Banks

Highlights Most narratives surrounding G7 bond yields, the U.S. dollar, Chinese credit/fiscal impulses, and the RMB exchange rate - which justified the EM rally from February's lows - have been overturned. To be consistent, this warrants a relapse in EM risk assets. In China, recent property market and marginal credit policy tightening will weigh on growth. Feature The more recent strength in Chinese and emerging markets' (EM) manufacturing PMI indexes as well as the bounce in industrial metals prices have gone against our negative view on EM/China growth and related markets. While it is hard to predict market patterns over the next several weeks, we maintain that the EM rally is on borrowed time, and that the risk-reward profile for EM risk assets (stocks, credit markets and currencies) remains very unfavorable. Tracking Correlations And Indicators The overwhelming majority of indicators and variables that supported the rally in EM since February have reversed in recent months. Specifically: China's credit and fiscal spending impulses have rolled over (Charts I-1 and Chart I-2, on page 1). This will likely lead to a rollover in mainland industrial activity early next year (Chart 1, top panel). Similarly, this bodes ill for much-followed Chinese ex-factory producer prices - i.e., producer price deflation will probably recommence early next year (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Chart I-1China: Industrial Sectors To Retreat? Chart I-2China: Credit And Fiscal Impulses In a nutshell, the strong credit and fiscal impulses of late 2015 and early 2016 explain the stabilization and mild improvement in the Chinese economy during the past few months. However, these same impulses project renewed weakness/rollover in the economy in early 2017. If financial markets are forward looking, they should begin pricing-in deteriorating growth momentum sooner than later - especially as Chinese policymakers are announcing marginal tightening policies (see below for more details). One of the narratives that triggered the EM and global equity rally in February was speculation that there was a "Shanghai accord" between global central banks. According to this narrative, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) promised not to devalue the RMB in exchange for the Federal Reserve not hiking rates. Since then, the RMB has continued to depreciate, both versus the greenback and the CFETS1 basket. Yet EM and global stocks have completely disregarded the RMB depreciation (Chart I-3). We do not have good explanation as to why. Indeed, the RMB has weakened meaningfully, despite the PBoC's massive currency defense: the latter's foreign exchange reserves have shrunk further since then (Chart I-4), as capital flight has exceeded the enormous current account surplus by a large margin. Chart I-3Investors Are ##br##Complacent About RMB Chart I-4China: Foreign Exchange ##br##Reserves Still Shrinking Chart I-5PBoC Liquidity Injections ##br##Have Been Enormous The PBoC's selling of U.S. dollars to prop up the yuan has drained domestic currency liquidity and one would expect interbank rates to rise. However, the PBoC has been re-injecting RMBs into the system to keep interest rates low (Chart I-5). Such RMB liquidity proliferation makes further declines in the currency's value all the more likely. We expect the RMB to continue depreciating. Yet global financial markets have become extremely complacent about the potential for additional RMB depreciation. After having been bullish on U.S./G7 bonds for the past several years, in our July 13 Weekly Report,2 we highlighted that U.S./G7 bond yields would rise and closed our strategic short EM equities/long 30-year U.S. Treasurys position. Even though U.S./G7 bond yields have risen since July, EM equities have not declined. Given that falling G7 bond yields were used as justification for the EM rally, the opposite should also hold true. We expect U.S. bond yields to rise further. Our EM Corporate Health Monitor - constructed using bottom-up financial variables of companies with outstanding U.S. dollar corporate bonds - points to a reversal in the EM corporate credit market rally (Chart I-6). Furthermore, EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads have tightened considerably and are now very overbought and expensive. As we argued in our Special Report titled EM Corporate Health Is Flashing Red3 that introduced the EM Corporate Financial Health (CFH) Monitor, EM corporate credit spreads are as expensive as they were before they began widening in 2013 and 2014 (Chart I-7). Chart I-6EM Corporate Bond Rally To Reverse? Chart I-7EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Tight Finally, the U.S. dollar sold off early this year, but it has held firm in recent months. Nevertheless, EM risk assets have not retreated, despite the greenback's strength (Chart I-8). Few would argue that sharp U.S. dollar appreciation is negative for EM risk assets, but there is a debate among investors and analysts about whether EM risk assets can rally amidst a gradual appreciation in the U.S. dollar. Turning to the empirical evidence, Chart I-9 reveals that in the past 30 years any U.S. dollar appreciation - whether gradual or not - even versus DM currencies has coincided with weakness in EM share prices. Chart I-8EM Investors Have ##br##Ignored U.S. Dollar Strength Chart I-9EM Equities And ##br##U.S. Dollar: A 30 Year History Bottom Line: The majority of narratives that justified the EM rally from February's lows have been overturned. To be consistent, this warrants a relapse in EM risk assets. China's Credit And Property Tightening In recent weeks, there have been numerous policy tightening efforts in China. In particular: At the annual World Bank/IMF meetings in Washington last month, PBoC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan stated that once markets stabilized there would no longer be additional large increases in bank credit. His exact words were: "With the gradual recovery of the global economy, China will control its credit growth".4 As U.S. and European PMIs have firmed up and U.S. employment and wage growth is robust, Chinese policymakers will be emboldened to moderate unsustainable credit growth and not to repeat the massive fiscal push of early this year. In a bid to curb excessive bank credit growth and discourage "window dressing" accounting, the PBoC announced on October 255 that going forward it will include off-balance-sheet wealth management products (WMPs) in the calculation of banks' quarterly Marco Prudential Assessment ratios, starting from the third quarter. The clampdown on WMP accounting will reduce banks' capital adequacy ratios (CARs). One key reason that banks had aggressively boosted the size of their off-balance-sheet WMP assets was that they were not required to have capital charges against them, helping banks extend more credit while complying with CARs. In short, Chinese banks' CARs are inflated. This policy measure along with provisioning and writing-off non-performing loans, if reinforced, could meaningfully reduce the CARs of all Chinese banks, especially small- and medium-sized ones, as well as force them to reduce the pace of credit expansion. Given that the majority of medium and small banks have been more aggressive than the country's five biggest banks in expanding credit in recent years, this may have a damping effect on credit growth in 2017. In fact, the 110 medium and small banks retain 60% of on- and off-balance-sheet credit claims on companies, while the five largest banks hold 40% (Table I-1). Hence, credit trends in small and medium banks are at least as important as those among large banks. Table I-1China: Five Largest Banks Hold Only 40% Of Credit Assets Finally, a number of cities have announced various tightening measures on property markets of late, including the re-launch of house purchasing restrictions and increases in minimum down payments. Similar restrictions on home purchases served as an efficient tool for curbing property purchases in 2013-14, and there is no reason why it will be different this time around. This is especially true given the market is more expensive than it was back in 2013. In addition, the government has curbed financing for property developers. The biggest economic risk remains construction activity. Even though housing sales and prices have skyrocketed by 20-40% in the past 12 months (Chart I-10, top and middle panels), residential floor space started has been very timid - it has in fact failed to recover (Chart I-10, bottom panel). As residential property sales contract again due to new purchasing restrictions, property developers will certainly curtail new investment, and housing construction activity will shrink anew. The same is true for commercial properties (Chart I-11). Chart I-10China's Residential Market: ##br##Demand, Prices And Starts Chart I-11China's Non-Residential ##br##Market: Demand And Starts An interesting question is why property starts have been so weak, as indicated in the bottom panels of Chart I-10 and Chart I-11 - particularly when both floor space sold (units) and property prices have surged exponentially in the past 12 months. Our view is that there is a large hidden inventory overhang in the Chinese property market. For example, government data on residential floor space started, completed and under construction attest that there is still a large gap between floor space started versus completed (Chart I-12). From these data/charts and the enormous leverage carried by property developers, we infer the latter have been accumulating / carrying on their balance sheets vast amounts of inventory in excess of what market-based sources suggest, and what is widely followed by analysts. It is very