 2009-2011 were not cleansed during the 2011-2015 downturn. Specifically, credit excesses have gotten larger - not smaller - in China while the property market has become even more bubbly. Likewise, the misallocation of capital, inefficiencies and speculative behavior in both the financial system and real economy have proliferated. Easy money masked all these negatives in 2016-'17. Yet, as money and credit growth in China have plunged and the Fed steadily shrinks its balance sheet, these negatives are now re-surfacing. EM And The Fed Fed policy and U.S. interest rates are not irrelevant to EM, but they are of secondary importance. The primary driver of EM economies are their domestic fundamentals and the overall global business cycle. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the fed funds rate has been mixed, albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-17). On this chart, we shaded the periods when EM stocks rallied despite a rising fed funds rate. Chart I-17EM Share Prices And Fed Funds Rate: Mixed Correlation EM Share Prices And Fed Funds Rate: Mixed Correlation EM Share Prices And Fed Funds Rate: Mixed Correlation The episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates were the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet, it is vital 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 EM crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields. Importantly, EM stocks, credit markets and currencies did well during periods of rising fed funds rate in 1988-1989, 1999-2000, and 2017, as illustrated in Chart I-17. Presently, the Fed's policy is bullish for the U.S. dollar, and, hence bearish for EM currencies. When EM currencies depreciate, their equities, credit and local bond markets typically sell off. As the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet, commercial banks' reserves at the Fed are also declining. In recent years, changes in banks' excess reserves have been inversely correlated with the dollar (the dollar is shown inverted in the chart) (Chart I-18). Furthermore, U.S. dollar liquidity is also relapsing, which is a bad omen for EM risk assets (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Fed Balance Sheet And U.S. Dollar Fed Balance Sheet And U.S. Dollar Fed Balance Sheet And U.S. Dollar Chart I-19U.S. Dollar Liquidity Is Bearish For EM U.S. Dollar Liquidity Is Bearish For EM U.S. Dollar Liquidity Is Bearish For EM Bottom Line: Rising U.S. interest rates in of themselves are not a sufficient condition for EM to sell off. Only in combination with poor EM fundamentals or a weakening global business cycle are rising U.S. borrowing costs negative for EM financial markets. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Thailand: Will It Be A Low-Beta Market? 19 July 2018 Thai equities have been selling off in absolute terms and have lately begun to underperform the emerging markets (EM) equity benchmark (Chart II-1, top panel). Meanwhile, the currency has also been weakening (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Chart II-1Thai Financial Markets Thai Financial Markets Thai Financial Markets It is very unlikely that Thai share prices and the currency will decouple from their EM peers. Hence, given our negative outlook on EM stocks and currencies, odds are that Thai stocks and the baht will weaken further in absolute terms. However, we believe that Thai financial markets will act defensively amid the ongoing EM selloff. The basis on which we are reiterating our overweight stance on both Thai equities and the baht relative to their EM peers, is founded on the relative resilience of this country's macro fundamentals: Thailand runs a very large current account surplus of 10% of GDP and this provides the baht with a significant cushion. Further, Thai exports are not susceptible to a rollover in commodities prices and a downtrend in Chinese demand. Thailand's main exports are electronics, semiconductor chips, and autos - all of which account for about 40% of total exports. These categories are facing less downside risks than industrial metals and oil prices from weaker Chinese demand. Importantly, exports to China make up 12% while shipments to the U.S. and EU account for 12% and 11% of Thai total goods exports, respectively. We are less negative on the outlook of exports to the U.S. and EU than to China. Thailand has the lowest levels of foreign debt servicing obligations and foreign funding requirements among EM countries (Charts II-2). This stands in stark contrast to the onset of the Asian financial crisis when Thailand had the highest level of external debt. Accordingly, low external debt will limit Thai baht selling by local companies looking to hedge their foreign debt liabilities. Finally, foreign ownership of local government bonds is relatively low (15%). This will limit potential outflows. Chart II-2FX Debt Vulnerability Ranking: Foreign Debt Service Obligations (FX Debt Service In Next 12 Months) Understanding The EM/China Cycles Understanding The EM/China Cycles Remarkably, domestic demand in Thailand is beginning to improve. Chart II-3 shows that loan growth is picking up noticeably. In turn, growth in manufacturing production and consumption is starting to turn upwards (Chart II-3, middle panel). Passenger vehicle sales are also growing robustly (Chart II-3, bottom panel). Improving domestic demand will continue to be supported by low and stable domestic rates. In the recent months, interest rates have risen in many South East Asian countries but not in Thailand (Chart II-4). This is a critical difference that places Thailand apart from many of its peers. The Bank of Thailand (BoT) is in no rush to raise its policy rates even if the currency depreciates further. Thai core inflation remains slightly below target and the currency depreciation can in fact be viewed as a positive reflationary force. In a nutshell, the enormous current account surplus, low public debt/fiscal deficit and structurally low inflation provide Thailand with the ability to maintain low interest rates amid the ongoing EM storm. This will in turn fortify domestic demand resilience to a negative external shock. Chart II-3Thai Growth Is Firming Up Thai Growth Is Firming Up Thai Growth Is Firming Up Chart II-4Policy Divergence Policy Divergence Policy Divergence A quick comment on political risks is warranted. The Thai military junta and political institutions have begun preparations to hold elections sometime next year (likely February to May) that will return the country to civilian rule. A transfer of power from the currently stable military rule to a more uncertain civilian rule will likely trigger a period of rising volatility. However, the junta's economic management has been fairly successful. Growth is strong and, crucially, public debt is low at 33% of GDP and the fiscal deficit is manageable. The junta has the capacity to continue to appease rural voters - who traditionally vote for the populist, anti-junta Pheu Thai party - by increasing government spending. Moreover, the junta has rewritten the constitution, which was approved in a popular referendum and ratified in 2017, to influence both the electoral system and parliament in its favor. Nevertheless, the opposition Pheu Thai Party, which has won every election since 2001, retains the edge in popular opinion. Our colleagues from the Geopolitical Strategy team believe that in the 20%-30% chance scenario where the elections enable the opposition to form a government, policy uncertainty will spike. Yet, this will only occur next year and in the meantime macro factors still make Thailand immune to external shocks. Importantly, uncertainty over the transition period, and the outcome of the elections has probably caused an exodus of foreign investors from this bourse (Chart II-5). However, foreigners' diminished holdings of Thai stocks will limit the downside in the months ahead and allow this market to outperform the EM equity benchmark. Chart II-5Foreigners Have Bailed Out of Thai Stocks Foreigners Have Bailed Out of Thai Stocks Foreigners Have Bailed Out of Thai Stocks Bottom Line: We recommend EM dedicated portfolios keep an overweight position in Thai equity, currency and fixed income markets. Macro factors make Thailand more immune to external shocks vis a vis other EM economies. Political risks by themselves do not justify this bourse's underperformance versus the EM benchmark. In turn, the Thai baht should outperform other EM currencies amid the ongoing weakness in global growth. In line with this view, we maintain the long 5-year Thai bonds / short 5-year Malaysian bonds trade. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Where Are EMs In The Cycle?," dated May 3, 2018, available on page 20. 2 Industrial metals prices began falling and oil prices peaked in 2011 even though oil prices stayed flat till 2014 when they crashed. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, available on ems.bcaresearch.com; and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil," dated March 22, 2018, available on page 20. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights President Trump is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric - there is more trade tension and volatility to come; China's depreciation of the RMB can go further - and will elicit more punitive measures from Trump; Gasoline prices are a constraint on Trump's Maximum Pressure campaign against Iran, but only until midterm elections are done; Brexit woes are keeping us short GBP/USD, but Theresa May has discovered the credible threat of new elections - we are putting a trailing stop on this trade at 2%; The EU migration "crisis" is neither a real crisis nor investment relevant. Feature General Hummel: I'm not about to kill 80,000 innocent people! We bluffed, they called it. The mission is over. Captain Frye: Whoever said anything about bluffing, General? The Rock, 1996 As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has expected since November 2016, the risk of trade war poses a clear and present danger for investors.1 The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods on July 6, with tariffs on another $16 billion going into effect on July 20. President Trump announced on July 10 that he would levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31 and then on another $300 billion if China still refused to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than China exported to the U.S. last year (Chart 1)! Chart 1President Trump Magically Threatens ##br##Even Non-Existent China Imports Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Table 1Market's Couldn't Care##br## Less About Tariffs Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? The S&P 500 couldn't care less. Trade-related events - and other geopolitical crises - have thus far had a negligible impact on U.S. equities (Table 1). If anything, stocks appear to be slowly climbing the geopolitical wall of worry since plunging to a low of 2,581 on February 8, which was before any trade tensions emerged in full focus (Chart 2A and Chart 2B).2 Chart 2AStocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Stocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Stocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Chart 2B...And On Military Tensions ...And On Military Tensions ...And On Military Tensions Speaking with clients, the consensus appears to be that President Trump is "bluffing." After all, did he not successfully create a "credible threat" amidst the tensions with North Korea, thus forcing Pyongyang to stand down, change its bellicose rhetoric, free U.S. prisoners, and freeze its nuclear device and ballistic tests? This was a genuinely successful application of his "Maximum Pressure" tactic and he did not have to fire a shot!3 Yes, but the Washington-Pyongyang 2017 brinkmanship caused 10-year Treasuries to plunge 35bps from their July 7 peak to their September 7 low.4 Our colleague Rob Robis - BCA's Chief Fixed Income Strategist - assures us that this move in Treasuries last summer was purely North Korea-related, which suggests that not all investors were relaxed and expecting tensions to resolve themselves.5 President Trump may be bluffing on protectionism, on Iran, and on the U.S.'s trade and geopolitical relationship with its G7 allies. However, we should consider two risks. The first is that his opponents might not back down. Yes, we agree with the consensus that China will ultimately lose a trade war with the U.S. It is a trade surplus country fighting a trade war with its chief source of final export demand (Chart 3). Chart 3China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. Forecasting when China backs down, however, is difficult. If Beijing backs down in 2018, investors betting on stocks ignoring trade risks will be proven correct. We do not see this happening. Instead, we expect Beijing to continue using CNY depreciation to offset the impact of tariffs, likely exacerbating the ongoing USD rally in the process, and eventually putting pressure on U.S. corporate earnings in Q3 and Q4. China does not appear to be panicking about the threat of a 10% tariff. In fact, Beijing may decide to double-down on its structural reform efforts, which have negatively impacted growth in the country thus far, blaming President Trump's protectionist policies for the pain. The other question is whether the U.S. political context will allow President Trump to end the trade war. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the financial industry seem to have collective amnesia about the "trade truce" orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 20. The truce lasted merely a couple of days, with the U.S. ultimately announcing on May 29 that the tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports would go forward. President Trump may have wanted to present the Mnuchin truce as a big victory ahead of the midterm elections. His tweets the next day were triumphant.6 However, once the collective American establishment (Congress, pundits, and even Trump's ardent supporters in the conservative media) got hold of the details of the deal, they were shocked and disappointed.7 Why? The American "median voter" is far more protectionist than the political establishment has wanted to admit. Now that this public preference has been elucidated, President Trump himself cannot move against it. He is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric. President Trump may be dealing with a situation similar to the one General Hummel faced in the iconic mid-1990s action thriller The Rock. Hummel, played by the steely Ed Harris, holed up in Alcatraz with VX gas-armed M55 rockets, threatening to take out tens of thousands in San Francisco unless a ransom was paid by the Washington establishment. Unfortunately for Hummel, the psychotic marines he brought to "The Rock" turned against him when he suggested that the entire operation was in fact a bluff. As such, we reiterate: Whoever said anything about bluffing? China: Beware Beijing's Retaliation Since 2017, we have cautioned investors that Beijing was likely to retaliate to the imposition of tariffs by weakening the CNY/USD.8 June was the largest one-month decline in CNY/USD since the massive devaluation in 1994 (Chart 4). BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar.9 Chart 5 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar until very recently. However, CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by a magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the greenback, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 4The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 Chart 5The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that currency depreciation is also a way to stimulate the economy in the face of the central government's ongoing deleveraging policy.10 Not only does a weaker CNY dull the impact of Trump's tariffs, it also insulates China against a slowdown in global trade volumes (Chart 6). Moreover, China's current account fell into deficit last quarter (Chart 7). A weaker RMB helps deal with this issue, but the PBoC may be forced to cut Reserve Requirement Ratios (RRRs) further if the deficit remains in place, forcing the currency even lower. Chart 6China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade Chart 7Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY There is no silver lining in this move by Beijing. Evidence that China is manipulating its currency would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China. On one hand, a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters. On the other hand, it may invite further protectionist action from the U.S., including a threat by the White House to increase the tariff levels on the additional $500 billion of imports from the current 10% rate, or to enhance export restrictions on critical technologies, or to add new investment restrictions. Several of our clients have pointed out that China does not want a trade war, that it cannot win a trade war, and that it is therefore likely to offer concessions ahead of the U.S. midterm election. We agree that China is at a disadvantage.11 But we also reiterate that the concessions have already been offered, in mid-May following the Mnuchin negotiations with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. China and the U.S. may of course resume negotiations at any time, but it will likely take months, at best, to arrange a deal that reverses this month's actual implementation of tariffs. We think that the obsession with "who will win the trade war" is misplaced. Of course, the U.S. will "win." The problem is that what the Trump administration and what investors consider a "victory" may be starkly different: victory may not include a rip-roaring stock market. In fact, President Trump may require a stock market correction precisely to convince his audience, including those in Beijing, that his threats are indeed credible. Bottom Line: President Trump's promise of a 10% tariff on $500 billion of Chinese imports can easily be assuaged by a CNY/USD depreciation. If we know that Beijing is depreciating its currency, so does the White House. The charge against Beijing for currency manipulation could occur as late as the Treasury Department's semiannual Report to Congress in October, or informally via a presidential tweet at any time before then. While the formal remedies against a country deemed to be officially engaged in currency manipulation are relatively benign in the context of the ongoing trade war, we would expect President Trump to up the pressure on China regardless. Iran: Can Midterm Election Stay President Trump's Hand? We identified U.S.-Iran tensions in our annual Strategic Outlook as the premier geopolitical risk in 2018 aside from trade concerns.12 We subsequently argued that President Trump's application of "Maximum Pressure" against Iran would likely exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, and potentially lead to a military conflict in 2019 (Diagram 1).13 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tension Decision Tree Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? The Brent crude oil price has come off its highs just below $80/bbl in late May and appears to be holding at $75/bbl. Is the market once again ignoring bubbling U.S.-Iran tensions or is there another factor at play? We suspect that investors are placing their hopes on White House pressure on producers to bring massive amounts of crude online to offset the impact of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran. First, Trump tweeted in April that "OPEC is at it again," keeping oil prices artificially high. He followed this with another tweet at the end of June, directly requesting that Saudi Arabia increase oil production by up to 2 million b/d so that he may continue to play brinkmanship with Tehran. Second, the Libyan media leaked that President Trump sent letters to the representatives of Libya's warring factions, imploring them to restart oil exports or face international prosecution and potential U.S. military intervention.14 The pressure on the Libyan authorities appears to have worked, with the Tripoli-based National Oil Corporation (NOC) ending its force majeure, a legal waiver on contractual obligations, on the ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider, Zueitina, and Hariga. Third, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled on July 10 that the U.S. would consider granting waivers to countries seeking to avoid being sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. On July 15, however, the administration clarified the comment by stating that it would only grant limited exceptions based on national security or humanitarian efforts. The White House is realizing that, unlike its brinkmanship with North Korea, "Maximum Pressure" on Iran comes with immediate domestic costs: higher gasoline prices (Chart 8). The last thing President Trump wants to see is his household tax cut trumped by the higher cost of gasoline. Chart 8How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? Chart 9Iran Is Not Yet At Peak North Korean Levels Of Threat Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Applying Maximum Pressure on Iran is tricky. Politically, the upside is limited for President Trump. First, a majority of Americans (62%) do not want to see the U.S. withdraw from the deal, and do not consider Iran to be as critical of a threat as North Korea (Chart 9). That said, 40% believe that Iran is a "very serious" threat - up from just 30% in October, 2017 - and 62% of Americans believe that "Iran has violated the terms" of the nuclear agreement. These are numbers that President Trump can "work with," but not if gasoline prices rise to consumer-pinching levels. As such, the question is whether we should stand down from our bullish oil outlook given President Trump's active role in eking out new supply. We should, if there were supply to be eked out. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy believes that global supply capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event that Venezuela collapses in 2019 or that Iranian export losses are greater than the 500,000 b/d we are currently projecting.15 The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year, to fall to just over 1 mm b/d next year (Chart 10). Our commodity strategists believe that the idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia, and other core OPEC 2.0 states that can actually increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, especially if the losses reached 1 mm b/d. In fact, many secondary OPEC 2.0 producers are struggling to produce at their 2017-2018 production quota, suggesting that lack of investment and natural depletion have already taken their toll (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Spare Capacity##br## Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Chart 11OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would##br## Struggle To Replace Lost Exports OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Struggle To Replace Lost Exports OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Struggle To Replace Lost Exports Could President Trump back off from the threat of brinkmanship with Iran due to the risk of rising oil prices? Yes, absolutely. We have argued in the past that President Trump appears to be an intensely domestically-focused president. We also see little logic, from the perspective of U.S. interests broadly defined or President Trump's "America First" strategy specifically, in undermining the Obama-era nuclear agreement. As such, domestic constraints could stay President Trump's hand. On the other hand, these constraints would have the greatest force ahead of the November 2018 midterm and the 2020 general elections. This gives President Trump a window between November 2018 and at least the early summer of 2020 to put Maximum Pressure on Iran. As such, we think that investors should fade White House attempts to shore up global supply. Once the midterm election is over, the pressure will fall back on Iran. What about Iran's calculus? Tehran has an interest in dampening tensions ahead of the midterms as well. However, if the U.S. actually enforces sanctions, as we expect it will, we are certain that Iran will begin to ponder the retaliatory action we describe in Diagram 1. In fact, Iran's population appears to be itching for a confrontation, with an ever-increasing majority supporting the restart of Iranian nuclear facilities in response to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement (Chart 12). Iranian officials have also already threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz as we expected they would. Chart 12Iranians Supported Ending Nuclear Deal If The U.S. Did (And It Did!) Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Bottom Line: Between now and November, U.S. policy towards Iran may be much ado about nothing. However, we expect the pressure to rise by the end of the year and especially in 2019. Our subjective probability of armed conflict remains at an elevated 20%, by the end of 2019. This is four times greater than our probability of kinetic action amidst the tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Brexit: Has Theresa May Figured Out How Credible Threats Work? We have long argued that a soft Brexit is incompatible with Euroskeptic demands for increased sovereignty (Diagram 2). And, indeed, sovereignty was one of the main demands - if not the main demand - of Brexit voters ahead of the referendum. A large percent, 32% of "leave" voters, said they would be willing to vote "stay" if a deal with the EU gave "more power to the U.K. parliament," an even greater share than those focused on migration (Chart 13). As such, since March 2016, we have expected the U.K. Conservative Party to split into factions regardless of the outcome of the vote on EU membership.16 Diagram 2The Illogic Of ##br##Soft Brexit Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Chart 13Sovereignty Topped The##br## List Of Brexit Voter Concerns Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has fought against the inevitable by inviting notable Euroskeptics into her cabinet and by trying to pursue a hard Brexit in practice. The problem with this strategy is that it won't work in Westminster, where a whopping 74% of all members of parliament, and 55% of all Tory MPs, declared themselves as "remain" supporters ahead of the 2016 referendum (Chart 14). Given that the House of Commons has to approve the ultimate U.K.-EU deal, a hard-Brexit deal is likely to fail in Parliament. While such a defeat would not automatically bring up an election, May would be essentially left without any political capital with which to continue EU negotiations and would either have to resign or call a new election. Chart 14Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Theresa May therefore has two options. The first is to trust the political instincts of David Davis and Boris Johnson and try to push a hard Brexit through the House of Commons. But with a slim majority of just one MP, how would she accomplish such a feat? Nobody knows, ourselves included, which is why we shorted the GBP as long as May stubbornly listened to the Euroskeptics in her cabinet. However, it appears that May has finally decided to ditch her Euroskeptic cabinet members and establish the "credible threat" of a new election. While May has not uttered the phrase directly, she hinted at a new election when she suggested that "there may be no Brexit at all." The message to hard-Brexit Tory rebels is clear: back my version of Brexit or risk new elections. From an economic perspective, retaining some semblance of Common Market membership is obviously superior to the hard-Brexit alternative. It is so superior, in fact, that Boris Johnson himself called for it immediately following the referendum!17 From a political perspective, it is also much easier to persuade less than two-dozen committed Tory Euroskeptics that a new election would be folly than it is to convince half of the party that the economic risks of a hard-Brexit are inconsequential. The switch in May's tactic therefore warrants a cautionary approach to our current GBP/USD short. The recommendation is up 5.55% since February 14. However, the GBP could be given a tailwind if investors sniff out fear amongst hard Brexit Tories. We still believe that downside risks exist in the short term. First, there is no telling if the EU will accept the particularities of May's Brexit strategy. In fact, the EU may want to make May's life even more difficult by asking for more concessions. Second, Euroskeptic Tories in the House of Commons may be willing martyrs, rebelling against May regardless of the economic and political consequences. Bottom Line: We are keeping our short GBP/USD on for now, which has returned 5.55% since February 14, but we will tighten the stop to just 2%. We think that Theresa May has finally figured out how to use "credible threats" to cajole her party into a soft Brexit. The problem, however, is that she still needs Brussels to play ball and her Euroskeptic MPs to act against their ideology. Europe: Will The Immigration Crisis End The EU? Chart 15European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over No. There is no migration crisis in the EU (Chart 15). Despite the posturing in Europe over the past several months, the migration crisis ended in October 2015. As we forecast at the time, Europe has since taken several steps ovet the succeeding years to increase the enforcement of its external borders, including illiberal methods that many investors thought beyond European sensibilities.18 Today, EU member states are openly interdicting ships carrying asylum seekers and turning them away in international waters. Chancellor Angela Merkel has become just the latest in a long line of policymakers to succumb to her political constraints - and abandon her preferences - by agreeing to end the standoff with her conservative Bavarian allies. Merkel has agreed to set up transit centers on the border of Austria from where migrants will be returned to the EU country where they were originally registered, or simply sent across the border to Austria. The idea behind the move is to end the "pull" that Merkel inadvertently created by openly declaring that Germany was open to migrants regardless of where they came from. Why wouldn't migrants keep coming to Europe regardless? Because if the promise of a job and a legal status in Germany or other EU member states is no longer available, the cost - in treasure, limb, and life - of the journey through the Sahara and unstable states like Libya, and the Mediterranean Sea will no longer make sense. As Chart 15 shows, potential migrants are capable of making the cost-benefit calculation and are electing to stay put. Bottom Line: The EU migration crisis is not investment-relevant. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Appendices for the detailed description of events. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 His tweets in the immediacy of the deal suggest that this was the case. He tweeted, immediately following Mnuchin's Fox News appearance, "China has agreed to buy massive amounts of ADDITIONAL Farm/Agricultural Products - would be one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" He then tweeted again, suggesting that his deal was superior to anything President Obama got, "I ask Senator Chuck Schumer, why didn't President Obama & the Democrats do something about Trade with China, including Theft of Intellectual Property etc.? They did NOTHING! With that being said, Chuck & I have long agreed on this issue! Trade, plus, with China will happen!" His third tweet suggested that the deal being negotiated was indeed a big compromise, "On China, Barriers and Tariffs to come down for first time." All random capitalizations are President Trump's originals. 7 We reacted to the truce by arguing that it would not "last long." It lasted merely three days! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?" dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World," dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "Trump's letter to rivals allegedly results in resumption of oil exports in Libya," Libyan Express, dated July 11, 2018, available at libyanexpress.com. 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf," dated July 5, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Johnson stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market." Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix 2A Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Appendix 2B Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Appendix 2B (Cont.) Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Geopolitical Calendar

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Chief Emerging Markets Strategist Highlights The authorities in China have begun easing liquidity conditions but that is not sufficient to turn positive on mainland growth. For the next six months at least, the mainland's growth conditions will continue deteriorating and that warrants a negative stance on China-related risk assets, including commodities and EM. The path of least resistance for the dollar is up. This will continue to weigh on EM risk assets. A narrowing interest rate differential between China and the U.S. will continue exerting downward pressure on the RMB's value versus the dollar. Our credit stress test on Turkish banks suggests their stocks are not yet cheap assuming the non-performing loan ratio rises to 15%. Stay short banks and the lira. Feature China's economic slowdown, ongoing trade wars and accumulating U.S. inflation pressures will continue propping up the U.S. dollar, thereby sustaining a perfect storm for EM financial markets. This is taking place amid the poor structural fundamentals in the developing economies and the existing overhang of investor positions in EM. Altogether this argues for more downside in EM financial markets. A strong dollar is also a bad omen for developed markets' stock indexes. The reason being that the dollar is a countercyclical variable, and the greenback's rallies usually coincide with global trade downturns that are bearish for global cyclical equity sectors (Chart I-1). Needless to say, tariffs on imports are ultimately negative for global trade, and will exacerbate the global growth slowdown that has been occurring since early this year. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that global trade has so far temporarily benefited from mounting expectations of tariffs.1 Companies have ordered more inputs and shipped more goods in advance of higher tariffs coming into effect. This is why global shipments and manufacturing production have so far held up reasonably well, while business expectations have plummeted (Chart I-2). Consequently, global trade and manufacturing production will likely record considerable weakness later this year. Since markets are typically forward looking, asset prices will adjust beforehand. Chart I-1Global Industrial Stocks And U.S. Dollar Global Industrial Stocks And U.S. Dollar Global Industrial Stocks And U.S. Dollar Chart I-2Global Trade Is Heading South Global Trade Is Heading South Global Trade Is Heading South We are maintaining our negative stance on EM stocks, currencies, credit markets and high-yielding local bonds. China Is Easing Liquidity, But Don't Hold Your Breath Chart I-3Chinese Interest Rates And EM Stocks: ##br##Positively Correlated Chinese Interest Rates And EM Stocks: Positively Correlated Chinese Interest Rates And EM Stocks: Positively Correlated China's softening industrial data, growing anecdotal evidence of a worsening credit crunch in the economy, U.S. tariffs, and plunging domestic share prices have been sufficient for the authorities to ease liquidity conditions in the Chinese banking system. Not surprisingly, many investors are wondering whether the worst is over for Chinese stocks and China-related financial markets worldwide, including those in EM. At the current juncture, liquidity easing by the PBOC is a necessary but not sufficient condition to turn positive on this nation's industrial cycle as well as EM risk assets. We have the following considerations on this topic: First, China's risk-free interest rates - government bond yields - led the selloff in both EM and Chinese stocks (Chart 3). These bond yields have plunged since November, foreshadowing the slowdown in China's growth and the carnage in EM/Chinese financial markets. By and large, there has been a positive correlation between EM share prices and China's local bond yields and interbank rates as illustrated on Chart I-3. For example, EM stocks, currencies and credit markets rallied substantially in 2017 in the face of rising interest rates in China. Likewise, they dropped in the second half of 2015 as bond yields and money market rates in China plunged. The rationale behind the positive correlation between EM risk assets and Chinese interest rates is that the latter rise and EM risk assets rally when the mainland economy is improving. The opposite is also true. At the moment, Chinese risk-free bond yields will likely continue to drop as additional slowdown in growth is in the cards. This heralds a further drop in EM financial markets. Second, any major stimulus will constitute a retraction of the Chinese government's policy of deleveraging and containing financial risks. The latter is the code phrase Chinese authorities use to stop fueling bubbles and speculative excesses. Hence, any policy stimulus will for now be measured and insufficient to boost growth this year. China is saddled with massive debt and money overhangs and a bubbly property market. Ongoing enormous expansion in money supply (i.e., RMB deposits)2 (Chart I-4) and a narrowing interest rate differential over the U.S. will continue exerting downward pressure on the RMB's value (Chart I-5). Chart I-4'Helicopter Money' In China Helicopter Money' In China Helicopter Money' In China Chart I-5The RMB Will Depreciate Further The RMB Will Depreciate Further The RMB Will Depreciate Further Even though capital controls have tightened since 2015, the capital account is not perfectly closed. As such, shrinking interest rate deferential versus the U.S. warrants further yuan depreciation. In short, the authorities cannot reduce interest rates further and expand money/credit growth at a double-digit rate without tolerating sizable currency deprecation. If the Chinese authorities opt for a large fiscal and credit stimulus again, the nation's structural imbalances will grow further. In this scenario, the Middle Kingdom's secular growth outlook will deteriorate, and policymakers' manoeuvring room to stimulate in the future will narrow. Chart I-6China: The Industrial Cycle Is Slumping China: The Industrial Cycle Is Slumping China: The Industrial Cycle Is Slumping Crucially, China's enormous money and credit creation are entirely unrelated to its high savings rate. Money and credit in China have been driven by speculative behavior of Chinese banks and borrowers not households' high savings rate. We have discussed these issues in detail in our past special reports3 and will not expand on them here. Third, there has been money/credit tightening on three fronts in China - liquidity, regulatory and anti-corruption. Even though liquidity conditions in the banking system are now ameliorating, as evidenced by the plunge in interbank rates, the regulatory clampdown on the shadow banking system as well as the anti-corruption campaign targeting the financial industry are still underway. The latter policy initiatives will continue to curb credit creation by suppressing banks' and shadow banking institutions' ability and willingness to finance the real economy. In fact, it is not inconceivable that the regulatory clampdown and anti-corruption campaign will have a larger impact on credit supply than the decline in borrowing costs. Finally, policy easing and tightening works with a time lag. China's business cycles and related financial markets do not always respond swiftly to changes in policy stance. Specifically, monetary and fiscal policies were easing substantially from the middle of 2015, yet EM/China-related risk assets continued to plummet for six months until February 2016. Conversely, policy was tightening in China throughout 2017, yet EM/China-related asset markets did well in 2017. In brief, there could be a long lag between a change in policy stance and a reversal in financial markets. For now, we reckon that the cumulative effect of policy tightening of the past 18 months will continue to seep through the Chinese economy till the end of this year. Chart I-6 demonstrates that various industrial cycle indicators continue to deteriorate. Bottom Line: The authorities in China have begun easing liquidity conditions but that is not sufficient to turn positive on Chinese growth and China-related risk assets, including commodities and EM. For the next six months at least, the mainland's growth conditions will continue deteriorating and that warrants a negative stance on China-related risk assets. More Downside The indicators that have been useful in foretelling the turmoil in EM financial markets this year are signaling that a negative stance is still warranted: One indicator that gave an early warning signal for the current EM selloff was EM sovereign and corporate bond yields. At the moment, the average of EM dollar-denominated corporate and sovereign bond yields continues to presage lower EM stock prices, as demonstrated in Chart I-7 - bond yields are shown inverted in this chart. Chart I-7Rising EM Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For Their Stocks Rising EM Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For Their Stocks Rising EM Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For Their Stocks Notably, EM share prices display lower correlation with U.S. bond yields and U.S. TIPS yields than with EM corporate and sovereign bond yields (Chart I-8). Why are EM share prices exhibiting a stronger correlation with EM bond yields rather than with U.S. Treasury yields? The basis is that EM equities are sensitive to EM - not U.S. - borrowing costs. So long as the rise in U.S. bond yields is offset by compressing EM credit spreads, EM corporate and sovereign U.S. dollar bond yields - i.e. EM borrowing costs in dollars - will decline, and EM share prices will rally (Chart I-7). But when EM corporate (or sovereign) yields rise - irrespective of whether because of rising U.S. Treasury yields or widening EM credit spreads - EM borrowing costs in dollars rise, and consequently equity prices come under considerable selling pressure. In other words, a drop in U.S. bond yields on its own is not enough for EM share prices to advance, and conversely, a rise in U.S. bond yields