hard to make sense of the Chinese property inventory data, but we suspect these market-based data sources may track only inventories that have been completed and released to the market - and do not account for inventories classified as "under construction". For residential housing, according to government data the "under construction floor space" is 5 billion square meters (Chart I-13, top panel), which is equal to 3.5-4 years of sales at the fervent pace of the past 12 months (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Another way to assess this is as follows: Assuming an average construction cycle of three years, there will be supply of new housing in amounts of 16.7 units in each of the next three years. This compares with sales of 13.3 million units in the past 12 months that occurred amid a buying frenzy and booming mortgage lending. Faced with a potential drop in sales due to the recent purchasing restrictions, elevated inventories, enormous leverage (Chart I-14), and tighter financing, property developers will most likely curtail new starts. In turn, a reduction in property starts means less construction activity next year, and weak demand for commodities. Consistent with the rollover in the fiscal spending impulse, infrastructure spending will likely also lose its potency in early 2017. Chart I-12China's Residential ##br##Market: Hidden Inventories Chart I-13Chinese Real Estate: Massive ##br##Volumes Under Construction Chart I-14Leverage Of Chinese ##br##Listed Property Developers Bottom Line: Recent property market and marginal credit policy tightening will weigh on construction activity and depress Chinese demand for commodities and industrial goods next year. Confirmation Bias, Or Bias Based On Fundamentals? Why did we not follow the indicators discussed above from February through June, when the EM rally emerged and these indicators bottomed? Do we have a confirmation bias? We did not recommend playing the EM rebound early this year because we did not believe the rally would last this long or go this far. If we had had conviction about the duration and magnitude of the rally, we would have changed our strategy - tactically upgrading EM risk assets despite our negative structural and cyclical views. Simply put, we were wrong on strategy. In our April 13, 2016 Weekly Report,6 we argued that based on China's injection of massive amounts of fiscal and credit stimulus, growth would marginally improve in the months ahead. Yet, we stopped short of recommending chasing the EM rally given the menace of numerous cyclical and structural negatives surrounding the EM/China growth outlook. As to the reasons why we put more emphasis on some indicators and less on others at various times, we have the following points: We are biased in so far as our assessment and analysis of EM/China is based on fundamentals. In this sense, we are biased towards centering our investment strategy on fundamentals. Specifically, given our view/analysis that EM/China have credit bubbles/excesses, rapidly falling or weak productivity growth and record-low return on capital (Chart I-15), we cannot help but to have a fundamentally bearish bias on EM. This, in turn, means that we view any rally in EM risk assets or uptick in EM/China economic indicators with suspicion and likely as unsustainable. The opposite also holds true. All in all, if we are wrong on our fundamental view and analysis, we will be wrong on financial markets. When investors expect a bear market, they are better off selling rallies and not buying dips. When an asset class is in a multiyear bull market, it pays off to buy dips rather not sell rallies. Unless one can time market swings well, it is hard to make money on the long sides of bear markets. Similarly, it is difficult to profit from short positions in bull markets. In brief, countertrend moves are about timing. Timing does not depend on fundamentals. It is often a coin toss. Typically we do not recommend clients invest based on a coin toss. For example, it is impossible to rationalize why the EM rally did not begin following the August 2015 selloff, but instead started in February 2016. In late August 2015, with carnage in EM risk assets pervasive, it was clear that Chinese policymakers would stimulate and in fact the massive fiscal stimulus was initiated in August/September 2015 not in 2016. Similarly, China's manufacturing PMI bottomed in September 2015, not in 2016 (Chart I-16). Chart I-15EM Non-Financial Return ##br##On Equity Is At All Time Low Chart I-16China's Manufacturing PMI ##br##Bottomed In October 2015 In September 2015, EM and global equities rebounded, but chasing momentum at that time did not pay off as risk assets cratered in the following months. This is all to say that timing markets is often a random walk. We do attempt to time market moves that go along with our fundamental bias, but prefer not to time market moves that go against the primary trend. We assume any countertrend move is typically short-lived and unsustainable. That said, we also realize these moves can be very painful for investors if they last long enough, like this EM rally. Finally, we often get questions on fund flows. We do not make investment recommendations based on fund flows - even though we recognize they are very important in driving markets. The reason is that there is no comprehensive data on global fund flows that one can analyze and make reasonably educated bets. The often-cited EPRF dataset only tracks inflows and outflows of mutual funds and ETFs. It does not account for flows and positioning of various asset managers, sovereign funds, pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and private wealth managers, among many others. What's more, the EPRF dataset only covers the funds located in advanced countries and offshore jurisdictions, but not emerging countries where investment pools have become large and important. In brief, the available investment flow and portfolio positioning data are not comprehensive at all, and they cannot be relied upon too much to make investment recommendations. In this vein, a question arises: Why can't flows into EM sustain the current rally for a while even though it is not based on fundamentals? In this context, let's consider the case of the rally in euro area share prices when markets sensed the arrival of the European Central Bank's quantitative easing efforts at the beginning of 2015. There was a fervent rush to buy/overweight euro area stocks heading into the QE announcement by the ECB. European bourses surged. Nevertheless, euro area equity prices have been sliding and massively underperforming the global equity benchmark since March 2015 (Chart I-17). The reason the ECB's QE has not helped euro area stocks is because their fundamentals were bad - profits have been shrinking despite the ECB's QE. We suspect EM stocks and currencies will have a similar destiny: EM profits will disappoint considerably, and the current rally will prove unsustainable. Notably, net EPS revisions have so far failed to move into the positive territory (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Euro Area Stocks And EPS: ##br##Why The QE Rally Proved To Be Bogus Chart I-18EM Stocks And EPS: ##br##Earning Revisions Are Still Contracting Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 China Foreign Exchange Trading System. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Risks To Our Negative EM View," dated July 13, 2016; a link is available on page 15. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "EM Corporate Health Is Flashing Red," dated September 14, 2016; a link is available on page 15. 4 Please see http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3155686/index.html 5 Please see http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3183204/index.html 6 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Revisiting China's Fiscal And Credit Impulses," dated April 13, 2016; a link is available on page 15. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Regardless of who wins the U.S. election, the gaping mismatch between fundamentals and broad market valuations remains intact, but will be in jeopardy of re-converging should the Fed signal an intention to tighten monetary conditions through next year. As previously outlined, our view is that the economy, particularly the corporate sector, will struggle further if financial conditions become more restrictive and/or election uncertainty persists. The non-financial corporate sector's return on equity has already fallen to its lowest level in more than 60 years. Yet the median price/sales and price/earnings ratios are flirting with all-time highs. That divergence is not sustainable, given the direct link between ROE, profit growth and valuations. Central bank benevolence has underwritten this gap, and any ebbing in financial liquidity is a potential catalyst for it to close.

Bank stocks have moved higher, following the sell-off in global bond markets and steepening in yield curves sparked initially by the Bank of Japan's curve targeting shift and a reversal of incremental easing expectations from the Bank of England. However, we are not convinced that the relative performance bear market is over. Bank profits have not been able to outpace the broad corporate sector since the beginning of 2015, even though loan growth has been healthy and overall earnings were crushed by the implosion in commodity prices during that period, allowing most other sectors to show earnings outperformance. Now loan growth is rolling over and credit quality is beginning to erode. Perhaps more worrying is that banks are no longer pruning cost structures, which is unusual given that credit standards are tightening on most credit products outside of traditional mortgages. In the last 25 years, or as far back as we have the data, bank stocks lagged the broad market after bank employment started rising. The only exception was in the aftermath of the tech bubble, when all non-TMT sectors outperformed. If banks continue to expand their wage bill, without a widening in net interest margins and/or reversal in increased loan loss reserving, bank profits will fail to match the growth rate of the overall S&P 500. We recommend selling into strength.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Bank profits are unlikely to match those of the broad market if the Fed hikes interest rates and loan demand cools. Sell into strength. Gold shares are looking increasingly attractive, but we will refrain from upgrading until the U.S. dollar is closer to a peak. Drug pricing power is worse than government data suggests, warranting a downshift in our previously upbeat view toward pharmaceutical equities. Recent Changes S&P Health Care - Removed from our high conviction list. Upgrade Alert Gold Shares - Currently neutral. Downgrade Alert S&P Pharmaceuticals Index - Currently overweight. S&P Biotech Index - Currently overweight. Table 1 Feature Chart 1From Greed To Fear The gaping mismatch between fundamentals and broad market valuations remains intact, but will be in jeopardy of re-converging should the Fed signal an intention to tighten monetary conditions through next year. As previously outlined, our view is that the economy, particularly the corporate sector, will struggle further if financial conditions become more restrictive and/or election uncertainty persists. Indeed, investors have been scrambling to buy protection, aggressively bidding up near-term VIX contracts, especially relative to longer-term contracts. While it is tempting to view this increase in fear as a contrary positive, this measure typically sinks lower when investors turn cautious. Chart 1 shows that tactical broad market vulnerability still exists. On a more fundamental basis, the non-financial corporate sector's return on equity has already fallen to its lowest level in more than 60 years (Chart 2). Yet the median price/sales and price/earnings ratios are flirting with all-time highs (Chart 2). That divergence is not sustainable, given the direct link between ROE, profit growth and valuations. Central bank benevolence has underwritten this gap. Third quarter earnings have failed to impress thus far, keeping the equity market locked in a tight range. So far, one nascent trend is that domestic and consumer-linked equities appear to be gaining traction at the expense of global, business-dependent sectors. We expect the complexion of earnings contributions to become more lopsided in the quarters ahead, in support of most of these budding trend changes. The inevitable upshot of a strong U.S. dollar is deteriorating profit breadth. Chart 3 shows that the number of industry groups experiencing rising forward earnings estimates is likely to erode as the currency strengthens. Clearly, industries most reliant on exports and/or capital spending are most vulnerable. The corporate sector has run up debt levels and is struggling to generate profit growth. In turn, business spending has been compromised, as measured by the contraction in core durable goods orders (Chart 3). On the flipside, consumers have rebuilt their savings and are enjoying the benefits of a positive wealth effect. The increase in real wage and salary growth is underpinning real median household income. The latter surged 5.2%, posting the largest percentage increase in the history of the data. Consumer income expectations are well supported (Chart 3, top panel). The implication is that consumption-oriented plays should be well positioned to deliver profit outperformance, even if the labor market slows. From an investment theme perspective, the upshot is domestic-oriented areas are poised to make a comeback relative to globally-exposed sectors after a burst of speed in recent months (Chart 4). Net earnings revisions are already shifting in that direction, with more upside ahead based on U.S. dollar strength, as well as dirt cheap relative valuations (Chart 4). Chart 2A Disturbing Mismatch Chart 3Consumers Are Stronger Than Corporates Chart 4Favor Domestic Vs. Global One exception is the banking sector, where there is limited scope for earnings outperformance and/or valuation expansion. Bank Stocks Are Showing Signs Of Life, But... Bank stocks have moved higher, following the sell-off in global bond markets and steepening in yield curves sparked initially by the Bank of Japan's curve targeting shift and a reversal of incremental easing expectations from the Bank of England. However, we are not convinced that the relative performance bear market is over. A Special Report published on October 3 surveyed the performance of banks during Fed tightening cycles, to help put context around the widely held view that Fed rate hikes will bolster bank stocks on a sustained basis. History shows there has been only a loose relationship between the Fed funds rate and net interest margins. It would take rising rate expectations within the context of a steeper yield curve, improving credit quality and rapid loan growth to justify an optimistic profit outlook. Bank profits have not been able to outpace the broad corporate sector since the beginning of 2015 (Chart 5, top panel), even though loan growth has been healthy and overall earnings were crushed by the implosion in commodity prices during that period, allowing most other sectors to show earnings outperformance. Will another 25 bps interest rate hike remedy this? The Fed is keen to hike rates partially because it views them as being overly accommodative for an economy operating close to full employment, and is keen to reestablish firepower in advance of the next economic downturn. But there is scant evidence of economic overheating to support the view that rates have been 'too low'. Inflation and inflation expectations, while up from very depressed levels, are still historically low and the economy is struggling to grow at, let alone above, trend. Consequently, a strident Fed would boost the odds of a policy mistake. The market appears to share that view, given the failure of the yield curve to stop narrowing since the taper talk started, notwithstanding the recent blip up (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5Why Would Bank Profits Outperform Now? Chart 6Beware U.S. Dollar Strength Now that the USD is strengthening anew, the odds of imported deflation have climbed, to the detriment of corporate profits and bank stock relative performance (Chart 6, top panel). While nominal yields have backed up, real 2-year yields have declined, which is not consistent with an upgrading in economic expectations. Indeed, C&I loan growth has dropped sharply in recent weeks (Chart 6). By extension, it is hard to envision long-term yields rising much, if at all, which will keep net interest margins thin. Furthermore, if overall earnings remain stuck in neutral, corporate credit quality will undoubtedly worsen given the debt binge in recent years. Non-performing loans have only just begun to increase. Higher interest rates will not solve these problems. Instead, the downturn in credit quality could accelerate via more onerous debt servicing requirements, given the lack of a corporate sector balance sheet cushion. Perhaps more worrying is that banks are no longer pruning cost structures, which is unusual given that credit standards are tightening on most credit products outside of traditional mortgages. In the last 25 years, or as far back as we have the data, bank stocks lagged the broad market after bank employment started rising. The only exception was in the aftermath of the tech bubble, when all non-TMT sectors outperformed (Chart 7). If banks continue to expand their wage bill, without a widening in net interest margins and/or reversal in increased loan loss reserving, bank profits will fail to match the growth rate of the overall S&P 500. The optimal, but not exclusive, time for banks to outperform is typically exiting recession, when policy is easing and the yield curve is steepening, and in the late innings of an expansion. In fact, productivity is sagging throughout the financial sector. Financial sector employment is probing new highs (Chart 8), reflecting a more onerous cost structure required to meet regulatory obligations. Employment is now growing faster than sales, a reliable indication of flagging productivity. The implication is that financial sector profits will continue to lag those of the broad market. Chart 7Beware Rising Bank Employment Chart 8Sectoral Productivity Drain Bottom Line: Strength in bank stocks is a chance to sell. Is It Time To Buy Back Gold Shares? Gold shares are bouncing after having been punished in the last few months. Overheated technical conditions and prospects for a more hawkish Fed led us to recommend taking profits in August, despite a positive long-term outlook. Indeed, the likelihood of a prolonged period of negative to ultra-low real interest rates is high given startlingly low potential GDP growth in most of the developed world. Gold shares typically do well in the aftermath of a debt binge, as proxied by our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM, shown advanced, Chart 9). It is unnerving that the CHM has suffered such a broad-based deterioration without any back up in interest rates. Low interest rates and tight credit spreads have cushioned what has otherwise been a stark erosion in debt servicing capabilities: there is little scope for a parallel upshift in the global interest rate structure. These are bullish conditions for gold shares, as captured by the upbeat reading in our Cyclical Gold Indicator (Chart 9, top panel). As such, when we took profits we advised that we would look to return to an overweight position once tactical downside risks had been reduced. Are we there yet? Chart 10 suggests that extreme bullishness toward the yellow metal has not yet fully unwound. While the share price ratio has dropped back to its 200-day moving average, cyclical momentum remains elevated, as measured by the 52-week rate of change. Sentiment in the commodity pits is still elevated, flows into gold ETFs are still strong and net speculative positions have not yet made a full retreat (Chart 10), especially in view of the recent politically-motivated pop in market volatility. The implication is that there could be additional selling pressure in the coming weeks. Chart 9Cyclically Appealing, But... Chart 10... Still Tactically Frothy Chart 11The Currency Is Critical In terms of potential buy triggers, anything that causes the U.S. dollar to lose its bid is a strong candidate. Ironically, a Fed rate hike could produce such an outcome, contrary to popular wisdom. In our view, the U.S. (and global) economy cannot handle tighter financial conditions, and a rise in interest rates would need to be offset by a weaker currency. Gold shares perform well when economic expectations are faltering (Chart 11, shown inverted), and a hawkish Fed would likely raise global economic fears. On the flipside, a go-slow Fed could keep the currency bid. That would allow the economy more time to heal and recover, and possibly overheat, thereby potentially boosting future returns on capital, certainly relative to other countries where output gaps remain larger. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on gold stocks, but put them on upgrade alert in recognition that an upgrade back to overweight could occur sooner rather than later, i.e. by yearend, depending on macro dynamics. What To Do With Drug Stocks? A number of drug wholesalers reported earnings misses and provided disappointing guidance, specifically citing worse than expected generic pricing pressure, enough to offset ongoing branded drug price increases. In the current environment of political uncertainty toward health care companies, the knee jerk reaction has been to abandon all pharmaceutical-related equities, regardless of exposure to branded or generic medicines. Our pharmaceutical equity view has noted that the time to worry about the pace of drug price increases would be if they sparked a change in consumption patterns and/or buyer behavior. The fact that major buying groups such as health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers are balking at generic drug price increases constitutes such a shift. Consumer spending on drugs has slowed, albeit that has not been confirmed by neither strong retail drug store sales nor booming hospital employment (Chart 12). Nor is there an unwanted inventory build (Chart 12). Nevertheless, in light of new information, which implies that company-reported pricing pressure is worse than current government data shows, we are downgrading our outlook for drug-related shares. Still, rather than sell after the index has already taken a large hit, pushing relative performance to oversold and undervalued levels (Chart 12), we will await a more opportune moment to lighten positions, especially in view of our preference for defensive equities. Keep in mind that the drug price increases are still well in excess of the overall rate of inflation as branded drug prices continue to rise (Chart 13), and earnings stability should be increasingly desirable as the U.S. dollar climbs. In the meantime, drug-related shares are now on downgrade alert and the overall health care sector is off our high-conviction list. The good news is that other parts of the health care sector should benefit if drug inflation cools. For instance, a reduction in the rate of drug price increases, and in the case of generics, outright price cuts, is a blessing for the S&P managed care industry. Cost inflation had been perking up, but should ease in the coming quarters as drug expenses abate. Health insurance premiums are growing at a faster rate than overall inflation, while job growth remains decent (Chart 14), underscoring that top-line growth is still outpacing that of the overall corporate sector. If cost inflation eases while revenue climbs, the index should move to at least a market multiple from its current discounted valuation. Importantly, technical readings have improved. Chart 12Under The Gun... Chart 13... But Pricing Power Remains Strong Chart 14Celebrating Reduced Cost Inflation Cyclical momentum has begun to reaccelerate from neutral levels after unwinding overbought conditions (Chart 14), suggesting that a breakout to new relative performance highs is in the offing. Bottom Line: The pain in drug-related shares should provide a gain to health care insurers. Stay overweight the S&P managed care index. However, look to lighten the S&P pharmaceutical and biotech indexes on a relative performance bounce in the coming weeks, both are now on downgrade alert. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Special Report

Highlights China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, high-risk behavior among Chinese banks - and not the natural result of the country's high savings rate. Banks do not intermediate savings into credit, and they do not need deposits to lend. Banks create deposits and money by originating loans. A commercial bank is not constrained in loan origination by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) to commercial banks 'on demand'. What habitually drives credit booms are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers. We are initiating a relative China bank equity trade: short listed medium-size banks / long large five banks. Continue shorting the RMB versus the U.S. dollar. Feature For some time, the consensus view has been that rampant credit growth in China and the resulting excesses have been the natural result of the country's high savings rate, particularly among Chinese households. We have long argued differently: abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, high-risk behavior among Chinese banks and other creditors and borrowers. In this vein, China's credit bubble is no different than any other credit bubble in history. Although an adjustment in China might play out differently than it has in other countries where credit excesses became prevalent, China's corporate credit bubble is an imbalance that poses a non-trivial risk to both mainland and global growth (Chart I-1). Chart I-1China's Outstanding Credit Is Large Relative To Global GDP In a nutshell, Chinese banks have not channelled large amounts of household deposits into credit. Without mincing words, it is our view that banks have originated loans literally from "thin air" as banks do in any other country. In turn, credit has boosted spending, income and, consequently, savings. Do Deposits Create Loans, Or Do Loans Create Deposits? It is a widely held view among academics, investors and market commentators - including some of our colleagues here at BCA - that China's enormous credit expansion over the past several years has been a natural outcome of the nation's high savings rate. The argument goes like this: China has a very high savings rate, and it is inherent that household savings flow to banks as deposits. In turn, banks have little choice but to lend out on these deposits. The upshot of this reasoning is as follows: China's abnormally strong credit growth is a consequence of the country's abundant savings rather than an unsustainable excess. This argument hails from the Intermediate Loan Funds (ILF) model, otherwise known as the Loanable Fund Theory. This model suggests that deposits create loans - i.e., banks intermediate deposits into credit. Even though the ILF model is the most widespread theory of banking within academia and in textbooks, it unfortunately has little relevance to real-life banking - i.e., banking systems around the world do not function as the model posits. An alternative but much less recognized theory, the Financing Money Creation (FMC) model, asserts that banks create deposits from "thin air" when they originate a new loan. This is the model that banking systems in almost all countries in the world subscribe to. Indeed, whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart I-2). In other words, bank loans create deposits and money. Chart I-2Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits Herein we cite various papers that discuss this matter and delineate the key points: "Banks do not, as many textbooks still suggest, take deposits of existing money from savers and lend it out to borrowers: they create credit and money ex nihilo - extending a loan to the borrower and simultaneously crediting the borrower's money account" (Turner, 2013). "When banks extend loans, to their customers, they create money by crediting their customer's accounts" (King, 2012). "Based on how monetary policy has been conducted for several decades, banks have always had the ability to expand credit whenever they like. They don't need a pile of "dry tinder" in the form of excess reserves to do so" (Dudley, 2009). "In a closed economy (or the world as a whole), fundamentally, deposits come from only two places: new bank lending and government deficits. Banks create deposits when they create loans." (Sheard, 2013). "Just as taking out a new loan creates money, the repayment of bank loans destroys money" (McLeay, 2014). The papers cited in the bibliography on page 18 elaborate on this topic in depth and readers are encouraged to review this literature. Bottom Line: Banks do not need deposits to lend. They create deposits and money by originating loans. Do Banks Lend Their Reserves At Central Banks? Another misconception about modern banking in general and China's banking system in particular is that banks lend out their excess reserves held at the central bank. Provided that Chinese banks have plenty of required reserves at the People's Bank of China (PBoC), some economists and analysts argue it is a matter of cutting the reserve requirement ratio to free up reserves (liquidity), which will allow banks to boost their loan origination. Again, we cite several papers as well as specific views from central bankers who reject the notion that banks lend out their reserves at the central bank: This comment by William C. Dudley (President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank) states "the Federal Reserve has committed itself to supply sufficient reserves to keep the fed funds rate at its target. If banks want to expand credit and that drives up the demand for reserves, the Fed automatically meets that demand in its conduct of monetary policy. In terms of the ability to expand credit rapidly, it makes no difference whether the banks have lots of excess reserves or not" (Dudley, 2009). "In fact, the level of reserves hardly figures in banks' lending decisions. The amount of credit outstanding is determined by banks' willingness to supply loans, based on perceived risk-return trade-offs, and by the demand for those loans. The aggregate availability of bank reserves does not constrain the expansion directly" (Borio et al., 2009). "While the institutional facts alone provide compelling support for our view, we also demonstrate empirically that the relationships implied by the money multiplier do not exist in the data ... Changes in reserves are unrelated to changes in lending, and open market operations do not have a direct impact on lending. We conclude that the textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected..." (Carpenter et al., 2010). "...reserves are, in normal times, supplied 'on demand' by Bank of England to commercial banks in exchange for other assets on their balance sheets. In no way does the aggregate quantity of reserves directly constrains the amount of bank lending or deposit creation" (McLeay 2014). "Most importantly, banks cannot cause the amount of reserves at the central bank to fall by "lending them out" to customers. Assuming that the public does not change its demand for cash and the government does not make any net payments to the private sector (two things that are both beyond the direct control of the banks and the central bank), bank reserves have to remain "parked" at the central bank" (Sheard, 2013). More detailed analysis on this topic is available in the papers cited in the bibliography on page 18. Bottom Line: Banks do not lend out their reserves at the central bank. A commercial bank is not constrained in loan origination/money creation by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) to commercial banks 'on demand'. Empirical Evidence: Savings Versus Credit This section presents empirical evidence that there is no correlation between national and household savings rates and loan origination. This is true for any country, including China. Credit growth and credit penetration (the credit-to-GDP ratio) have little to do with a country's or with households' savings rates. Chart I-3 illustrates that there has been no correlation between China's national or household savings rates and the credit-to-GDP ratio. China's savings rate was high and rising before 2009, yet the credit bubble formation only commenced in January 2009 when the savings rate topped out. Looking at other countries such as Korea, Taiwan and the U.S., historically we find no correlation between their savings and credit cycles1 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China: Credit And Savings ##br##Are Not Correlated Chart I-4The U.S., Korea And Taiwan:##br## Credit And Savings Are Not Correlated Importantly, a high or rising savings rate does not preclude deleveraging. There were many two- to four-year spans of deleveraging in China when the credit-to-GDP ratio was flat or falling (Chart I-5) - i.e., the growth rate of credit was at or below nominal GDP growth. This occurred despite the country's high and rising savings rate. So, not only is deleveraging not unusual for China but it has also occurred amid a high savings rate. This contradicts the commonly held view that Chinese credit has always expanded faster than nominal GDP because the nation saves a lot. Deleveraging at the current juncture will likely be very painful, because the size of credit flows is enormous and even a moderate and gradual deceleration in credit will produce a major drag on growth. Specifically, the credit impulse - the second derivative of outstanding credit that measures the impact of credit growth on GDP - will be equal to -2.2% of GDP if credit growth moderates from 11.3% now to 7.8% in the next 24 months (Chart I-6). Chart I-5There Were Periods Of ##br##Deleveraging In China Too Chart I-6China's Credit Impulse Will ##br##Likely Be Negative As Chart I-6 also demonstrates, China's credit impulse drives Chinese imports, the most critical variable for the rest of the world. Chart I-7China: A Growth Engine Shift Since 2009 Further, it is possible to argue that vigorous credit growth generates robust income growth. The latter, in turn, allows a nation as a whole and households in particular to save more. If Chinese banks had not originated as many loans since early 2009 as they have, many goods and services in China would not have been produced and sold, and income growth for all companies, households and even government would be much lower. Even if the savings rate were held constant, less income would entail lower absolute amounts of both national and household savings. In short, China's exponential credit growth since 2009 has helped boost both national and household income levels, and in turn the absolute level of their savings. Chart I-7 illustrates that before 2009, mainland economic and income growth were driven by exports, but since early 2009, credit has been instrumental in generating income growth and prosperity. Finally, many analysts rationalize strong loan growth among Chinese banks by their robust deposit growth. This logic is flawed: Chinese banks have substantial deposits on hand because they originate a lot of loans. Bottom Line: China's and any other country's national or household savings rate does not explain swings in credit creation. Banks do not intermediate savings into credit. Rather, banks create deposits and money. What Drives Bank Lending? If a credit boom is not driven by abundant savings, what is the foundation for a credit boom in general, and the one currently underway in China in particular? Loan origination by a bank depends on that bank's willingness to lend, as well as general demand for loans. Also, depending on policy priorities, regulators often try to encourage or limit banks' ability to lend by imposing and adjusting various regulatory ratios. Barring any regulatory constraints, so long as there is demand for loans and a bank is willing to lend, a loan will be originated. Hence, in theory, banks can lend to eternity unless shareholders and regulators constrain them. In the immediate wake of the Lehman crisis, the Chinese authorities encouraged banks to open the credit floodgates. Thus, there was a de facto deregulation in the nation's banking system in early 2009 - policymakers encouraged strong credit origination. The experience of many countries - documented by numerous academic papers on this topic - has demonstrated that banking sector deregulation typically leads to excessive risk-taking by banks, and abnormal credit growth. These episodes have not ended well, with multi-year workouts following in their wake. By and large, a credit boom often occurs when risk-taking by banks surges and shareholders and regulators do not constrain them. This has been no different in China - the credit boom since 2009 has been powered by speculative and excessive risk-taking among banks and their management teams in particular, amid complacency of regulators and shareholders. Bottom Line: What habitually drives excessive credit creation are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers. Banks' and borrowers' speculative behavior and reckless risk-taking typically degenerates into a credit boom that often ends in an economic and financial downturn. It has been no different in China. What Constrains Bank Lending? The following factors can limit bank credit origination: Monetary policy can limit credit growth via raising interest rates, which dampens loan demand. Also, banks can become more risk averse when interest rates rise as they downgrade creditworthiness of current and prospective borrowers. Government regulations can impose various restrictions on banks, restraining their risk-taking and ability to originate infinite amounts of credit. In China, to limit banks' ability to lend, regulators have imposed several mandatory ratios on commercial banks, and also practice 'Window Guidance'. First, the capital adequacy ratio (CAR=net capital / risk-weighted assets). This ratio limits banks' ability to originate infinite amounts of loans by imposing a minimum level CAR. In China, most banks comply comfortably with CAR. The CAR for the entire commercial banking system is currently 13.1%. While the minimum requirement is 8%. The caveat is that in China, banks' equity capital is nowadays considerably inflated because they have not provisioned for non-performing loans (NPLs). If banks were to fully provision for NPLs, their equity capital would shrink significantly, and they would probably not meet the minimum CAR. Table I-1 shows that in a scenario of 12.5% NPL ratio for banks' claims on companies and zero NPL on household loans and mortgages as well as a 20% recovery rate, a full provisioning by banks would erode 65% of their equity. In this scenario, the CAR ratio would drop a lot - probably below the required minimum of 8% and banks would be forced to raise new equity (dilute existing shareholders) or shrink their balance sheets - or a combination of both. Table I-1China: NPL Scenarios And Banks' Equity Capital Impairment Second, the leverage ratio - computed as net Tier-1 capital divided by on- and off-balance-sheet assets. According to government regulation, this ratio should be at least 4%. As of June 30, 2016, the leverage ratio for the entire commercial banking system was 6.4%, comfortably above its floor. Nevertheless, as with CAR, the leverage ratio is overstated at the moment because the numerator - net Tier-1 equity capital - is artificially inflated, as it is not adjusted for realistic levels of NPLs, as discussed above. If 65% of equity is eroded due to sensible loan-loss provisioning and write-offs (as per Table 1), the leverage ratio would drop to about 2.3%, below the required minimum of 4%. Hence, banks would need to raise new equity (dilute existing shareholders), shrink their balance sheets or do a combination of both. Equity dilution is bearish for bank stocks and, if and as banks moderate their assets/loan growth, the economy will suffer. Third, regulatory 'Window Guidance' is implemented through PBoC recommendations to banks on their annual and quarterly credit ceilings, and on their credit structures. There is no official disclosure of this measure, and it is done between the PBoC, the Chinese Banking Regulatory commission (CBRC) and banks' management. In recent years, the efficiency of 'Window Guidance' has declined dramatically. Banks have defied bank regulators' efforts to rein in credit growth by finding loopholes in regulations. What's more, they have de facto exceeded credit origination limits by moving credit risk off their balance sheets and classifying it differently than loans. The result has been mushrooming Non-Standard Credit Assets (NSCA). Table I-2 reveals that on- and off-balance-sheet NSCA stand at RMB 10 trillion and RMB 19 trillion, respectively. Furthermore, banks have lately expanded their lending to non-depositary financial organizations that include trust companies, financial leasing companies, auto financing companies and loan companies (Chart I-8). This has probably been done to circumvent government regulations. Hence, Chinese banks have taken on much more credit risk than regulators have wanted them to by reclassifying/renaming loans as NSCA, and parking these assets both on- and off-balance-sheet. Table I-2China: Five Largest Banks Hold ##br##Only 40% Of Credit Assets Chart I-8Non-Bank Financial Organizations##br## Are On A Borrowing Spree From Banks In short, regulatory measures in China have not been effective at restraining credit growth in recent years. Bank shareholders are the biggest losers when banks expand credit uncontrollably, and then their default rates rise. The reason being that banking is a business built on leverage. For example, if a bank's assets-to-equity ratio is 10 and 10% of assets go bad (default with no recovery), shareholders' equity will completely evaporate - i.e., they will lose their entire investment. Hence, it is in the best interests of bank shareholders to halt a credit expansion when they sense deteriorating credit quality ahead. Doing so will hurt the economy, but limit their losses. Why have shareholders of Chinese banks not stepped in to curb the credit boom and misallocation of capital? We believe they have either been satisfied with such a massive credit expansion, which has initially driven shareholder returns up, or weak institutional shareholder mechanisms have meant they have been unable to enforce credit discipline on their banks. All in all, if China's or any other credit system is driven by the principals of capitalism and markets, creditors are the ones who should curtail credit growth - regardless of what impact it will have on the economy. If a country's credit system in general and banks in particular do not operate on principals of capitalism and markets, banks can expand credit infinitely, thereby perpetuating capital misallocation and raising inefficiency, leading to stagnating productivity - in other words, a move to a more socialist bend. Only in a socialist system do banks expand their credit portfolios in perpetuity, since they are not run to maximize wealth for shareholders. On a related note, there is another misconception that all Chinese banks are state-owned and the government will be fast to bail them out by buying bad assets at par. Table I-3 illustrates the ownership structure of 16 Chinese banks listed the A-share market, including the large ones. The state (central and local governments) and SOEs have a large but not 100% ownership stake. In fact, foreign investors have considerable equity shares in many banks. Table I-3Chinese Banks: Shareholder Structure Is Diverse Hence, a government bail-out of these banks at no cost to shareholders would mean the Chinese government is using taxpayer money to benefit domestic private as well as foreign shareholders. Given the considerable amounts involved, this will be politically difficult to achieve unless the benefits of doing so are explicitly greater than the costs of doing nothing. Chart I-9Commercial Banks Are On ##br##Borrowing Spree From PBoC We are not implying that a government bailout is impossible. Our point is that it will take material pain and considerable deterioration in the economy and financial markets before the central government bails out banks at no cost to other shareholders. No wonder the authorities have not recapitalized the banks so far. In the long run, if the Chinese government is serious about improving the credit/capital allocation process, it has to allow market forces to take hold so that creditors and debtors are not bailed out but instead assume financial responsibility for their decisions. This means short-term pain but long-term gain. The lack of demand for credit is an important constraint on credit origination. If there are no borrowers, banks will have a hard time making a sizable amount of loans. Liquidity constraints also limit banks' ability to expand their assets. Let's consider an example when liquidity constraints arise. Bank A originates a loan, and Borrower A wants to transfer money to its Supplier B, which has an account at Bank B. In theory, Bank A should reduce its excess reserves at the central bank by transferring money to Bank B's reserve account at the central bank. However, if too many borrowers of Bank A try to transfer their money/deposits to other banks, Bank A will run into liquidity constraints as its excess reserves dry up. In such a case, Bank A should borrow money from the central bank or the interbank market to replenish its excess reserves. Provided many G7 central banks are nowadays committed to supplying as much liquidity (reserves) as banks require, in these countries banks do not really face liquidity constraints in lending. The focus of advanced countries' central banks is to control short-term interest rates - i.e., they manage liquidity in a way to keep policy rates at the target. In the case of China, even though the PBoC has a high required reserves ratio (RRR) for banks, it apparently supplies commercial banks with whatever amounts of liquidity they require. Chart I-9 reveals that the PBoC's claims on commercial banks have surged by fivefold in the past three years. Given the Chinese monetary authorities have in the recent years been very generous in meeting banks' demands for liquidity, the high RRR has not constrained mainland banks' ability to originate loans. This contradicts some analysts' assertions that the PBoC can boost lending by cutting the RRR. As the PBoC presently fully accommodates banks' demands for liquidity, the significance and impact of required reserves has declined. On the whole, nowadays, commercial banks in China are not facing liquidity (reserves) constraints to expand credit. High debt servicing costs could constrain bank lending. Are there limits to the credit-to-GDP ratio? It is illustrative to consider a numerical example for China. Corporate and household debt presently stands at 220% of GDP and, according to Bank of Intentional Settlement (BIS) calculations, debt servicing costs (including interest payments and amortization) account for around 20% of disposable income (Chart I-10). If credit indefinitely expands at a rate well above nominal GDP growth (Chart I-11) and interest rates do not decline, debt servicing costs will rise substantially. For example, let's assume that mainland corporate and consumer leverage reaches 400% of GDP in the next several years. If and when this happens, debt servicing costs could double, approaching 40% of income assuming constant interest rates and debt maturity. Chart I-10China's Corporate And Household##br## Credit: The Sky'S The Limit? Chart I-11Will Credit Growth Slow Toward##br## Nominal GDP Growth? No debtor can continue to function under such debt burden. Hence, debtors will have to cut their spending (for companies it will be a reduction in capex budgets) or these debtors will need to borrow to pay interest and retire old debt. In short, this becomes an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, where debtors borrow to service their debt obligations. Anecdotal evidence suggests this is not rare in China nowadays. One way the authorities could reduce debt servicing is to cut interest rates to zero and lengthen the maturity of debt. This is what many advanced economies have done. If Chinese credit penetration does not stop rising, the PBoC will be forced to cut rates to close to zero. This in turn will lead to large capital outflows, and the RMB will depreciate versus the U.S. dollar. Bottom Line: The following factors can restrain bank credit origination: monetary policy (higher interest rates), government regulations, bank shareholders, lack of credit demand, liquidity constraints and high debt servicing costs. Investment Implications Chart I-12Short Small Banks / Long Large##br## Banks In China If banks' shareholders and other creditors in China act in accordance with their self-interests to preserve the value of their assets, they will have to reduce credit origination/lending. As a result, China will experience an acute economic downturn. This would constitute a capitalist-type adjustment, which in turn will lead to more efficiency, solid productivity growth, and reasonably high economic growth over the long term. However, it will also mean significant short-term pain. If the government bails out everyone, underwrites all credit risks, and gets even more involved in capital/credit allocation, the economy will not experience an acute slump for a while. However, this would represent a shift toward socialism and the potential growth rate will collapse in the next several years. With the labor force stagnating and probably contracting in the years ahead, China's potential growth will be equal to its productivity growth. In socialism, productivity growth is low, often close to zero. The growth trajectory in this scenario will follow mini-cycles around a rapidly falling potential growth rate. In brief, China's growth rate is bound to slow further, regardless of what scenario plays out over the next several years. Today, we are initiating a relative China bank equity trade: short listed small- and medium-size banks / long large five banks in the A-share market (Chart I-12). There has been more speculative high-risk lending from the small- and medium-size banks than the large ones. As we documented in our June 15, 2016 Special Report titled Chinese Banks' Ominous Shadow,2 the largest five banks have fewer non-standard credit assets than medium and small banks. If 12.5% of banks' claims on companies turn sour and the recovery rate is 20%, 100% of the equity of 11 listed small- and medium-sized banks will be wiped out. The same number for the large five banks is 42%. Hence, these 11 listed small- and medium-sized banks are more exposed to bad loans than the large five. Finally, mushrooming leverage entails that the monetary authorities should reduce interest rates drastically. However, lower interest rates will spur more capital outflows from the mainland. Hence, the RMB is set to depreciate further. We have been shorting the RMB versus the U.S. dollar since December 9, 2015, and this position remains intact. 1 We discussed this at length in Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China: Imbalances And Policy Options", dated June 12, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Chinese Banks' Ominious Shadow", June 15, 2016, link available on page 22. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com Bibliography Borio, C. and Disyatat, P. (2009), "Unconventional Monetary Policy: An Appraisal", BIS Working Papers, No. 292, November 2009. Carpenter, S. and Demiralp, S. (2010),"Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?", Finance and Economics Discussion Series, No. 2010-41, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Board Dudley, W. (2009), "The Economic Outlook and the Fed's Balance Sheet: The Issue of "How" versus "When"", Remarks at the Association for a Better New York Breakfast Meeting, available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2009/dud090729.html Jakad, Z. and Kumhof, M. (2015), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", Bank of England, Working Paper 529, May 2015 King, M. (2012), Speech to the South Wales Chamber of Commerce at the Millenium Centre, Cardiff, October 23. Ma, G., Xiandong, Y. and Xim L. (2011), "China's evolving reserve requirements", BIS Working Papers, No. 360, November 2011. Turner, A. (2013), "Credit, Money and Leverage", September 12. Sheard, Paul (2013), "Repeat After Me: Banks Cannot And Do Not 'Lent Out' Reserves", Standard & Poor's Rating Services, August 2013, New York Werner, R. (2014b), "How Do Banks Create Money, and Why Can Other Firms Not Do the Same?", International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 71-77. See King (2012), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", pp. 6, cited in Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof, Bank of England Working Paper 529, May 2015. See Dudley (2009), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", pp. 13, cited in Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof, Bank of England Working Paper 529, May 2015. See Carpenter and Demiralp (2010), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", pp. 13, cited in Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof, Bank of England Working Paper 529, May 2015. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights When interest rates are ultra-low, central banks have no margin for policy error. A small loosening or tightening has the potential to produce either a stall or catastrophic turbulence. The analogy is flying a plane at high altitude. Bond investors should have a strong preference for U.S. T-bonds over German bunds (currency hedged). Currency investors should prefer the euro over the dollar. For equity investors, valuations do not appear structurally attractive anywhere, once a sufficient equity risk premium is factored in. But a setback in the region of 5-10% could create a tactical entry point. Feature As the ECB Governing Council convenes for its October monetary policy meeting, an experience familiar to pilots1 provides a perfect analogy for central banks' very limited margin for error. Pilots call the experience "flying in coffin corner." Chart of the WeekUnusually High Turbulence For The German 30-Year Bund Next time you're in a plane climbing to 35,000 feet, here's something to think about; or perhaps, not to think about. As the plane gains altitude, its stall speed increases while its upper speed limit simultaneously decreases. For the pilot, this means less and less margin for error (Figure I-1). The plane's stall speed is the minimum speed to generate sufficient lift. At higher altitude, as the air gets thinner, the stall speed increases. Meanwhile, the plane's upper speed limit is set by the speed of sound. Airliners cannot fly too close to the speed of sound because the sonic shockwave produces violent and catastrophic turbulence. At higher altitude, as the air temperature drops, so does the speed of sound. Which means the plane's upper speed limit decreases. By the time the plane has reached the rarefied atmosphere of 35,000 feet, these lower and upper speed limits are barely 25 knots (30mph) apart,2 leaving almost no room for flight data misinterpretation or pilot error.3 Hence, at high altitude pilots morbidly say they are "flying in coffin corner." Analogously, in the rarefied atmosphere of zero or near-zero interest rates, central bank policy is also in coffin corner. When short-term and long-term interest rates approach the zero bound, there is no room for economic data misinterpretation or policy error. A small loosening or tightening of monetary policy has the potential to produce either a stall or catastrophic turbulence (Figure I-2 and Chart of the Week). Figure I-1Flying At High Altitude ##br## Has No Margin For Error Figure I-2Monetary Policy At Ultra-Low Rates ##br##Has No Margin For Error Avoiding A Stall At today's zero or near-zero interest rates in the euro area, a small loosening of monetary policy risks stalling the banking system, and thereby stalling the economy. A bank's core business is simple. Take in deposits, and lend them out at a higher interest rate than the deposit-rate - with the difference in the two defining the bank's net interest margin. A part of the net interest margin is a compensation for the risk of non-performing loans. This should be profit-neutral if correctly priced. The other large part of the net interest margin comes from the interest rate term-structure, as loans tend to be long-term while deposits are short-term. Hence, all else being equal, the bank's profitability suffers as the term-structure flattens. For a while, the bank can protect its profitability by cutting the interest rate paid on short-term deposits to well below the policy rate. However, once the policy rate hits zero, this profit-protection strategy hits a wall - because a negative deposit rate would risk an exodus of deposits into cash or cash-substitutes. Alternatively, the bank could charge a higher rate to borrowers, but this would tighten credit conditions. The third possibility is for the bank to suffer a hit to its already-thin net lending margin, but this would also tighten credit conditions. The pressure on the bank's profitability and share price would increase the cost of equity, making it harder to raise capital (Chart I-2). Given that an insufficient capital buffer is a major constraint to euro area bank lending, this would be a de facto tightening of credit conditions. The paradox is that at the zero bound, the smallest additional monetary loosening - via interest rate cuts or QE - risks stalling euro area bank credit creation (Chart I-3). Thereby it risks stalling economic growth. Chart I-2The ECB's QE Has Hurt Bank Valuations Chart I-3The Interplay Between Bank Profits And Bank Credit Creation Avoiding Violent Turbulence An extended period of ultra-low interest rates, and a commitment to keep them structurally low, has compressed the yields on government bonds pushing up their prices. As competing asset classes, the prices of corporate bonds and equities have also increased. This phenomenon is called the Portfolio Balance Effect. The big problem is that the prices of riskier assets have increased by more than is justified by the portfolio balance effect alone. This distortion is the result of a behavioural finance phenomenon called Mental Accounting Bias. Mental Accounting Bias describes the irrational distinction between the return from an investment's yield and that from its capital growth. The distinction is irrational because the money that comes from yield and the money that comes from capital growth is perfectly fungible.4 Rationally, what should matter is an investment's total return. But psychologically, the distinction between yield and capital is very stark. Fears about self-control cause people to compartmentalise yield as spending money and capital as saving money. Hence, people who want their investments to generate spending money - say, retirees - have an irrational focus on yield. Traditionally, the safe income from cash and government bonds satiates the people who irrationally focus on yield. However, in recent years, central banks' extended experiments with ZIRP, NIRP and QE have forced these yield-focussed investors out of cash and government bonds into risky investments. And just like every distortion, this phenomenon has generated memes to justify the act: 'reach for yield', 'search for yield', and 'there is no alternative' (TINA). But the irrational focus on yield instead of total return has artificially bid up the prices of risky investments. To the point that they no longer offer a sufficient risk premium5 for the very real possibility of substantial losses over a 5-10 year horizon (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). The unfortunate thing is that as central bankers have little expertise in psychology or behavioural finance, they have been blind to the very dangerous behavioural distortion that their monetary policy experiments have unwittingly unleashed. Chart I-4A Positive Yield On Equities##br## Can Produce A Negative 5-Year Return... Chart I-5...And Even A Negative ##br##10-Year Return The risk is that the smallest monetary tightening could trigger an aggressive unwinding of this behavioural distortion. Recall the violent turbulence in global financial markets at the start of the year after just one 25bps rate hike from the Federal Reserve. Now consider what might happen if the Fed hiked again and the ECB simultaneously announced a rapid tapering of its QE program. How Must The Pilots Fly? In a rarefied atmosphere, pilots have very little margin to alter speed without inducing a stall or violent turbulence. The same applies to central banks today. The ECB has the hardest piloting task. It is becoming difficult to justify the current aggressive pace of QE given the danger of stalling the euro area banking system; and given that the euro area's nominal GDP and nominal wage bill are both growing at a very respectable 3% (Chart I-6). But an abrupt end to the ECB's QE could create violent turbulence in QE-distorted financial markets. Chart I-6What Deflation Threat? Euro Area Nominal GDP And The Wage Bill Growing At 3% Hence, the ECB's best course of action is to hint at a very gradual deceleration of QE to start at some point in the second half of 2017. Turning to developed economy central banks in general, we remind readers of a very powerful observation. Since 2008, no major central bank has been able to hike interest rates by more than 1.75%. And every central bank that has hiked rates has had to start unwinding those hikes within a year, ultimately taking the policy rate to a new all-time low (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7Since 2008, All Rate Hikes ##br##Have Been Quickly Reversed Chart I-8Will The U.S. Be ##br##Any Different? No Given the turbulence that rate hikes will generate in the financial markets and/or the economy, we fully expect the Federal Reserve to go through exactly the same experience. The important upshot is that global central bank policy through 2017-18 will be considerably less divergent than is discounted. Bond yields could creep higher in the short term. But on a 1-year horizon, bond investors should have a strong preference for U.S. T-bonds over euro area bonds, and especially over German bunds (currency hedged). Over the same horizon, currency investors should prefer the euro over the dollar. For equity investors, valuations do not appear structurally attractive anywhere once a sufficient equity risk premium is factored in. Moreover, the potential for ECB QE-tapering combined with expectations for a Fed rate hike could generate some near-term turbulence. That said, a setback in the region of 5-10% could create an excellent entry point for a 3-month trade. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. Last week's long silver/short lead pair trade has bounced sharply. And the short U.K. A-rated corporate bonds trade has achieved its 4% profit target. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. 1 Your author is a former pilot in the Royal Air Force reserve. 2 For an Airbus A330. 3 Tragically, a combination of flight data misinterpretation and pilot error at 35,000 feet was disastrous for Air France flight AF447 flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in June 2009. Going through a storm, the airspeed indicator started giving a false reading and the pilot took the wrong corrective action, resulting in a catastrophic stall. 4 Assuming no difference in tax treatment of income and capital gains. 5 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Great Distortion... And How It will End" dated September 15, 2016 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights EM tech stocks are overbought while banks are fundamentally vulnerable due to bad-loan overhang. EM stocks have never decoupled from the U.S. dollar and commodities prices. There has been no recovery in EM corporate profitability and EPS. We reiterate two equity trades: short EM banks / long U.S. banks, and short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders. Upgrade Thai stocks to overweight within the EM equity benchmark and go long THB versus KRW. Feature Our Reflation Confirming Indicator - an equal-weighted aggregate of platinum prices (a proxy for global reflation), industrial metals prices (a proxy for China growth) and U.S. lumber prices (a proxy for U.S. reflation) - has decisively rolled over, and is spelling trouble for emerging market (EM) equities (Chart I-1). In particular, platinum prices have relapsed after hitting a major resistance at their 800-day moving average (Chart I-2). Such a technical pattern often leads to new lows. If so, it could presage a major selloff in EM markets in the months ahead. Chart I-1A Red Flag From ##br##Reflation Confirming Indicator Chart I-2Platinum: A Canary##br## In A Coal Mine? The rationale behind using platinum rather than gold or silver prices is because platinum is a precious metal that also has industrial uses. Besides, we have found that platinum prices correlate with EM stocks better than gold or silver. The latter two sometimes rally due to global demand for safety, even as EM markets tank. Finally, platinum seems to be the most high-beta precious metal in the sense that it "catches a cold" sooner and, thus, might be leading other reflationary plays. In short, EM share prices have been flat since August 15, and odds are that they are topping out and the next large move will be to the downside. Can EM De-Couple From The U.S. Dollar? Many investors are asking whether EM risk assets can rally if the greenback continues to rebound. Chart I-3 illustrates that since the early 1980s, there have been no periods when EM share prices rallied amid strength in the real broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar (the dollar is shown inverted on this and the proceeding charts). The same holds true if one uses the nominal narrow trade-weighted U.S. dollar1 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Real Trade-Weighted ##br##U.S. Dollar And EM Stocks Chart I-4Nominal Trade-Weighted ##br##U.S. Dollar And EM Stocks One could disregard these charts and argue that this time around is different. We don't quite see it that way. Chart I-5Nominal Trade-Weighted ##br##U.S. Dollar And Commodities Notably, the narrative behind the EM rally since February's lows has been based on the Federal Reserve backing off from rate hikes and the U.S. dollar weakening - with the latter propelling a rally in commodities prices. These arguments appear to be reversing: the U.S. dollar is already firming up and commodities prices are at best mixed. The broad index for commodities prices always drops when the U.S. dollar rallies (Chart I-5). In recent months, the advance in commodities prices has been uneven and narrow based. While oil prices have spiked substantially, industrial metals prices have advanced very little. The current oil price rally is proving a bit more durable and lasting than we thought a few months ago. Nevertheless, China's apparent consumption of petroleum products is beginning to contract (Chart I-6). Consequently, resurfacing worries about EM/China's demand for commodities will lead to a meaningful pullback in crude prices in the months ahead, especially since the likelihood that oil producers act to restrain supply at the current prices is very low. As for commodities trading in China such as steel, iron ore, rubber, plate glass and others, they have been on a roller-coaster ride in recent months (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China's Demand For Oil Products Is Very Weak