is not sufficient for EM stocks to drop. It is movements in EM U.S. dollar bond yields, which are comprised of U.S. Treasury yields and EM credit spreads, that matter for the direction of EM equity prices. Regarding local bond yields, EM share prices typically exhibit a strong negative correlation with EM domestic government bonds yields - the latter are shown inverted on this chart (Chart I-9). Since we expect EM currencies to depreciate further and, given the negative correlation between EM currency values and their local bond yields, the latter will continue rising. Chart I-8EM Stocks And U.S. Rates: ##br##Mixed Relationship EM Stocks And U.S. Rates: Mixed Relationship EM Stocks And U.S. Rates: Mixed Relationship Chart I-9EM Equities And Local Bond Yields: ##br##Strong Correlation EM Equities and Local Bond Yields: Strong Correlation EM Equities and Local Bond Yields: Strong Correlation The risky-to-safe-haven currency ratio4 continues to fall after experiencing a major breakdown early this year (Chart I-10, top panel). Historically, this ratio has been correlated with EM share prices and currently heralds further downside (Chart I-10, bottom panel). This ratio also is agnostic to the dollar's direction - it swings between risk-on versus risk-off regimes in financial markets, regardless of the general trend in the greenback. Hence, this indicator answers the question of the direction of EM share prices, regardless of the dollar's trend. Finally, key to EM performance has been corporate profits. Presently, the outlook for EM corporate profits is still negative, as suggested by the negative readings on China's money and credit (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Are Risk Assets In A Bear Market? bca.ems_wr_2018_07_12_s1_c10 bca.ems_wr_2018_07_12_s1_c10 Chart I-11EM Corporate Profits Will Likely Shrink EM Corporate Profits Will Likely Shrink EM Corporate Profits Will Likely Shrink Bottom Line: EM risk asset will continue selling off and underperforming their DM counterparts. Stay short/underweight EM risk assets. The Dollar's Trend Is Still Up The U.S. dollar is instrumental to EM financial market trends. We expect the dollar rally to persist for now - at least through the end of this year. The underlying inflation gauge measure calculated by New York Fed points to further acceleration in U.S. consumer price inflation (Chart I-12). Furthermore, America's job market is continuing to tighten. In brief, U.S. domestic demand will stay robust even as global trade slumps. These will limit the Federal Reserve's ability to back off from tightening, even if EM financial markets continue to sell off. Chart I-12U.S. Inflation Risks Are To The Upside U.S. Inflation Risks Are To The Upside U.S. Inflation Risks Are To The Upside Remarkably, a strong U.S. exchange rate is needed to cap America's growth and inflation and to boost growth in the rest of the world, especially in Asia. Given the widening growth momentum between the U.S. and Asia, the dollar will likely need to rally significantly to reverse the growth differential currently moving in favor of America. This will be especially true if more trade tariffs are imposed. Odds are that the RMB will depreciate further given the backdrop of lower interest rates in China - discussed above. That will cause a downturn in emerging Asian currencies. A strong dollar, a slowdown in Chinese/EM demand for commodities and large net long positions by investors in oil and copper all argue for a considerable drop in commodities prices in the months ahead. This is bearish for Latin American and many other EM exchange rates. Bottom Line: The path of least resistance for the dollar is up. This will continue to weigh on EM risk assets. With respect to currency positions, we recommend investors to continue to short a basket of EM currencies such as BRL, ZAR, TRY, MYR and IDR versus the dollar. CLP and KRW are also among our shorts given our bearish outlook for copper prices, global trade and Asian currencies. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkish Banks: A Bargain Or Value Trap? 12 July 2018 Turkish bank stocks have now fallen by 40% in local currency terms and by 55% in U.S. dollar terms since their peak early this year (Chart II-1), prompting the question whether they have become a bargain or are still a value trap. Banks represent 30% of the Turkey MSCI index and are integral to the performance of this bourse. Although Turkish banks appear to be cheap with their price-to-trailing earnings ratio at 4.5 and their price-to-book value ratio at 0.62, they are still vulnerable to a substantial rise in non-performing loans (NPL) and ensuing provisioning, write-off and equity dilution. Turkey has been experiencing an enormous credit binge for years and its interest rates have risen by 600 basis points since the start of the year. Yet, current NPLs and provisions stand at a mere 3% and 2.3% of total outstanding loan, respectively (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Turkish Stocks: A Long-Term Perspective Turkish Stocks: A Long-Term Perspective Turkish Stocks: A Long-Term Perspective Chart II-2Turkish Banks Are Underprovisioned Turkish Banks Are Underprovisioned Turkish Banks Are Underprovisioned The creditworthiness of debtors is worse when one takes into account that Turkish companies have large foreign currency debt and a record amount of foreign debt obligations due in 2018 (Chart II-3). In our credit stress test, we assume that in the baseline scenario the non-performing credit assets (NPCA) ratio will rise to 15% (Table II-1). Taking into account that the NPL-to-total loan ratio reached 18% in 2002 after the 2001 currency crisis, we believe 15% is a reasonable estimate. Chart II-3Turkey: Record High Foreign Debt Obligations Turkey: Record High Foreign Debt Obligations Turkey: Record High Foreign Debt Obligations Table II-1Credit Stress Test For Turkish Banks EM: A Perfect Storm EM: A Perfect Storm To put this number further into perspective, India - one of the very few countries within the EM universe to have somewhat fully recognized its NPLs - currently has an NPL ratio of 15% on its public banks. Chart II-4Turkish Equities: ##br##A Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio Turkish Equities: A Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio Turkish Equities: A Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio If we assume that Turkish bank stocks at the end of this cycle will trade at a price-to-book ratio of 1 after adjusting for all credit losses, then banks' stock prices are currently about 17% overvalued in the baseline scenario of 15% NPCA (Table II-1, the middle row). In all three scenarios, we assume a recovery rate of 40%. With regards to the overall equity market, Chart II-4 demonstrates that the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for Turkish stocks is currently around 5, compared to the historical average of 8. For the bourse's CAPE ratio to drop to two standard deviations below its mean, share prices have to fall by another 20-25%. This is plausible given the outlook for more populist economic policies following the recent elections. Besides, corporate profits will contract considerably because of the monetary tightening that has occurred since early this year. The exchange rate is critical for Turkish financial markets. As such, revisiting currency valuation is also important. Our favorite measure of currency valuation is the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. This takes into account both wages and productivity. Hence, it gauges competitiveness much better than the measures of real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices. Using this measure, as of July 11 the lira was slightly more than one standard deviation below its historical mean (Chart II-5). For it to reach two standard deviations below its mean, it would roughly take another 15-17% depreciation, versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro. Given the current macroeconomic backdrop and the outlook for more unorthodox policies, including possible capital controls following President Erdogan's appointment of his son-in law as the key economic policymaker, the lira will likely undershoot. Meantime, foreign holdings of Turkish local bonds and stocks were not yet depressed as of June 29 (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Turkish Lira: An Undershoot Is Likely Turkish Lira: An Undershoot Is Likely Turkish Lira: An Undershoot Is Likely Chart II-6Foreign Ownership Is Still High Foreign Ownership Is Still High Foreign Ownership Is Still High Bottom Line: Provided Turkey's political outlook has deteriorated further after the recent elections, we assess that only after a 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with a 15-20% drop in stocks in local currency terms, will Turkish equities be a true bargain and warrant a positive stance. For now, dedicated EM equity and fixed income portfolios (both credit and local currency bonds) should continue to underweight Turkey. Our open directional trades at the moment remain: Short Turkish bank stocks Short TRY / long USD. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the following article Global automakers hail more ships as trade battles heat up. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd," dated July 26, 2017, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, available on ems.bcaresearch.com; and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil," dated March 22, 2018, link is available on page 17. 4 Average of cad, aud, nzd, brl, clp & zar total return indices relative to average of jpy & chf total returns (including carry); rebased to 100 at January 2000. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA’s 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry’s only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers’ options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating “geopolitical alpha;” Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant “war games,” which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist The London Metal Exchange Index (LMEX) will remain under significant downward pressure, unless and until fears of escalating Sino - U.S. trade disputes are allayed. Should this dispute devolve into full-blown trade war - something our geopolitical strategists expect - EM economies deeply embedded in global supply chains could be especially hard hit.1 This would have ramifications for commodity prices in general, base metals in particular. Alternatively, if this trade dispute evolves into a more open and free global trading system, EM income growth will drive commodity demand - particularly for metals - significantly higher. Highlights Energy: Overweight. China's $5 billion loan and $250mm direct investment in Venezuela's oil industry will alleviate the country's oil-production and -export collapse for a brief interval. However, unless China brings its own industry experts in to run Venezuela's state-owned oil company, which has suffered a near-total loss of highly trained personnel, and manages to reverse government mismanagement and corruption, it is difficult to see the collapse in that country's oil industry being reversed. Separately, China's investment in and commitment to Venezuela could be a harbinger of future deals between it and Iran, if China decides to flex its economic muscle and widen the playing field in its trade dispute with the U.S. beyond ags. Base Metals: Neutral. Fears of a global trade war overly punishing EM economies, many of which are deeply entwined in global supply chains, are weighing on base metals prices (see below). Right-tail - i.e., upside risks - are, for the most part, being ignored. Our assessment of balances and upside risk, particularly in copper, makes getting long attractive. We are, therefore, going long the Dec/18 $3.00 COMEX calls vs. short $3.20/lb calls at tonight's close. This is a tactical position. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold recovered somewhat - trading above $1,260/oz earlier in the week - as global trade tensions increased. It since settled to the $1,250/oz level as trade anxieties re-emerged. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Prompt soybeans futures are probing five-year lows, after the U.S. announced an additional $34 billion in tariffs against China, which were immediately followed by Chinese reprisals, highlighted by 25% tariffs against soybeans. Feature Prices of the six base metals futures comprising the LMEX are highly sensitive to EM growth, which has benefited from the expansion of global supply chains. As a result, metals' prices are highly sensitive to EM incomes, EM trade volumes, and FX levels. Our modeling indicates these global macro variables will continue to play an outsized role in determining the trajectory of the metals' prices, particularly as relates to EM - China trade (Chart of the Week).2 Chart Of The WeekEM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM incomes and trade volumes have, for the most part, held up well this year. Our base case outlook is for the resilience underpinning the global economy to continue for the remainder of the year, in line with the IMF and World Bank expectations.3 However, escalating trade disputes are threatening to weigh on the global flow of goods, which, if they persist and deepen, will dampen demand for raw materials in general, and metals in particular. An acceleration in trade restrictions would dent not only trade flows, but also would harm EM incomes in the process. Our base case longer term gets cloudier. In the left tail of returns distributions, rising interest rates on the back of the Fed's interest-rate normalization process will remain on track, particularly as inflation and inflation expectations pick up. This will support a stronger dollar, which, all else equal, will increase EM debt servicing costs. Our colleagues in BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy note, "Emerging markets are particularly sensitive to changes in U.S. financial conditions. About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. interest rates make it more difficult for EM borrowers to service their debts. While EM foreign-currency debt has declined as a share of total debt outstanding, this is only because the past decade has seen a boom in local debt issuance. As a share of GDP, exports, and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years."4 We expect the Sino - U.S. trade dispute will get nastier, but we are mindful of the right tail risks in this process, as well. If leaders in the U.S., China, and EU can agree to revamp and modernize the rules of the road for global trade - i.e., protect intellectual property, remove forced technology transfers, and make markets more open and transparent - the upside risks to base metals returns, and commodities in general, would be significant. In such an evolution, EM income growth would accelerate, super-charging global trade volumes, and commodity demand. Trade Volumes Resilient For Now, But Protectionism Looms Overhead At present, global trade in goods amounts to more than $17 trillion of merchandise exports, while commercial services exports are more than $5 trillion.5 Accounting for tariffs imposed by the U.S. under Sections 232, and 301, as well as retaliatory action by China, Mexico, the EU, and Canada, barriers have so far been implemented on ~$150 billion worth of traded goods. This represents less than 1% of merchandise trade. Thus, current restrictions -- while intensifying -- will not significantly curb global flows (Chart 2). And, so far, EM trade volumes have held up well, with resilience in the flow of goods: Our forward-looking models are pointing toward continued trade-related support for base metals in coming months (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 3EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War This should - ceteris paribus - translate into greater demand for metals, and a strong LMEX. Our modelling finds that the LMEX and EM trade volumes are cointegrated, and that a 1% increase in EM import volumes maps to a 1.3% increase in the LMEX, in line with the overall income elasticity of trade reported by the World Bank last month.6 However, risks surrounding the flow of goods globally - especially between the U.S. and China and the U.S. and EU - are mounting. This is jeopardizing our base case for resilient EM trade and income in the near term. Most notable is the recent U.S. trade restriction imposed on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports effective July 6, and China's subsequent retaliation in kind, which hit U.S. ag exports - particularly soybeans - hard. Additional barriers similar to the tit-for-tat of late between the U.S. and China, raise the odds of a global trade war and further depress metal prices.7 If this U.S.-Sino trade spat devolves into a full-blown trade war, in which the U.S., China and the EU erect trade barriers, or raise tariffs or restrictions on foreign investment, global trade momentum could slow significantly, which would be devastating for EM income growth. The World Bank finds that if tariffs were to reach legal maximum rates under WTO commitments, global trade flows would decline by 9% - in line with the decline experienced during the global financial crisis (GFC) (Chart 4).8 In addition to mounting trade restrictions, the sustainability of Chinese demand is also relevant to our metals demand-side outlook. China's imports account for the bulk of EM import volumes, and a significant domestic slowdown that dents import demand would weigh on the metals complex. To date, China's import volume growth appears to be holding up, reflecting a controlled domestic demand environment (Chart 5). Chart 4Trade War Would Hurt EM Trade Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 5China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled Trade Barriers Would Hit EM Incomes Hard As noted above, in line with our base case outlook of supportive trade volumes so far this year, the IMF and World Bank expect the global economy to remain strong this year and next, highlighting trade as one of the two main growth catalysts (Table 1). DM growth, while showing signs of moderating, remains perched above potential. We expect this to persist, especially given fiscal stimulus measures in the U.S. announced earlier this year. According to our modelling, a 1% increase in EM GDP translates to a 1.1% rise in the LMEX. Global PMIs remain above the 50 mark, indicating global manufacturing continues to expand, which will remain supportive of commodity demand generally (Chart 6). Table 1Global Growth Expected To Remain Supportive Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 6U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth China's ~ $14 trillion GDP accounts for some ~ 16% of global GDP and is the highest among the EM economies.9 China accounts for ~ 50% of global demand for metals represented in the LMEX (Chart 7). China's base-metals demand has been resilient, despite tighter credit and monetary conditions and little in the way of fiscal stimulus in China. We continue to expect Chinese domestic demand will experience a managed slowdown as the government tackles its reform agenda in 2H18. Chart 7China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets Since 2000, the impact of income growth in China has only a slightly larger effect on the LME's price index versus that of DM regions such as the Euro Area.10 Our analysis indicates that, unlike the rest of the world, China's metal consumption is trend-stationary - i.e., mean reverting - and behaves almost as it if were a policy variable, which is to say a time series that is more a function of government policy than the laws of supply and demand. Bottom Line: EM income and trade volumes are expected to remain strong, which will be supportive of metals prices. Even so, markets are now dealing with a trade spat that could metastasize into a full-blown trade war. We are not there yet. However, the tail risks are increasing and markets now have to account for a higher likelihood of a slowdown in EM trade volumes, which could be followed by a redistribution of base-metals demand and re-ordering of trade flows. On the flip side, a resolution of the trade frictions would resolve many of these tail risks, and likely would lend support to metal prices via higher EM income growth. In any case, the FX outlook is not supportive for metal prices. A stronger dollar - our base case expectation - will weigh on metal demand and the LMEX. Fundamentals Will Play A Secondary Role Individual market fundamentals, such as aluminum supply cuts, copper mine strikes, and zinc's physical deficit contributed to the LMEX's outperformance last year (Chart 8). Metal-specific supply, demand and inventory conditions will continue influencing the individual metals in the index. Aluminum and copper constitute three-quarters of the LMEX, and fundamental developments in these two markets are especially relevant (Chart 9). Chart 8Individual Fundamentals Supported LMEX Last Year Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 9Copper, Aluminum Markets Are Key Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals U.S. sanctions on leading Russian aluminum producer Rusal and its top shareholder, the oligarch Oleg Deripaska, led to a 9% surge in the LMEX in the first few weeks of April, followed by a 6% retracement by the end of the month (Chart 10). While risks from this politically motivated tailwind have mostly faded - the U.S. announced that a change in ownership will exempt Rusal from these sanctions - geopolitical tensions remain relevant. Chart 10Individual Markets Remain Relevant Individual Markets Remain Relevant Individual Markets Remain Relevant In the very near term, ongoing contract renegotiations at Chile's Escondida mine are an upside risk to the LMEX in the coming weeks. BHP's final offer to the labor union is due on July 24. Reuters reports that little progress has been made to settle the disputes between BHP and the union: agreement has been reached on only one-fifth of the points of contention.11 While June upside from these renegotiations have since faded and taken a back seat to downside pressures from the fear of a global trade war, a labor strike at the mine which dents supply, would support copper prices, and offset at least part of the index's downside macro risks. At 14.8% of the index, zinc accounts for a much smaller weight in the LMEX. After strong gains last year, the metal has been a headwind to the LMEX since March. Following two consecutive years of physical deficits, the market is moving toward a surplus, causing prices to slide. However, recent news of a possible production cut by Chinese smelters is preventing major declines. If this were to materialize - details remain vague at best - we would expect to see some support in the zinc market. Bottom Line: Demand-side macro variables - EM trade, incomes, and currencies - explain almost all of the movements in the LMEX. To date, these variables exhibit resilience pointing to support for metal prices. Left-side tail risks arising from possible trade wars have the market's attention and have been weighing on the complex of late. We expect these downside risks to be most relevant in the remainder of this year, and to take a front seat to individual market fundamentals. Nevertheless, individual metals' fundamentals will be important to follow. Right-side tail risks also bear watching, particularly if the current trade spats involving the U.S., China and the EU are resolved in favor of freer, more open global trade. This would super-charge EM growth, which would be bullish for commodities generally, base metals and oil in particular. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy titled "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," published July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The adjusted R-squared for each of our two cointegrating regressions is greater than 0.95. These models cover the 2000 to present period. Our modelling also indicates that the LMEX is cointegrated with these three explanatory variables, i.e., they share a long-term trend, wherein the LMEX rises as these variables rise. 3 Please see the IMF's World Economic Outlook of April 2018 (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/03/20/world-economic-outlook-april-2018), and the World Bank's June 2018 Global Economic Prospects (http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects). 4 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Who Suffers When The Fed Hikes Rates?" dated June 1, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Strong trade growth in 2018 rests on policy choices," published by the World Trade Organization April 12, 2018. 6 The period for our estimate is 2000 to now. We discuss the World Bank's trade elasticities in "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets" published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy June 21, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 The U.S. is threatening to impose tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. 8 This is based on a simulation where WTO members increase tariffs to bound rates under WTO commitments as well as a 3% increase in the cost of traded services. This would mean average global tariff rates would legally more than triple from the current 2.7% to 10.2%. This exercise does not take into account the impact of other non-tariff restrictions, such as those on investments. Please see World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8277 titled "The Global Costs of Protectionism," dated December 2017. 9 Please see "The world's biggest economies in 2018," published by The World Economic Forum at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/the-worlds-biggest-economies-in-2018/. 10 A 1 percentage-point (p.p.) increase in China's year-on-year (y/y) GDP rate translates to a 1.8% increase in the LMEX, while a 1 p.p. increase in y/y changes in the Euro Area's y/y GDP rate is associated with a 1.6% increase in the LMEX. These results are based on a dynamic OLS model which also includes the JPM EM currency index and EM export volumes as explanatory variables. The adjusted R2 for the model is 0.97. 11 "Conversations can continue until July 24, at which point BHP must present its final offer, according to a negotiation schedule provided by the company. Between July 27 and July 31, the union will vote to either accept the company's offer or go on strike. After the vote, either party has as many as four days to request a period of government mediation that can last 10 days." Please see "Labour talks at BHP's Escondida mine in Chile enter 'home stretch," dated July 6, 2018, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic, will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Highlights The U.S. and China have now acted on their threats and imposed tariffs; A full-blown trade war is expected, as President Trump retaliates to China's retaliation; The Tiananmen Square incident, the third Taiwan Strait Crisis, and the Hainan Island incident are previous U.S.-China clashes worth comparing to today's conflict - they point to more trouble ahead; Trade tensions are already spilling out into strategic tensions in China's near seas. It is too soon to buy Chinese or China-exposed equities. Feature On July 6, President Donald Trump imposed a 25% tariff on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports, to expand to $50 billion on July 20. China responded with tariffs of its own on the same amount (Chart 1). Trump has since threatened to slap a 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of goods, and potentially additional tariffs on another $300 billion. Beijing is refusing to negotiate under duress. Trade tensions have already spilled into the military realm, with scuffles occurring from the coast of Africa to the Taiwan Strait.1 BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has long maintained that U.S.-China relations are in a structural, not merely cyclical, decline.2 One of the most striking illustrations of this thesis has been the divergence of the two economies since the global financial crisis. The Chinese exporter has fallen in importance to China's economy while the U.S. consumer has been taking on less debt (Chart 2). Previously, a close economic dependency - dubbed "Chimerica" by prominent commentators - limited the two countries' underlying strategic distrust. Today, strategic distrust is aggravating economic divisions. Chart 1U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 2Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over How significant is the current rupture in U.S.-China relations? A brief look at the three major crisis points of the 1980s-2000s reinforces our structural assessment: the current conflict has the potential to become the biggest conflict in U.S.-China relations since the early Cold War. Judging by previous crises, it could last two years or more and involve extensive economic sanctions and military saber-rattling. The disruption to global markets could be much greater than in the past due to China's greater heft on the world stage. Crisis #1: Tiananmen Square, 1989-91 The first major crisis in modern U.S.-China relations was also the worst to date. It is therefore the model against which to compare today's fraying relationship. It centered on the suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 by the Communist Party and People's Liberation Army (PLA). Throughout the 1980s, China struggled to manage the rapid economic and social consequences of opening up to the outside world. The release of pent-up demand in an inefficient, command-style supply system resulted in rising bouts of inflation that spurred popular unrest (Chart 3). Meanwhile, student activism and democratic sentiment emerged in the political climate of glasnost across communist regimes. These forces coalesced into the large-scale demonstrations at Tiananmen Square, Beijing, and other cities, in the spring of 1989. In response, the ruling party declared martial law and ordered the PLA to break up the demonstrations on June 3-4. The United States responded with a series of sanctions intended to punish and isolate China's leaders. President George H. W. Bush halted arms exports, other sensitive exports, most civilian and military dialogue, development aid, and support for multilateral bank lending to China.3 The other G7 countries joined with their own restrictions on exports, aid, and loans. China's economy slowed sharply to a 4% growth rate from above 10% for most of the decade. Meanwhile the government expanded the crackdown on domestic dissent. Exports to China clearly suffered from the crisis (Chart 4). Chart 3China's Reform Era Sparked Inflation China's Reform Era Sparked Inflation China's Reform Era Sparked Inflation Chart 4Trade Suffered From Tiananmen Incident Trade Suffered From Tiananmen Incident Trade Suffered From Tiananmen Incident Ultimately, however, the U.S. and its allies proved unwilling to sustain the pressure. While multilateral lending dropped off, direct lending continued (Chart 5). China was also allowed to retain its Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status. The G7 began removing some of the sanctions as early as the following year. The inflow of FDI recovered sharply (Chart 6). Only a few of the sanctions had a lasting effect.4 Chart 5Multilateral Lending Cut Off After Tiananmen The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 6FDI Recovered From Tiananmen Quickly The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The relevance of Tiananmen today is that when faced with domestic instability, China's ruling party took drastic measures to ensure its supremacy. This included weathering the pain of the combined G7 trade sanctions at a time when China's economy was small, weak, and slowing. By comparison, today's trade war also threatens domestic stability - through unemployed manufacturing workers rather than pro-democracy students. Yet it does not involve a united front against China from the West (the Trump administration is simultaneously slapping tariffs on the G7!). Moreover, China's economy is far larger and more influential than in 1989. This gives it a greater ability to retaliate and to deter a conflict that is all the more consequential for global economies and markets (Table 1). As for the market impact, mainland China did not have functional stock markets until 1990-91, but Hong Kong-listed stocks collapsed during the Tiananmen protests and did not fully recover for a year (Chart 7). Today, tariffs are a more direct and lasting threat to corporate earnings than the Tiananmen fallout and it is not clear how far the cycle of retaliation will go. The implication for investors is that Chinese and China-exposed equities are not yet a buy, despite the 10% and 13% selloff in A-shares and H-shares in recent weeks. Table 1China Much Bigger Today Than In Previous U.S.-China Clashes The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 7Tiananmen Hit Hong Kong Stocks Tiananmen Hit Hong Kong Stocks Tiananmen Hit Hong Kong Stocks Finally, the 1980s-90s marked the heyday of U.S.-China economic engagement and the Bush White House was eager to get on with business (even the Bill Clinton White House proved to be the same). By contrast, the Washington establishment today is united in demanding a tougher stance on China. The two countries are now "peers" locked in a struggle that goes beyond trade to affect long-term national security.5 Rebuilding trust will require painstaking negotiations that may take months; more economic and financial pain may be necessary to force cooperation. Bottom Line: The Tiananmen incident has long provided the basic framework for a rupture in U.S.-China relations, as it involved an official diplomatic cutoff along with a serious blow to Chinese growth rates and foreign trade and investment. Circumstances are even more dangerous today, as China is in a better position to stare down U.S. pressure and the U.S. is more desirous of a drawn-out confrontation. This is a bad combination for risk assets. It is too early to buy into the selloff in Chinese and China-related equities. Crisis #2: The Taiwan Strait, 1995-96 From the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and beginning of the Korean War in 1950, the United States undertook to defend the routed Chinese nationalists on their island refuge of Taiwan. Fighting occasionally broke out over control of the small coastal islands across the strait from Taiwan, most notably in the two "Taiwan Strait Crises" of 1954-55 and 1958. An uneasy equilibrium then developed that lasted until the third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995-96. The third crisis arose in the aftermath of Taiwan's democratization. China's economy was booming, it was seeking to modernize its military, and the U.S. was increasing arms sales to Taiwan (Chart 8). In July 1995, Beijing launched a series of missile tests and military exercises, hoping to discourage pro-independence sentiment and dissuade the Taiwanese people from voting for President Lee Teng-hui - who was rightly suspected of favoring independence - ahead of the 1996 elections. The United States responded with a show of force on behalf of its informal ally, eventually deploying two aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz and USS Independence, and various warships to the area. The Nimitz sailed through the strait. Tensions peaked ahead of the Taiwanese election on March 23, 1996 - in which voters went against China's wishes - and simmered for years afterwards. Chart 8Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Chart 9Taiwan Crisis Hit Mainland And Taiwan, Not U.S. Stocks Taiwan Crisis Hit Mainland And Taiwan, Not U.S. Stocks Taiwan Crisis Hit Mainland And Taiwan, Not U.S. Stocks The military and diplomatic standoff had a pronounced negative impact on financial markets. Both mainland and Taiwanese stock markets sold off and were suppressed for months afterwards (Chart 9). Our measure of the Taiwanese geopolitical risk premium - which utilizes the JPY/USD and USD/KRW exchange rates as proxies - shows that risks reached a peak during this period (Chart 10). As with Tiananmen, however, U.S. stocks were insulated from the crisis. Chart 10Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Over the long run, China's saber-rattling promoted pro-independence sentiment and Taiwanese identity, factors that are proving to be political risks once again in 2018 (Chart 11). China has held provocative military drills and imposed discrete sanctions as a result of pro-independence election outcomes in 2014-16 (Chart 12). Local elections on November 24 this year could serve as a lightning rod for provocations, especially if pro-independence politicians, which currently hold all branches of government, continue to win.6 Chart 11Beijing's Saber-Rattling Was Counter-Productive The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Further, the Trump administration has upgraded Taiwan relations and its trade war with China is already spilling over into Taiwan affairs. The decision to send the destroyers USS Mustin and Benfold through the Taiwan Strait on July 7-8 should be seen in the context of trade tensions. A new aircraft carrier transit is being openly discussed. These are negative signs that warrant caution toward both mainland and Taiwanese equities. Bottom Line: The Third Taiwan Strait Crisis marked the biggest spike in military tensions between the U.S. and China in recent memory and had a markedly negative impact on regional risk assets. It is a worrying sign that the U.S.-China trade war is becoming intermeshed with cross-strait political tensions. We continue to view Taiwan as the potential site of a "Black Swan" event, especially if this November's local election goes against Beijing's wishes.7 Crisis #3: Hainan Island, 2001 Lastly, the "Hainan Island Incident" marks another point of tension in U.S.-China relations. On April 1, 2001 a Chinese jet struck a U.S. EP-3 ARIES II signals reconnaissance plane in the skies over the South China Sea, between Hainan and the contested Paracel Islands. The U.S. plane landed on the southern island, where its crew was detained and interrogated for 10 days while their aircraft was meticulously disassembled. The U.S. issued a half-hearted apology and the crew was released. The Chinese pilot went missing in the crash and was later declared killed in action. The incident fed into already sour feelings between Washington and Beijing. Just two years earlier, the U.S. government had "botched" an attack on a federal Yugoslav target in Belgrade, striking the Chinese embassy and killing three Chinese civilians.8 Thus, at the turn of the century, China was angry about U.S. military interventionism, while the U.S. was wary of China's military modernization. But this period of tensions was ultimately overshadowed by the September 11 terrorist attacks later that year, which prompted the U.S. to turn its attention to the Middle East and the war on terrorism. We highlight the Hainan incident for a simple reason: the South China Sea is a much more fiercely contested space today than it was in 2001. This is not only because global trade traffic has multiplied to around $4.14 trillion in the sea (Diagram 1). It is also because China has attempted to enforce its sovereignty claims over most of the sea by building up military assets there over the past several years.9 The U.S. has begun to push back by conducting "freedom of navigation" exercises that directly challenge China's maritime-territorial claims. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis In fact, China's entire maritime periphery - from the South China Sea to the Taiwan Strait to the East China Sea - has become a zone of geopolitical risk. The risk stems from China's attempts to establish a sphere of influence - and the American, Japanese, and other Asian nations' attempts to contain China's rise. A Hainan incident today would have a much bigger impact on the market than in 2001, when China's share of global GDP, imports, and military spending was roughly one-third of what it is today (see Table 1 above). And while a diplomatic crisis of this nature could easily cause global stocks to fall, the greater danger to the marketplace is that a military incident occurs. That would jeopardize global trade and growth, and the geopolitical fallout would be more difficult to contain. Bottom Line: U.S.-China strategic tensions came to a head in the South China Sea in 2001, but quickly subsided.. Today both the risk of a miscalculation and the economic stakes are greater than in the past. China's maritime periphery is thus an additional source of geopolitical risk at a time of U.S.-China trade war. Investment Conclusions: Then And Now What the three examples above have in common is that they occurred during the springtime of U.S.-China relations after the rise of Deng Xiaoping and China's "reform and opening up" policy. In each case, thriving trade and corporate profits provided an impetus for Washington and Beijing to move beyond their difficulties. The political elite across the West also believed that economic engagement would nudge China toward fuller liberalization and eventually even democracy. Today, however, the economic logic of a U.S.-China détente has been replaced by strategic rivalry, as the two economic systems are diverging. The U.S. is growing fearful of China's technological prowess, while China fears having its access to technology unplugged.10 As we have highlighted before, President Trump is virtually unconstrained on trade policy as well as on foreign policy and national security. And while he faces congressional resistance to his tariffs on G7 allies, Congress is actually egging him on in the fight against China - as seen with the Senate's vote to re-impose, against Trump's will, sanctions on Chinese telecommunications company ZTE.11 The kerfuffle over Trump's attempted trade deal with China in May was highly illuminating: Trump attempted to sign off on a deal with China to get a "quick win" ahead of the midterms. Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin called it a "truce" and top economic adviser Larry Kudlow promoted it on talk shows. But the deal was rebuffed by Congress, which is demanding resolution to the thornier problems of forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft that Trump's own administration prioritized. Hence this trade war can go farther than even Trump intended. In other words, Trump's protectionist rhetoric on China has been so successful that it now constrains his actions. The U.S. engaged in a similar trade war with Japan in the 1980s and succeeded in reducing Japan's share of the American market and in forcing Japan to invest long-term capital in the U.S. The Trump administration presumably wants to repeat this process and achieve a similar outcome (Chart 13). The intention is not necessarily to destabilize China, but to change the composition of the U.S.'s Asia trade, and hence the distribution of Asian power, and to re-capture Chinese savings via American hard assets. Chart 13The U.S. Hopes To Replicate Japan Trade War The U.S. Hopes To Replicate Japan Trade War The U.S. Hopes To Replicate Japan Trade War Chart 14The U.S. Seeks To Redistribute Asian Trade The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis If China's exports to the U.S. are taxed, both it and other manufacturing nations will have to invest more in other developing Asian economies. The latter can gradually make their manufacturing sectors more efficient, but cannot pose a strategic threat to the United States (Chart 14). However, Japan ultimately capitulated to U.S. tariff pressure because the two countries were Cold War allies with a clear national security hierarchy. By contrast, China and the U.S. are antagonists without a clear hierarchy. Beijing perceives U.S. actions as part of its strategy to contain China's rise. The Southeast Asian countries that stand to benefit from the transformation of international supply chains are also the ones that will eventually become most exposed to U.S.-China conflicts.12 As highlighted above, China is not likely to shrink from the fight that the U.S. is bringing. Given that we expect diplomacy to remain on track in North Korea,13 the result is that Taiwan and the countries around the South China Sea are the likeliest candidates for geopolitical risk events in Asia that disrupt markets this year or next. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 For Taiwan, please see Section II below. For Africa, please see Ryan Browne, "Chinese lasers injure US military pilots in Africa, Pentagon says," CNN, May 4, 2018, available at www.cnn.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, and Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The institutions affected included the multilateral development banks and other U.S. and international development agencies. Please see Dianne E. Rennack, "China: U.S. Economic Sanctions," Congressional Research Service, October 1, 1997, available at congressionalresearch.com 4 Arms and certain high-tech exports remained under restriction for years after the event, both from Europe and the U.S. China is still unable to receive funding from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation or exports of items on the U.S. Munitions List. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Italy, Spain, Trade Wars... Oh My!" dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Or if the pro-independence third party or the anti-establishment candidates win. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 There is an extensive debate over the Belgrade embassy bombing. It can be summarized by saying that although the U.S. apologized for the mistake, the U.S. suspected Chinese collaboration with the Yugoslav government, while China maintains its innocence. 9 We have tracked the South China Sea closely since 2012. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, and "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," dated June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Returns Following Crises In U.S.-China Relations Returns Following Crises In U.S.-China Relations The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Open Trades & Positions Open Tactical Recommendations* The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Open Strategic Recommendations* The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. John Canally, Chief U.S. Investment Strategist Highlights Late in the business cycle, investors should remain overweight risk assets generally, as long as margins are still rising. A 2015-style deceleration in the Chinese economy cannot be ruled out if it suffers a serious shock to its external sector. The bar remains high for Q2 2018 EPS, but investors are already focused on 2019 and the impact of trade policy on corporate results. Economic surprise is rolling over as inflation surprise climbs. Feature U.S. equities prices rose last week as U.S.-China tariffs kicked in. The U.S. dollar and 10-year Treasury yields dipped, while oil and gold held steady to start the first quarter. Despite the relative calm, investors remain concerned about the impact of trade policy and rising labor and raw materials costs on corporate margins. BCA expects S&P 500 margins to peak later this year. In the next section of this report, we examine the performance of a broad range of asset classes after the economy reaches full employment. Higher labor and input costs, along with the impact of global trade disputes, will be key topics of discussion as the Q2 earnings seasons kicks off this week. We provide a preview later in this report. Market participants are also worried that the weakness in Chinese equities and the decline in the CNY are signaling a repeat of late 2015-early 2016. We explore those concerns in the second section below. Although the June jobs report (see below) was mixed relative to consensus expectations, the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (CESI) is poised to turn negative. In the final section of this week's report, we discuss how investors should positions as CESI troughs and how to prepare for the inevitable bounce higher. The rise in the U.S. unemployment rate to 4% in June is not the start of a new trend. The labor market continues to tighten and the FOMC is noticing (Chart 1, panels 1 and 2). Chart 1Don't Be Fooled By The Uptick##BR##In The U.S. Unemployment Rate Don't Be Fooled By The Uptick In The U.S. Unemployment Rate Don't Be Fooled By The Uptick In The U.S. Unemployment Rate The June Establishment Survey revealed a 213k rise in payrolls, along with upward revisions to the previous two months. The three-month average, at 211k, remains well above the underlying trend in labor force growth. In contrast, the Household Survey showed a more modest 102k increase in jobs in the month. Moreover, the number of people entering the workforce surged by 601k, which caused the unemployment rate to rise from 3.8% to 4%. We doubt this signals a trend change in the unemployment rate. The Household Survey is quite volatile relative to the Establishment Survey, suggesting that employment gains in the former are likely to catch up next month. The surge in the labor force in June could reflect the possibility that the tight labor market is finally drawing people into the workforce who were not previously looking for work. The participation rate rose by 0.2 percentage points to 62.9% (panel 4). However, this rate bounces around from month-to-month and is still in its post-2015 range. Moreover, the typical wave of college and high school students entering the workforce at this time of the year may have distorted the labor force figures due to seasonal adjustment problems. The real story is that the underlying labor market continues to tighten. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows. Average hourly earnings edged up by 0.2% m/m in June. The y/y rate held at 2.7% in the month, but the trend in wage growth remains up (panel 3). Moreover, the June non-manufacturing ISM report highlighted that economic momentum remains very strong, and the respondents' comments noted widespread building cost pressures related to labor shortages, rising commodity prices and a shortage of transportation capacity. China: It's Not 2015...Yet Investor concerns escalated last week over emerging markets and specifically China. Market participants are worried that the weakness in Chinese equities and the decline in the CNY are signaling a repeat of late 2015-early 2016. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy's view1 is that Beijing is letting the CNY depreciate at a faster pace against the U.S. dollar for two reasons. First, it is a means to reflate the economy because the proposed U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods would inflict a non-negligible blow to China that would need to be softened if it materializes. Secondly, letting the yuan depreciate sends a message to the U.S.: China can weaponize its currency if necessary. Meanwhile, our China Investment Strategy service remains cautious on Chinese equities, but notes that the recent selloff in domestic stocks may be overdone (we remain neutral on the investable market).2 Chart 2China's Borrowing Costs Have Climbed... China's Borrowing Costs Have Climbed... China's Borrowing Costs Have Climbed... A 2015-style deceleration in the Chinese economy cannot be ruled out if it suffers a serious shock to its external sector, which would be very problematic for financial markets given our view that China has a higher pain threshold for stimulus than in the past. But tight monetary policy was a key driver of China's 2015 slowdown, and while monetary conditions have tightened since late-2016, they remain easier than what prevailed four years ago (Chart 2). There are key differences between 2015 and today from a U.S./global perspective as well. In late 2015, the dollar had moved up by 27% from its mid-2014 low, business capital spending was in freefall, credit spreads widened and oil dropped by over 50% year-over year. None of those conditions are currently in place. The key difference between 2015 and today is that three years ago there was no threat of a trade war with China, or the widespread imposition of protectionist measures more generally. Late Cycle Asset Return Performance Some of our economic and policy analysis over the past year has focused on previous late-cycle periods, especially those that occurred at the end of long expansions such as the 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s.3 Specifically, we analyzed the growth, inflation and policy dynamics after the point when the economy reached full employment (i.e. when the unemployment rate fell below the CBO estimate of full employment - NAIRU). This week we look at asset class returns during late-cycle periods. We wanted to use as broad a range of asset classes as possible, although data limitations mean that we can only analyze the late-cycle periods at the end of the 1990s and the mid-2000s (Chart 3). To refine the analysis, we split the late-cycle periods into two parts: before and after S&P 500 profit margins peak. One could use other signposts to split the period, such as a peak in the ISM or a peak in the S&P 500 index itself. However, using the S&P operating profit margin proved to be a more useful break point across the cycles in terms of timing trend changes in risk assets. Table 1 (and Appendix) presents total returns for the following periods: (1) the full late-cycle period - i.e. from the point at which full employment is reached until the next recession; (2) from the point of full employment to the peak in the S&P margin; (3) from the peak in margins to the recession; and (4) during the subsequent recession. All returns are annualized for comparison purposes, and the data shown are the average of the late 1990s and mid-2000 late-cycle periods. Chart 3Profit Margins Peak Late##BR##In The Late Cycle Period Profit Margins Peak Late In The Late Cycle Period Profit Margins Peak Late In The Late Cycle Period Table 1Historical Returns; Average Of##BR##Late 1990s And Mid-2000s Revisiting The Late Cycle View Revisiting The Late Cycle View We must be careful in interpreting the results because no two cycles are exactly the same, and we only have two cycles in our sample of data. Nonetheless, we make the following observations: Treasury bond returns are positive across the board, which seems odd at first glance. However, in both cycles the selloff occurred before the late-cycle period began. Yields then fluctuated in a range, and then began to fall after margins peaked. Global factors also contributed to Greenspan's "conundrum" of stable bond yields in the years before the Great Recession. We do not expect a replay this time around given the low starting point for real yields and the fact that the Fed is encouraging an overshoot of the inflation target. Bonds are unlikely to provide positive returns on a 6-12 month horizon. Similar to Treasuries, investment-grade (IG) corporate bond returns were positive across the board for the same reason. However, IG underperformed Treasuries after margins peaked and into the recession. High-yield (HY) bonds followed a similar pattern, but suffered negative returns in absolute terms after margins peaked. U.S. stocks began to sniff out the next recession after margins peaked. Small caps outperformed large caps in the recessions, but after margins peaked relative performance was mixed. We are avoiding small caps at the moment based on poor fundamentals and valuations. Growth stocks had a mixed performance versus value before and after margins peaked, but tended to outperform in the recessions. Dividend aristocrat returns performed well relative to the overall equity market after margins peaked and into the recession on average, but the performance is not consistent across the two late cycles. EM stocks performed well before margins peak, and poorly during the recessions. However, the performance is mixed in the period between the margin peak and the recession. We recommend an underweight allocation because of poor macro fundamentals and tightening financial conditions. In theory, Hedge funds are supposed to be able to perform well in any environment, but returns have been a mixed bag after margins peaked. The return performance of Private Equity, Venture Capital and Distressed Debt were similar to the S&P 500, albeit with more volatility. Avoid them after margins peak. Structured product is one of the few categories that performed well across all periods and cycles. The index we used includes MBS, CMBS and ABS. Farmland and Timberland returns are attractive across all periods and cycles, except for Timberland during recessions where the return performance was mixed. Oil and non-oil commodities tended to perform poorly during recession, but returns were inconsistent in the other phases shown in the table. Gold was also a mixed bag. The return analysis underscores that investing late in an economic cycle is risky because risk assets can begin to underperform well before evidence accumulates that the economy has fallen into recession. Using the peak in the S&P 500 operating profit margin as a signal to lighten up appears promising. Based on this approach, investors should remain overweight risk assets generally, including stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity and real estate, as long as margins are still rising. Investor should scale back in most of these areas as soon as margins peak, although they can hold onto Farmland, Timberland, structured products, real estate (including REITs) for a while after margins peak because it may not be as important to exit these areas before the next recession begins. For fixed income, investor should be looking to raise exposure but move up in quality after margins peak. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. S&P 500 margins are still rising at the moment which, on its own, suggests that investors should be fully-exposed to all risk assets. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market (e.g. trade war, economic China slowdown, and EM economic and financial vulnerabilities). We are not yet ready to go underweight on risk assets, but the risk/reward balance at the moment suggests that risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. Still Going Strong The consensus predicts a 21% year-over-year increase in the S&P 500's EPS in Q2 2018 versus Q2 2017, and 22% in calendar year 2018. Expectations are high; at the start of 2018, analysts projected 11% growth in Q2 and 12% in 2018. Energy, materials, technology and financials will lead the way in Q2 earnings growth, while real estate and utilities will struggle. Excluding the energy sector, the consensus expects a robust 18% increase in profits. The stout profit environment for Q2 2018 and the year ahead reflects sharply higher oil prices compared with Q2 2017, and the impact of last year's Tax Cut and Jobs Act on share buybacks and management confidence. However, global growth, which was a tailwind for S&P 500 results in 2017 and early 2018, has stalled. Moreover, rising costs for raw materials and labor will erode margins, but not until later this year. S&P 500 revenues are forecast to rise by 8% in Q2 2018 versus Q2 2017, matching the Q1 2018 year-over-year increase. The consensus expects a year-over-year gain in Q2 sales in all 11 sectors. Trade policy will continue to be at the forefront as managements discuss Q2 outcomes and provide guidance for 2H 2018 and beyond. In addition, capacity constraints, labor shortages and rising input costs will be key topics. Elevated corporate debt levels4 and climbing interest rates also will be debated as CEOs and CFOs provide guidance to Wall Street for Q3 2018 and beyond. Their counsel is more vital than the actual Q2 results. The markets probably have already priced in a robust 2018 earnings profile linked to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, and are looking ahead to 2019 and 2020 (Chart 4). Investors typically stay focused on the current calendar year's EPS through to at least Q3 before turning their attention to the next year. However, this year may be different. The consensus is looking for 10% EPS growth in 2019, a sharp deceleration from the 22% increase expected this year. Chart 4High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 At 9%, the consensus estimate for S&P 500 EPS growth in 2020 is too high (Chart 4). BCA's view5 is that the next recession in the U.S. will commence in 2020. Since 1980, S&P 500 profits have dwindled by 28%, on average, in the first year of a recession. Chart 5 (panel 1) shows that elevated readings on the ISM manufacturing index still provide a very favorable backdrop for S&P 500 profit growth in 2018. However, the top panel also illustrates that the index rarely stays above 60 (it was 60.2 in June), especially late in the business cycle. The ISM is a good proxy for S&P 500 forward earnings (panel 2) and sales (panel 3). The implication is that while the near-term environment for S&P 500 earnings and sales is solid, there is not much more upside. Chart 5Domestic Backdrop For S&P Profits In ''18 Still Looks Solid... Domestic Backdrop For S&P Profits In ''18 Still Looks Solid… Domestic Backdrop For S&P Profits In ''18 Still Looks Solid… Global growth is peaking despite the rosy domestic economic environment. At close to 3%, the consensus view of U.S. GDP growth in 2018 is still accelerating thanks to pro-cyclical fiscal, monetary and legislative policies in the U.S.6 However, in early April, analysts estimates for 2019 GDP growth in the U.S. reached a zenith at 2.5% and have since rolled over (Chart 6). The FOMC projects real GDP growth at 2.8% in 2018 and 2.4% in 2019.7 Meanwhile, global GDP growth estimates for 2018 began flattening near 3.5% in early April 2018, about a month after President Trump announced the first round of tariffs. Estimates for 2019 economic growth peaked in mid-May, near 3.25% (Chart 6). Chart 6Consensus GDP Estimates For U.S., World Are Rolling Over Consensus GDP Estimates For U.S., World Are Rolling Over Consensus GDP Estimates For U.S., World Are Rolling Over BCA's stance is that the dollar will move modestly higher in 2018. The appreciation would trim EPS growth by roughly 1 to 2 percentage points, although most of this would occur next year due to lagged effects. The trade-weighted dollar is up by 2.5% year-to-date, and by 7% from its recent (February 2018) trough. Nonetheless, the dollar is down by 2% year-over-year and should not have a major impact on Q2 results. Furthermore, based on the minimal references to a robust dollar (only eight in the past eight Beige Books), the dollar probably will not be an issue for corporate profits in Q2 2018 (Chart 7). The handful of recent references is in sharp contrast with a surge in comments during 2015 and early 2016. The last time that eight consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. The implication is that a robust dollar may get a few mentions during the earnings season, but those mentions will be drowned out by concerns over global trade. Movements in the U.S. dollar also explain the divergent paths of profits, sales and margins of domestically-focused corporations versus globally-oriented ones. Economic growth trends, discussed above, also play a role. Chart 8 shows that sales of domestically-oriented firms in the U.S. are still in a clear uptrend (panel 2). However, revenues of U.S. companies with a global focus stalled in recent quarters, even before the first round of tariffs were announced (panel 4). Margins at domestically-focused firms are still accelerating (panel 1), while margins at global businesses are topping out, albeit at a higher level than domestic ones. Moreover, since the start of 2017, the weaker dollar has allowed profit and sales gains of global corporations to rebound and outpace those companies with only domestic concerns. BCA expects that margins for S&P 500 companies will peak later this year. Investors are skeptical that S&P 500 margins can advance in Q2 2018 for the eighth consecutive quarter. BCA's view is that we are in a temporary sweet spot for margins, which should continue for the next couple of quarters. However, the secular mean reversion of margins will resume beyond that time as wage pressures begin to percolate and raw materials costs escalate. Bottom Line: BCA expects that the earnings backdrop will support equity prices in 2018 (Chart 9). However, investors may have already priced in the benefits of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act on corporate results and are focused on the upcoming 2019 and 2020 figures. EPS growth will be more of a headwind for stock prices as we enter 2019 (Chart 9). In late June,8 we downgraded our 12-month recommendation on global equities and credit from overweight to neutral. Chart 7The Dollar Should Not Be##BR##A Big Concern In Q2 Earnings Season The Dollar Should Not Be A Big Concern In Q2 Earnings Season The Dollar Should Not Be A Big Concern In Q2 Earnings Season Chart 8Global Sales,##BR##Margins Stalled... Global Sales, Margins Stalled... Global Sales, Margins Stalled... Chart 9Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Look Out Below Citi's Economic Surprise Index (CESI) is poised to turn negative (Chart 10) after hitting a four-year high in late 2017. Since then, a harsh winter and early spring in the U.S., coupled with elevated expectations following the introduction of the tax bill, saw most economic data fall short of expectations. Moreover, a slowdown in global growth and uncertainty around U.S. and global trade policy negatively affected U.S. economic data in the spring and early summer months. Chart 10Citi Economic Surprise Poised To Turn Negative Citi Economic Surprise Poised To Turn Negative Citi Economic Surprise Poised To Turn Negative In our late March 2018 report,9 we noted that there have been six other episodes since 2011 when the CESI behaved similarly. These phases lasted an average of 96 days; the median number of days from peak to trough was 66 days. Moreover, in our March 2018 report we stated that a trough in CESI may be a month or two away, but there are no signs that has occurred. Table 2 illustrates the performance of key U.S. dollar-based investments, commodities and the dollar itself as the CESI moves from zero to its ultimate trough. We identified eight periods since 2010 when the CESI moved lower from zero. Table 2U.S. Stocks, Credit And Commodities As Economic Surprise Turns Negative Revisiting The Late Cycle View Revisiting The Late Cycle View On average, these episodes lasted 43 days, with the longest (81 days) in early 2015 and the shortest (13 days) in January-February 2013. During these phases, U.S. equities posted minimal gains and underperformed Treasuries (Chart 11). Moreover, investment-grade and high-yield credit tracked Treasuries, and there was little difference between the performance of small cap and large cap equities. Gold and oil struggled, while the dollar barely budged. Chart 11U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As Economic Surprise Troughs U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As Economic Surprise Troughs U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As Economic Surprise Troughs While the CESI is rolling over, the Citigroup Inflation Surprise index is on the upswing (Chart 12). We identified seven stages when the CESI rolled over while the Citi Inflation Surprise Index: 2003-2004, 2007-2008, 2009, 2011, 2012-13, 2014 and this year. The late 2007 period is most similar to today; the other five episodes occurred either during early cycle (2003-2004, 2009 and 2011) or mid-cycle (2012-13 and 2014). In late 2007, the U.S. economy was in the late stages of an expansion, the unemployment rate was below full employment and the Fed was raising rates. The stock-to-bond ratio fell, credit underperformed Treasuries and gold and oil rose. Furthermore, small caps outperformed large caps, and the dollar fell (Chart 13). Chart 12Episodes Of Rising Inflation Surprise##BR##When Economic Surprise Is Falling Episodes Of Rising Inflation Surprise When Economic Surprise Is Falling Episodes Of Rising Inflation Surprise When Economic Surprise Is Falling Chart 13U.S. Financial Assets,##BR##Commodities And The Dollar As... U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As... U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As... Our work10 shows that these periods were associated with higher wage and compensation metrics, and higher realized core inflation. Moreover, these phases tended to occur when the economy was at full employment and the Fed funds rate was above neutral. The implication is that inflation indices are poised to move higher in the coming year, and prompt the Fed to continue to boost rates gradually at first, but then more aggressively starting in mid-2019. Bottom Line: The disappointing run of economic data is not over. Treasury bond yields will likely dip as the CESI troughs. However, the weakness in the economic data does not signal recession. We expect that the Inflation Surprise Index will continue to grind higher, while unemployment dips further into excess demand territory and oil prices rise. After the CESI forms a bottom and starts to rise, history suggests that stocks will beat bonds, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds will outpace Treasuries, and gold and oil will climb.11 Fed policymakers have signaled that they will not mind an overshoot of their 2% inflation target. However, because core PCE inflation is already at the Fed's target, the central bank will be slower to defend the stock market in the event of a swoon. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Appendix Revisiting The Late Cycle View Revisiting The Late Cycle View 1 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World", published June 29, 2018. Available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Standing On One Leg", published July 5, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Late Cycle View," October 16, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Till Debt Do Us Part", published May 8, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Third Quarter 2018: The Beginning Of The End", published June 29, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Line Up," published March 12, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20180613.pdf 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Sideways," published June 25, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Waiting", published March 26, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Wait A Minute", published May 28, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Solid Start," published January 8, 2018 and "The Revenge Of Animal Spirits," published October 30, 2017. Both available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Domino dynamics continue escalating within the EM universe confirming that a major bear market is underway. Several global cyclical market segments have recently experienced technical breakdowns. This confirms that global growth is slowing. It is not too late to short/sell EM risk assets. We reiterate the long Indian / short Chinese banks equity trade. Feature The selloff in global risk assets continues to exhibit a pattern of falling dominos. It began with the breakdown in the weakest spots of the EM world, Turkey and Argentina, and then spread to Brazil and Indonesia. Only weeks later it hit other vulnerable EM markets such as South Africa. During this period, north Asian stocks and currencies - Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese - displayed resilience. It was tempting to argue that the EM selloff was being driven by idiosyncratic risks and was limited to current account deficit countries vulnerable to U.S. Federal Reserve tightening. However, in recent weeks these north Asian markets have plunged - making the EM selloff largely broad-based and pervasive. In our June 14 report,1 we argued that major and drawn-out financial market downturns usually occur in phases and often resemble a domino effect. Since then, the domino effect has escalated confirming our bias that EMs are in a major bear market. Several important markets and cyclical market segments have recently broken down, and investors should heed messages from them: Copper prices fell below their 200-day moving average; they have also broken down the trading range that had persisted since last September (Chart I-1, top panel). The precious metals price index seems to be sliding through the floor of its trading range of the past 18 months (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Global cyclical equity sectors and sub-sectors such as mining, steel, chemicals and industrials have also broken their 200-day moving averages in absolute term (Chart I-2). They have also been underperforming the global equity index, which is consistent with the global trade slowdown that is beginning to escalate. Chart I-1Breakdown in Metals Prices Breakdown in Metals Prices Breakdown in Metals Prices Chart I-2Global Equities: Cyclicals Have Broken Down Global Equities: Cyclicals Have Broken Down Global Equities: Cyclicals Have Broken Down Although Chinese PMI data have not been particularly weak, anecdotal evidence from the ground suggests that the credit tightening of the past 18 months is taking its toll on China's financial system and economy. There are numerous reports about bankruptcies of Peer-to-peer lending platforms and struggles in other parts of the shadow banking system. The selloff in Chinese onshore A shares confirms this. Presently, this market has become less driven by retail investors as it was back in 2015. Hence, one can argue that portfolio managers on the mainland are selling their stocks because they believe economic conditions are worsening. Meanwhile, international investors have so far been more sanguine. Importantly, EM corporate and sovereign U.S. dollar bond yields are rising, heralding lower share prices (Chart I-3). Bond yields are shown inverted on this chart. The top panel is for EM overall and the bottom panel is for Asia only. Chart I-3EM Credit Markets Entail More Downside In EM Share Prices EM Credit Markets Entail More Downside In EM Share Prices EM Credit Markets Entail More Downside In EM Share Prices Chart I-4EM Versus U.S.: New Lows Lie Ahead EM Versus U.S.: New Lows Lie Ahead EM Versus U.S.: New Lows Lie Ahead Finally, the resilience of the U.S. equity index and corporate spreads has been due to robust domestic demand - the slowdown in global trade has not affected the U.S. However, odds are that the current global selloff continues to develop in a typical domino fashion. If so, the U.S. markets - equities and credit - will be the last dominos to fall but they will outperform their global peers. It is very unlikely that American stocks and credit markets will be able to sail through this EM storm unscathed. Notably, the resilience of the S&P 500 can be attributed to 10 large-cap stocks that are extremely overbought and likely expensive. This gives us more confidence to argue that this EM riot will meaningfully affect U.S. equity and credit markets. The link will be the U.S. dollar. The greenback will continue its unrelenting rally, which will trim U.S. multinationals' profits and weigh on the S&P 500. Bottom Line: EM risk assets are in a major bear market, and there is still a lot of downside. It is not too late to sell or underweight EM. This is despite EM's relative performance versus the S&P 500 is back to its early 2016 lows, as is the JP Morgan EM currency index (Chart I-4). News lows lie ahead. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018 available on page 17. Chart II-1More Upside In Long Indian/Short ##br##Chinese Bank Stocks More Upside In Long Indian/Short Chinese Bank Stocks More Upside In Long Indian/Short Chinese Bank Stocks Reiterating Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks Trade This week we revisit our long Indian / short Chinese banks trade that we initiated on January 17.1 The trade is up only 5.7% since inception (Chart II-1), and with more monetary policy easing occurring in China and the recent sharp rise in non-performing loans (NPL) in India, it is appropriate to reassess this recommendation. Having updated the stress tests on the largest public banks in both countries and performed a new stress test on five Indian private banks, we are reiterating our strategy of being long Indian / short Chinese banks. A Perspective On Credit Cycles In India And China Both India and China have gone through major credit binges over the past 10-15 years, albeit over different time periods (Chart II-2A and Chart II-2B). Chart II-2ACredit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Chart II-2BCredit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China India's public banks have, in recent years, recognized bad loans and provisioned meaningfully for them. Non-performing loans (NPLs) for Indian public banks now stand at a whopping 15% of total outstanding loans, while provisioning levels have spiked to 7% of total loans (Chart II-3). Chart II-3NPLs And Their Provisions: India And China NPLs And Their Provisions: India And China NPLs And Their Provisions: India And China By comparison, Chinese public banks - the largest five banks, excluding policy banks, where the central government owns 70-80% of equity - are at the early stages of dealing with their troubled assets. Their NPLs and provisions stand at mere 1.8% and 3.3% of total outstanding loans, respectively (Chart II-3). Does such a wide disparity in NPL ratios between Chinese and Indian banks make sense? We do not think so. It is unlikely that Indian public banks are more poorly managed vis-a-vis Chinese public banks. All are run by government-appointed officials and are equally prone to politically driven and inefficient lending. Further, the magnitude of the Chinese credit boom since 2009 was considerably greater than India's during the 2003-2012 period. It is therefore highly unlikely that the resulting NPLs are substantially smaller in China than in India. In fact, several cases of Chinese banks hiding bad assets have recently been publicized.2 We strongly believe this phenomenon is widespread on the mainland, and that NPLs among Chinese public banks are being grossly underreported. It's All About Regulation The true vindication for this disparity lies in the drastically different stances that financial regulators in both countries have adopted to deal with the non-performing and stressed assets that their banks sit on. The Chinese authorities have been exhibiting greater forbearance with their commercial banks. For instance, in March, they lowered the provision coverage ratio for commercial banks. This is ameliorating Chinese commercial banks' short-term profitability and capitalization ratios. In brief, Chinese regulators have been very accommodative by allowing commercial banks to pursue "window dressing" of their financial statements and ratios. Indian regulators, by contrast, have been exerting relentless pressure on their banks to swiftly deal with their stressed assets at the cost of short-term profitability. For instance, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) recently introduced an extremely stringent framework for the recognition and resolution of NPLs. Indian commercial banks now have to immediately recognize stressed assets and find a resolution within 180 days. Failure to resolve a stressed account forces banks to take the defaulter to court in order to initiate bankruptcy procedures. Bottom Line: India has taken painful measures to push its banks to clean up their balance sheets. By comparison, China has so far been kicking the can down the road with respect to its banking system. As a result, the banks' balance sheet cleansing cycle is much more advanced in India than in China. Public Banks Stress Tests Below we present our updated stress tests which we performed on India's top seven public banks and China's top five public commercial banks (excluding policy banks). We used the following assumptions in our analysis (Tables II-1 and II-2): Table II-1Stress Test Of Top 7 Indian Public Banks Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns Table II-2Stress Test Of Top 5 Chinese Public Banks Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns Indian non-performing risk-weighted assets (NPA) to rise to 16% (optimistic), 18% (baseline), and 19% (pessimistic), up from 15% currently. For China, we assume NPAs to rise to 10% (optimistic), 12% (baseline), and 13% (pessimistic), up from 1.6% currently. Provided the magnitude and duration of China's credit boom has considerably surpassed that of India, the assumption of this stress test that NPAs will rise to 12% in China but 18% in India implies that Chinese public banks allocated credit much better than their Indian peers. Hence, this exercise in no way favored Indian banks over Chinese ones. We used risk-weighted assets to calculate losses. Risk-weighting adjusts bank assets for their riskiness which in turn makes comparisons between the two banking systems more sensible. Finally, we assumed a 30% recovery ratio (RR) for both countries. The RR on Chinese banks' NPLs from 2001 to 2005 was 20%. This occurred amid much stronger nominal and real growth. Thus, a 30% RR rate today is not low. The outcome of the tests are as follows: Under the baseline scenario of 18% NPA in India and 12% NPA in China, losses post recovery and provisions amount to 1.8 trillion rupees in the former (1.3% of GDP) and RMB 3.3 trillion in the latter (3.9% of GDP) (Tables II-1 and II-2, column 6). These losses would impair 41% of equity capital in India and 44% in China (Tables II-1 and II-2, column 7). Adjusting the current price-to-book value (PBV) ratios for public banks in both countries to the equity impairment under the baseline scenario lifts their PBV ratios to 1.5 in India and 1.7 in China (Tables II-1 and II-2, column 8). Assuming a 1.3 fair PBV ratio3 for banks in both countries, Indian banks appear overvalued by 15% and Chinese banks by 29% (Tables II-1 and II-2, last column). In other words, after the recognition and provisioning of reasonable levels of NPA, Indian public banks appear less overvalued than their Chinese counterparts. These results make sense to us; Indian public banks have been provisioning aggressively for their troubled assets, and bad news is somewhat discounted in their share prices. Chart II-4Loan Write-Offs Have Been Much ##br##Greater In India Than In China Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns Remarkably, Indian public banks have also been writing off more bad loans than their Chinese counterparts. Chart II-4 shows cumulated write-offs of these public banks in India and China since 2010. Bad asset write-offs have so far amounted to RMB 1.2 trillion in China and 3 trillion rupees in India. This is equivalent to 2% and 8% as a share of current risk-weighted assets, respectively. Another way to compare and analyze NPA cycles between two countries is to assess the progress that each country has made toward resolving the full amount of outstanding bad assets - i.e. a full NPA cycle. We define a full NPA cycle in the following way: Total NPA losses under our baseline scenario, plus cumulated past write-offs. In order to measure progress toward resolving the full NPA cycle, we take the ratio of the stock of provisions plus cumulated write-offs and divide that by the full NPA cycle losses (i.e. [provisions + write-offs] / full NPA cycle losses). In India, assuming that NPAs on its largest public banks reach 18% of risk weighted assets - then the full NPA cycle for India would amount to 9.4 trillion rupees, or 26% of current risk-weighted assets (i.e. 6.4 trillion rupees in NPA remaining plus 3 trillion in write-offs made). Meanwhile, India's public banks' progress amounts to 5.6 trillion rupees. This is equal to 60% of India's full NPA cycle. By contrast, Chinese public banks' full NPA cycle would amount to RMB 8 trillion (or 14% of risk-weighted assets) under our baseline scenario. Further, China's banks progress amounts to RMB 2.6 trillion. This is equivalent to only 33% of the full NPA cycle in China. Hence, Indian public banks are closer to their peak NPA cycle versus their Chinese counterparts. Note that this particular analysis assumes no recovery in bad loans in either country. Further, the above analysis does not attune for the fact that Chinese banks have more risky off-balance sheet assets than their Indian peers. Incorporating off-balance sheet assets and liabilities would make the stress tests much more favorable for Indian public banks relative to China. Stress Test For India's Private Banks Private banks are a part of our long Indian / short Chinese banks trade. Indian private banks are also not insulated from regulatory clean-up efforts. In recent years, these lenders significantly boosted their credit to the consumer and service sectors. Higher than normal defaults have not yet transpired but this is a scenario that cannot be ruled out given the frantic pace of lending (Chart II-5). We performed a stress test on five4 large Indian private banks as well (Table II-3): Chart II-5India: Consumer And Service ##br##Credit Is Booming India: Consumer And Service Credit Is Booming India: Consumer And Service Credit Is Booming Table II-3Stress Test Of 5 Large Indian Private Banks Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns We assumed the following NPA scenarios: 6% (optimistic), 8% (baseline), and 9% (pessimistic), up from 5% currently. Similar to the above analysis, we used risk-weighted assets to calculate asset losses, though we used a recovery ratio of 50% for private banks instead of 30% for public banks. The basis is that private banks' lending has been concentrated on consumer loans and mortgages and the recovery ratio on these loans will likely be higher - especially taking into consideration the quality of collateral. Our results are as follows: Under the baseline scenario of an 8% NPA ratio, 7% of these private banks' equity would be impaired (Table II-3, column 7). The adjusted PBV would move to 3.9. This compares to a fair value of 3.3 for Indian private banks (Table II-3, column 8), which is the historical PBV mean of private banks in India. In other words, Indian private banks are overvalued by 18% - slightly more than their public peers (Table II-3, column 9). Bottom Line: Indian private banks are overvalued too but less so than Chinese public banks. Investment Conclusions We reiterate our long Indian / short Chinese banks equity trade, initiated on January 17. We track the performance of this recommendation using the BSE's Bankex index for India and the MSCI Investable bank index for China in common currency terms - currency unhedged. In addition, among Chinese-listed banks, we maintain our short small / long large banks (Chart II-6). Smaller banks are more leveraged as well as exposed to non-standard assets and regulatory tightening than large public banks. Finally, the Indian bourse's relative performance against the EM equity benchmark negatively correlates with oil prices - the oil price is shown inverted on this chart (Chart II-7). Chart II-6Stay Short Chinese Small / Long Large Banks Stay Short Chinese Small/Long Large Banks Stay Short Chinese Small/Long Large Banks Chart II-7India's Relative Equity Performance To EM And Oil Prices India's Relative Equity Performance To EM And Oil Prices India's Relative Equity Performance To EM And Oil Prices Given BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service expects oil prices to drop meaningfully in the second half of this year,5 this should help Indian equities outperform their EM peers. Besides, Indian banks are more advanced than many of their EM peers in terms of bad assets recognition and provisioning and that should also help the Indian bourse outperform the EM overall equity index in common currency terms. We reiterate our overweight stance on Indian equities within a fully invested EM equity portfolio. In contrast, we are neutral on China's investable stock index's relative performance versus the EM stock index. The main reason why we have not underweighted the Chinese bourse - despite our negative view on China - is the exchange rate; the potential downside in the value of the RMB versus the U.S. dollar in the next six months is less than potential downside in many other EM exchange rates. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks" dated January 17, 2018 available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the following article: http://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/2139904/pressure-chinas-banks-report-bad-debt-good-news-foreign 3 It is the average PBV ratio for EM banks since 2011. 4 HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, and IDFC Bank. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China's Crude Oil Inventories: A Slippery Slope" dated June 21, 2018 available on page 17. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights A positive tailwind from exports has prevented China's old economy from decelerating over the past year as much as money & credit trends would have predicted. Barring a response from policymakers, a serious export shock, were it to materialize, would likely cause a material further slowdown in Chinese economic activity. Several observations point to the selloff in domestic Chinese stocks being advanced. Investors should avoid trying to catch a falling knife, but should be on the lookout for any signs of an improvement in the economic outlook as a catalyst for a turnaround in A-shares. We are opening the following "shadow" trade: long MSCI China A Onshore index / short MSCI China index, which we will consider implementing in response to a 5% rally in relative performance. Feature The month of June was an extraordinarily difficult time for Chinese stock prices. Chart 1 presents the magnitude of the peak-to-trough selloff in the MSCI China Index, the A-share market, and the S&P 500, all relative to their 1-year highs. The chart shows that the decline in Chinese stocks intensified significantly following President Trump's threat on June 18 that the U.S. would impose a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion worth of imports from China. The selloff was also magnified by disappointing May economic data; Chart 2 highlights that the Citigroup economic surprise index fell sharply into negative territory in the middle of the month. Chart 1A Significant Selloff In Chinese Stocks A Significant Selloff In Chinese Stocks A Significant Selloff In Chinese Stocks Chart 2Recent Economic Data Has Disappointed The Market Recent Economic Data Has Disappointed The Market Recent Economic Data Has Disappointed The Market The selloff in Chinese equities occurred in response to risks that BCA's China Investment Strategy service has repeatedly outlined over the past several months. We have argued since last October that China's "old economy" was likely to slow and characterized the slowdown as benign and controlled in terms of its contribution to global growth. But we have warned over the past few months that the risks of an old economy slowdown were growing for China's equity market and recommended that investors place Chinese ex-tech stocks on downgrade watch over the course of Q2 in our March 28 Weekly Report.1 In last week's report we presented our thoughts on the potential for stimulus from Chinese policymakers,2 and opened a new trade that investors can use to profit from periods of Chinese equity market weakness. In this week's report we review the macro data series that we have been following closely over the past several months, and provide some insight on the outsized selloff in China's domestic market relative to investable stocks. Trade: China's Crutch Table 1 presents the dashboard of select macro series that we have showed in several reports over the past few months. It highlights the evolution of the key six components of our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, four housing market series that we have found to have strongly leading properties, as well as the NBS and Caixin manufacturing PMIs. Table 1Measures Of Money & Credit Are Telling A Consistently Bearish Story Standing On One Leg Standing On One Leg The table highlights that all six components of our leading indicator are in a downtrend and are deteriorating on a sequential basis, whereas our house price indicators remain strong. Housing sales volume, one of the most important leading indicators for the housing sector, ticked up in May but remains below its 200-day moving average. Finally, both manufacturing PMIs deteriorated in May, and are below their 12-month averages. The table highlights another important point, which is that the Li Keqiang index (LKI) itself has risen for two months in a row, which is in stark contrast to the trend in our leading indicator. What has driven this increase, and does it suggest that a renewed uptrend in Chinese economic activity is at hand? In our view, the answer to the first question suggests that the answer to the second is "no". Chart 3 shows that 60% of the May increase in Bloomberg's measure of the LKI occurred due to a significant increase in rail cargo volume, with the remaining 40% due to an increase in electricity production. Li Keqiang originally included rail cargo volume in his list of variables to watch because it is an indicator of trade flows, and we strongly suspect that recent trade activity in China has been influenced by actions on the part of exporters to front-load shipments prior to the imposition of tariffs by the U.S. This includes the possibility that import growth is currently stronger than it otherwise would be due to manufacturers stocking up on intermediate goods whose price could be affected by the previously announced tariffs on steel and aluminum (which were not China-specific). This suspicion is supported by Chart 4, which highlights that the rolling 2-year volatility of monthly changes in the LKI has increased significantly since the beginning of the year. Chart 3Both Electricity Production ##br##And Freight Turnover Picked Up In May Both Electricity Production And Freight Turnover Picked Up In May Both Electricity Production And Freight Turnover Picked Up In May Chart 4The Li Keqiang Index ##br##Has Been Relatively Volatile This Year The Li Keqiang Index Has Been Relatively Volatile This Year The Li Keqiang Index Has Been Relatively Volatile This Year We highlighted past reports that a positive export tailwind has been boosting Chinese economic activity beyond what measures of money and credit would have predicted, and Chart 5 highlights that the deviation of the LKI from what is suggested by our indicator has strongly correlated with export growth over the past year. This implies that China's old economy is standing on one leg (with export growth as the crutch), at a time when the risk of a serious export shock is high. This is concerning, given the strongly positive relationship between the export sector and real investment in China (Chart 6). Chart 5Export Strength Appears ##br##To Be Propping Up The LKI Export Strength Appears To Be Propping Up The LKI Export Strength Appears To Be Propping Up The LKI Chart 6China's Export Sector##br## Is Highly Investment-Intensive Standing On One Leg Standing On One Leg We acknowledge that the surge in electricity production is more of a challenge to our view, but here too we would resist the argument that it heralds a bullish turning point for the economy. Chart 7 shows a 3-month moving average of overall electricity consumption, alongside consumption excluding the residential sector and tertiary industry (i.e., services). The chart shows that while both series rebounded in May, electricity consumption in the old economy recently contracted for the first time in two years (and has been trending lower). As such, the recent tick higher in the old economy series likely just reflects a move away from extremely weak/contractionary growth rates, but still within the context of an ongoing downtrend. Chart 7Electricity Consumption Has Been Weaker##br## In Primary And Secondary Industries Electricity Consumption Has Been Weaker In Primary And Secondary Industries Electricity Consumption Has Been Weaker In Primary And Secondary Industries As a final point, Table 1 also highlighted that Chinese house prices are rising broadly, and that floor space sold ticked up again in May on a smoothed basis. Housing construction has also been strong over the past year, and it is likely that this has somewhat boosted Chinese import demand above what it otherwise would have been. However, we have highlighted in several reports the leading relationship between floor space sold and housing starts, which suggests that the recent strength in housing construction is unlikely to continue over the coming year unless sales pick up materially. Until evidence of a durable uptrend in sales presents itself, we are sticking with our view that the cyclical trajectory of China's economy will be determined by the trends in money & credit and the external sector. Bottom Line: A positive tailwind from exports has prevented China's old economy from decelerating as much as money & credit trends would suggest. Barring a response from policymakers, a serious export shock, were it to materialize, would likely cause a material further slowdown in Chinese economic activity. A-Shares: Is The Selloff Overdone? Chart 1 highlighted that Chinese domestic stocks have fallen 25% from their late-January peak, compared with approximately 15% for the MSCI China index. It is too soon to conclude that A-shares have fully priced a slowdown in China's economy given the considerable uncertainty surrounding the outlook for external demand, but several observations point to the selloff being advanced: A 25% peak-to-trough decline in A-shares represents roughly half of the total decline that occurred in 2015 and early-2016, when the global economy experienced a coordinated economic slowdown, Chinese monetary policy was considerably tighter than it is today, and valuation ratios had more than doubled in the year prior to the peak. Chart 8 highlights how much lower trailing multiples were for A-shares at the start of the year compared with their peak in 2015, implying that the deterioration in investment sentiment has already been severe. Chart 9 supports the idea of an outsized collapse in sentiment, by showing the rolling 3-month correlation between daily A-share returns and percent changes in CNY/USD. In our view, the recent spike in the correlation reflects fears among investors (perhaps among domestic retail investors) that the decline in CNY/USD is a harbinger of the global financial market panic that followed the PBOC's decision to devalue the RMB in August 2015. Chart 8Versus 2015, A-Shares Are Selling Off##br## From A Cheaper Starting Point Versus 2015, A-Shares Are Selling Off From A Cheaper Starting Point Versus 2015, A-Shares Are Selling Off From A Cheaper Starting Point Chart 9The Sharp Decline In CNY/USD Is Panicking ##br##Some Buyers Of Domestic Stocks The Sharp Decline In CNY/USD Is Panicking Some Buyers Of Domestic Stocks The Sharp Decline In CNY/USD Is Panicking Some Buyers Of Domestic Stocks The panic that occurred following China's 2015 devaluation occurred in the context of a much weaker global economy: Chart 10 highlights that while global import demand and manufacturing PMIs have deteriorated somewhat recently, this decline is from a much stronger level. In short, it remains far from clear that the tariff-related decline in global business sentiment represents a shock of the same magnitude as what occurred in late-2015/early-2016, which suggests that panic selling in the A-share market may be overdone. Chart 11 shows that the selloff in the domestic market has largely been indiscriminate, not isolated to export-sensitive sectors (which presumably would fare worse if the shock to China's economy is externally-driven). This has pushed our technical indicator for A-shares down to deeply oversold territory (panel 2). Two crucial market indicators that we recommended investors watch closely are not yet providing warning of a crisis. Chart 12 shows that China's relative sovereign CDS spread, while rising, is well below levels that prevailed in the lead-up to China's 2015 currency devaluation, and panel 2 shows that there has been no breakdown in large bank alpha versus global banks. Small banks in China have sold off aggressively over the past few weeks, but this also occurred in late-2016 and in the first half of 2017 without consequence. Chart 10The Global Economy Is Stronger Now##br## Than It Was In 2015 The Global Economy Is Stronger Now Than It Was In 2015 The Global Economy Is Stronger Now Than It Was In 2015 Chart 11An Indiscriminate Selloff Has Rendered##br## A-Shares Deeply Oversold An Indiscriminate Selloff Has Rendered A-Shares Deeply Oversold An Indiscriminate Selloff Has Rendered A-Shares Deeply Oversold Chart 12The Outlook Has Darkened, ##br##But A Crisis Appears Unlikely The Outlook Has Darkened, But A Crisis Appears Unlikely The Outlook Has Darkened, But A Crisis Appears Unlikely We have highlighted in previous research that while China's domestic stock market is relatively volatile, it is not a "casino" market that is untethered from fundamentals.3 This suggests that investors should be on the lookout for any signs of an improvement in the economic outlook as a catalyst for a turnaround in A-shares. To be clear, we are not recommending that investors try to catch a falling knife: the export outlook remains highly uncertain, and a more pronounced slowdown in the global economy may unfold if President Trump follows through with his threat to expand the imposition of tariffs on other G7 countries. However, considering the observations above, we are opening the following shadow trade: long MSCI China A Onshore index / short MSCI China index, which we will consider implementing in response to a 5% rally in relative performance. Bottom Line: Several observations point to the selloff in domestic Chinese stocks being advanced. Investors should avoid trying to catch a falling knife, but should be on the lookout for any signs of an improvement in the economic outlook as a catalyst for a turnaround in A-shares. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight", dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Now What?", dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports " A-Shares: Stay Neutral For Now", dated March 14, 2018 and "A Shaky Ladder", dated June 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Growing trade tensions are exacerbating risks created by a decline in global liquidity. A weaker CNY will only increase pressures on the dollar. China is in fact likely to try to push the CNY lower, as it is a useful tool to reflate the economy. USD/CNY at 7.1 is necessary to stabilize Chinese monetary conditions. However, at such a level, the yuan will flame fears that protectionist rhetoric in the U.S. will rise further. This catch-22 situation favors more weakness in the EUR, the GBP, the AUD and the CAD. It also suggests the yen could rebound a bit further. EUR/JPY still possesses ample downside. Feature Financial markets have experienced another bout of volatility. This spike in volatility has been very kind to the U.S. dollar, especially against EM and commodity currencies. Behind this market tumult lies yet another heating up in protectionist rhetoric, with U.S. President Donald Trump and China lobbing missiles at one another in the form of tariffs, both actual and threatened. The reaction of the dollar and EM assets has been especially violent, as the rising risk of a trade war is not happening in a vacuum: it is happening in an environment where global liquidity conditions have begun to tighten. For markets to improve, either the liquidity backdrop will have to become stronger, or the risks associated around trade will have to recede. At this point, we are reluctant to call the end of the current market tumult. Global liquidity has yet to improve, heated words on trade have yet to calm down, and most importantly, a key piece of the puzzle has yet to stabilize: the Chinese yuan. Because we see a high risk of more depreciation in the CNY, we continue to expect more downside for the euro, and even more downside for commodity and EM currencies. Liquidity Is Drying Up Why do markets sometimes lightly vacillate in front of geopolitical shocks, but on other occasions respond violently? The liquidity backdrop plays a big role. If liquidity is plentiful and growing, investors are more likely to judge the impact of political risks as passing, finding easy answers as to why a risk can be ignored, rightfully or wrongly. This time, investors are very worried about trade. It is true that if a trade war between the U.S. and China were to emerge, it would be devastating for global trade, growth, and profits. But in our view, investors have decided to pay more attention to this risk this time around because global liquidity is getting tighter, pointing to slower global growth. Under this set of circumstances, a trade war is just yet another risk that the market cannot abide. In our view, the following four indicators have been providing the key signals that global liquidity conditions are hurting global growth and making markets highly sensitive to any shocks: The yield curve: Both the U.S. and global yield curves have flattened considerably this year, despite 10-year Treasury yields being more than 40bps higher than at the end of 2017 (Chart I-1). Excess liquidity: Our preferred measure of global excess liquidity is contracting. The growth rate of the combined broad money aggregates in the U.S., the euro area and Japan has now fallen below the growth rate of loans. This means that the domestic economies of these three giants have been using all the money created by their banking systems, leaving little funds available for EM economies that in aggregate still run current account deficits and have accumulated large piles of foreign currency debt. Historically, this is a leading indicator of global growth (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Global Yield Curves Point To Declining Liquidity Global Yield Curves Point To Declining Liquidity Global Yield Curves Point To Declining Liquidity Chart I-2Excess Money Is Contracting Excess Money Is Contracting Excess Money Is Contracting Gold prices: Gold is extremely sensitive to global liquidity conditions, and gold prices seem to be breaking down, even as nominal and real bond yields are weakening (Chart I-3). A breakdown in gold preceded the EM selloff in the summer of 2015 and the ensuing economic slowdown. EM carry trades: EM carry trades financed in yen have been a very reliable leading indicator of the global industrial cycle, and they currently look very ill (Chart I-4). They suggest that money is exiting EM economies at a quick pace. Not only is this precipitating a sharp correction in EM assets, it is causing monetary aggregates in these countries to deteriorate. This is a potent headwind to their growth and to global trade. Chart I-3Gold Points To More Weaknesses ##br##In EM Assets Gold Points To More Weaknesses In EM Assets Gold Points To More Weaknesses In EM Assets Chart I-4EM Carry Trades Confirm The ##br##Decline In Global Liquidity EM Carry Trades Confirm The Decline In Global Liquidity EM Carry Trades Confirm The Decline In Global Liquidity In this context, we worry that one variable has further to adjust. Not only could this variable exact a deflationary influence on global markets, it will further fan the threats of trade wars. This is the CNY exchange rate. Bottom Line: Markets have been rattled by the rise in protectionist rhetoric in the U.S., which is raising the specter of a trade war with China and, to a smaller extent, with the EU. The market is especially vulnerable to this risk because global liquidity has already deteriorated, pointing to a further deceleration in global growth. In this context, if the CNY were to fall further, this could prompt a final wave of selling that will help the USD execute one more leap higher. The CNY Is Still At Risk In recent years, the USD/CNY exchange rate has behaved as a function of the trend in the DXY dollar index. This makes sense; the People's Bank of China, in conjunction with China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), targets the yuan against a basket of currencies. If the U.S. dollar is generally strong, the PBoC and SAFE need to let USD/CNY appreciate so that the yuan doesn't rise too much against other currencies in the reference basket. However, as Jonathan LaBerge has pinpointed in BCA's China Investment Strategy service, since President Trump has been threatening China with further tariffs, the CNY has been much weaker than implied by the DXY itself (Chart I-5).1 We believe that Beijing is letting the CNY depreciate at a faster pace against the U.S. dollar for two reasons. First, it is a means to reflate the economy, as the proposed U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods would inflict a non-negligible blow to China that will need to be softened if it indeed materializes. Second, letting the yuan depreciate is also a message to the U.S.: China can weaponize its currency if it has to. At this point we genuinely worry that China is not done with weakening the CNY, and a USD/CNY rate of 7.1 or higher is needed to boost monetary conditions, especially if our DXY target of 98 gets hit. The probability of this price action materializing is growing. First, in line with Beijing's efforts to engage the Chinese economy into a deleveraging exercise, Chinese monetary conditions have already been significantly tightened. As a result, monetary aggregates have significantly slowed, from narrow ones to broader ones. In fact, BCA's estimate of M3 is languishing at all times lows. It is not just money growth that has decelerated; credit growth too is now much lower, with total social financing excluding equity issuance only growing at 10.5%, also its lowest level on record (Chart I-6). Chart I-5The CNY Is Much Weaker ##br##Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies Chart I-6Chinese Monetary And Credit ##br##Conditions Remain Tight Chinese Monetary And Credit Conditions Remain Tight Chinese Monetary And Credit Conditions Remain Tight Second, this tightening in financial conditions is having a real impact. As Chart I-7 illustrates, corporate spreads in China are currently rising significantly. This is causing borrowing rates to increase, despite a fall in government bond yields. Additionally, the price action in Chinese shares suggests that an important slowdown in manufacturing PMIs could soon materialize (Chart I-8). Beijing will be reluctant to see PMIs fall below 50, as the chart implies. Chart I-7Chinese Corporate Spreads: ##br##Material Widening Chinese Corporate Spreads: Material Widening Chinese Corporate Spreads: Material Widening Chart I-8A Shares Imply Serious ##br##Economic Downside A Shares Imply Serious Economic Downside A Shares Imply Serious Economic Downside So why is the RMB a useful lever to use at the present juncture, rather than the usual monetary tools historically favored by Beijing? First, not only does a weaker CNY dull the impact of Trump's tariffs, it also insulates China against a slowdown in global trade volumes, as evidenced in Chart I-9. Second, a weaker CNY versus the USD is historically consistent with a cut in the Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR), which has already been implemented by the PBoC (Chart I-10, top panel). Moreover, the Chinese current account fell into deficit last quarter (Chart 10, bottom panel). Not only does a lower RMB help deal with this issue, but the PBoC may be forced to cut the RRR further if the deficit remains in place, as it drains liquidity from the banking sector. Chart I-9China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade Chart I-10Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY Third, in recent months, China's official forex reserves have been experiencing a series of outflows (Chart I-11). A depreciated exchange rate short-circuits this phenomenon, as once the CNY has fallen the expected returns from further shorting the currency collapses, curtailing incentive to bring money out of the country. Fourth, the trade-weighted yuan - both the J.P. Morgan measure as well as BCA's export-weighted basket - is still at elevated levels (Chart I-12), implying that the currency can still be used as a relief valve to stimulate the economy. Chart I-11Chinese Forex Reserves Experiencing Outflows Chinese Forex Reserves Experiencing Outflows Chinese Forex Reserves Experiencing Outflows Chart I-12The CNY Has Scope To Fall The CNY Has Scope To Fall The CNY Has Scope To Fall Finally, depreciating the yuan is a way of creating some support under the Chinese economy without compromising the goals of deleveraging and reforms. Traditional monetary stimulus would only encourage a debt binge; however, a lower exchange rate will help profits, prevent too-steep a fall in producer prices, and support employment. Moreover, even if the current decline in foreign exchange reserves indicates that capital outflows have not been completely staunched, the severe capital controls implemented since 2015 limit the risk that outflows accelerate from here. When the PBoC engineered its first depreciation of the yuan that year on August 11, investors and Chinese citizens began to expect more weakness, and yanked funds out of the country. The ensuing hit to the monetary base meant that monetary conditions remained tight, despite the PBoC efforts. This is unlikely to happen again. Chart I-13Timid Fiscal Support, So Far Timid Fiscal Support, So Far Timid Fiscal Support, So Far To be fair, a weaker currency is not the only tool that China can use to reflate its economy. Fiscal stimulus is another one that is not too out of line with the deleveraging objective for the private sector, provinces, municipalities and state-owned enterprises that Beijing has in mind. So far, the Chinese central government has not used this lever with much alacrity this year (Chart I-13). However, we expect fiscal policy to be used more aggressively as the year progresses. Nonetheless, this is unlikely to preclude Beijing from using the exchange rate as a key tool to support the economy. Bottom Line: China is likely to continue to target a lower CNY in order to put a floor under its economy, especially as the risk of a trade war with the U.S. becomes more real. Not only is a lower exchange rate a way to reflate the economy that does not conflagrate too violently with the stated desire to continue to deleverage, it is also a way to insulate the economy against a slowdown in global trade. 2018 is also a better environment for China to use the exchange rate as a lever than was the case in 2015, since the capital account is under tighter controls than it was back then. Finally, it is likely that exchange rate policy will be supplemented with fiscal supports. Investment Implications In an environment where liquidity is getting scarcer and where trade wars and protectionism are a real threat, a weaker yuan would be likely to exacerbate these fears. As a result, we judge that the template created by the 2015 devaluation remains relevant. As Table I-1 illustrates, in 2015, the euro did not fare particularly well when the yuan was devalued. However, its performance was not atrocious either. Back then, investors entered the devaluation with large short bets, and the euro was slightly cheap on our short-term models. This time around, speculators are still long the euro - albeit less so than they were in April - and the euro still trades at a small premium to its fair value. Table I-1A Weaker CNY Helps The Yen, ##br##Hurts The Rest What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World However, Table I-1 also shows that the yen significantly benefited during this episode. While we would expect the yen to once again perform well if the CNY were to fall more, we doubt it would rally as strongly as it did in 2015. Simply put, back then the yen traded at a massive discount to its fair value, and investors were very short. Today, the yen is roughly fairly valued and short positioning is much more modest. The AUD, CAD and NOK also suffered significant declines during the last episode. Valuations and positioning in the AUD and the CAD are today very short, but they were also very short in 2015. Ultimately, a lot will have to be gleaned from the dynamics in Chinese monetary conditions. If the DXY moves to our target of 98, USD/CNY will need to move to 7.1 or above for Chinese monetary conditions to stabilize. This means that Chinese monetary conditions could deteriorate further before finding a floor. As Chart I-14 illustrates, this in turn suggests the AUD, CAD and EUR have significant downside from current levels. Moreover, if the CNY were to fall to USD/CNY 7.1, investors would rightfully be concerned about even more trade sanctions from the U.S. After all, this opens the door to China being labeled a currency manipulator, a move that could be met with additional retaliatory actions by China. However as Chart I-15 illustrates, the euro and the pound are very sensitive to global trade penetration. If investors were to discount further protectionisms and thus a further decline in global trade, they could therefore sell the pound and the euro in the process. This conflict between Chinese monetary conditions and trade protectionism creates a catch-22 situation for the currency market, one that is most likely to be resolved in a higher USD, and more volatility in assets linked to EM. Our highest conviction recommendation to play these dynamics remains to be short EUR/JPY. Not only do the economics behind this trade are consistent with fears of global protectionism (Chart I-15, bottom panel), but the technical picture also remains attractive. As Chart I-16 shows, both EUR/USD and USD/JPY have failed against important resistances, which have been translated in an echoing message in EUR/JPY itself. An interim target at 120 make sense right now. Chart I-14Chinese Monetary Conditions##br## Point To USD Strength Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To USD Strength Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To USD Strength Chart I-15Fears Of Protectionism ##br##And The FX Market Fears Of Protectionism And The FX Market Fears Of Protectionism And The FX Market Chart I-16Favorable Technicals To Stay ##br##Short EUR/USD And EUR/JPY Favorable Technicals To Stay Short EUR/USD And EUR/JPY Favorable Technicals To Stay Short EUR/USD And EUR/JPY The USD/CNY has already made a significant move, from an intraday low of 6.25 on March 27 to nearly 6.62. It is thus likely that Chinese authorities take a break from the devaluation campaign before pushing the CNY lower again, especially as 6.65 constituted a temporary equilibrium level during the fourth quarter of 2018. This therefore means that the dynamics described above could play out over the remainder of the year. Bottom Line: A weaker CNY is likely to give some spring to an already strong U.S. dollar. Moreover, FX markets are facing a tough dichotomy. To stop the strength in the dollar against the majors, the yuan needs to fall enough to cause Chinese monetary conditions to find a floor. This requires a USD/CNY at 7.1. However, at such a level, investors are likely to become very worried about even more trade protectionism out of the U.S. Yet, fears of declining global trade also favor a stronger dollar. We therefore expect the dollar to have some additional upside, and we anticipate EUR/JPY will experience significantly more downside from current levels. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?", dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed: Core and headline durable goods orders both contracted by 0.3% and 0.6%; Pending home sales also contracted by 0.5% in monthly terms, and 2.2% in yearly terms; GDP growth disappointed expectations, coming in at a 2% annualized growth in Q1. The greenback's ascent continues, with the DXY recouping nearly half of its losses since its peak at the beginning of 2017. The broad trade-weighted dollar is back at March 2017 levels. A flattening yield curve and increasing protectionism are causing turmoil in risk assets, boosting the greenback as a result. As the Fed continues to unwind its balance sheet, the shortage of dollars is likely to continue to hamper global risk-taking and propel the greenback even further. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 European data has been decent: French and German Manufacturing PMIs disappointed, while Services and Composite PMIs outperformed; German IFO Expectations beat expectations, while the Current Assessment component decreased; European money supply growth increased by 4% on an annual basis; Italian inflation came in at 1.4%, higher than the expected 1.3%; German headline and harmonized inflation dropped by 100 bps to 2.1%, in line with expectations. European data has been dragged down by waning global growth. The rising protectionism acts as a further handicap to Germany's export-oriented economic model. In his last speech, ECB President Draghi confirmed the ECB's dedication to achieving its inflation target. He also provided more clarity regarding the outlook for interest rates, arguing that they can remain at current levels "for as long as necessary to ensure that the evolution of inflation remains aligned with the current expectations." As the possibility of further dovishness remains, the euro's depreciation is likely go on, especially with an environment of rising protectionism. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been positive: The Leading Economic Index outperformed expectations, coming in at 106.2. Meanwhile, the Nikkei Manufacturing PMI surprised to the upside, coming in at 53.1. Finally, the National Consumer price index yearly growth also outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.7%. USD/JPY has been relatively flat this past two weeks, as the impact of the strength in the dollar has been neutralized by risk-off sentiment linked to the sell-off in Emerging markets and to the escalation of global trade tensions. We believe that the yen will continue to have upside this year, particularly against the euro, as trade tensions will continue to escalate, and as policy tightening in China will further hurt risk-assets. Safe heavens like the yen will benefit in the process. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been improving: Nationwide housing prices yearly growth came in at 2%, outperforming expectations. Moreover, public sector net borrowing also surprised positively, coming in at GBP3.356 billion. Finally, BBA Mortgage approvals also surprised to the upside, coming in at 32,244. GBP/USD has fallen by nearly 1.5% the past two weeks. Overall, we continue to believe that cable will have short term downside, given that the dollar is likely to continue its rise. Nevertheless, the pound is likely to outperform the euro, as Europe is much more levered to the Chinese industrial cycle than the U.K. This means that if China continues to tighten, the European economy will underperform, hurting EUR/GBP in the process. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 The Aussie has been hit by President Trump's increasingly aggressive stance towards global trade and by the already evident slowdown in global trade. With tariffs implemented on Australia's largest trade partner, China. Additionally, the domestic economy is making matters worse, as it is still rife with substantial slack. As a result, the RBA has remained on the sidelines, especially as it is worried by the impact of higher interest rates on an overvalued housing market and dangerously indebted households. We expected the AUD to suffer further against all other G10 currencies, as it remains expensive and is the most exposed to China's economy. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been positive: Both exports and imports outperformed expectations, coming in at NZD5.42 billion and NZD5.12 billion respectively. Moreover, the trade deficit also surprised positively, decreasing to NZD3.6 billion. Finally, GDP yearly growth came in line with expectations at 2.7%. NZD/USD has fallen by nearly 2.5% over the past two weeks. This has been in part due to the sell-off in emerging markets as well as escalating global trade tensions. The New Zealand economy is a small open economy that is highly levered to global trade, making the NZD very sensitive to these risk factors. We continue to be bearish on the kiwi in the short term, as trade tensions persist, while tightening in China will continue to weigh on high yield assets. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 In his speech on Wednesday, Governor Poloz did not address the shortfall in economic data that came out last week: Headline and core retail sales contracted by 1.2% and 0.1% in monthly terms, respectively, underperforming expectations; Headline inflation stayed steady at 2.2%, albeit less than the expected 2.5%; Core inflation fell to 1.3% from 1.5%, and less than the expected 1.4%. Instead, he mentioned that the Bank of Canada is incorporating into its reaction function the effects of the tariffs imposed by the U.S. on Canada and the rest of the world. This message received more attention than his confirmation that "higher interest rates will indeed be warranted" as the CAD weakened throughout his speech, and the odds of a rate hike on July 11 dropped from 80% to 50%. Recent news has also surfaced regarding possible Canadian quotas on steel imports from the rest of the world in an effort to circumvent dumping activities by Chinese officials. Aggravating protectionism represents a very real risk for the CAD and the very open Canadian economy. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 The SNB left their policy rate unchanged at -0.75% in their latest policy meeting. Overall, we continue to be bearish on the Swiss franc on a long term basis, given that economic activity and inflationary pressures are still too weak in Switzerland. This will force the SNB to continue with its ultra-dovish monetary policy designed to limit the CHF's cyclical upside. Recent comments of SNB board member Andrea Maechler confirm this, as she stated that the Swiss franc remains "highly valued" and that while they are content with inflation in positive territory, "inflation remains low". Nevertheless EUR/CHF should depreciate on a tactical basis, given that Chinese deleveraging and escalating trade tensions will sustain the current risk-off period, helping safe heavens such as the franc. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has rallied by roughly 0.7% this past week, despite surging oil prices. The rise in the dollar, as well as the generally risk-off environment has neutralized the rise in oil prices caused by the recent large draw in inventories. Our commodity strategist expect oil to keep rising in the face of tighter supply caused by OPEC members. This will help the NOK outperform other commodity currencies like the AUD and the NZD. However, USD/NOK is still likely to rally in the face of a tightening fed, as the USD/NOK is more sensitive to interest rate differentials than to oil. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Swedish data has been decent: The unemployment rate dropped to 6.5% from 6.8%, in line with expectations; Consumer confidence, however, was lower than the expected 99.8, coming in at 96.8; Producer price inflation came in at 6.3%, beating expectations of 4.9%; Retail sales grew annually at 3.1% in May, less than the previous 3.3%; The trade balance saw another deficit of SEK 2.6 billion, but improved from the previous deficit of SEK 6.1 billion The krona likely has substantial upside this year, especially against the euro. Given that inflation data has been in line with the Riksbank's target, it is likely that the central bank will draw back some of its monetary accommodation, which would realign the krona with its underlying growth fundamentals. The krona has once again started to weaken against the euro, reflecting investor angst in the face of global protectionism. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades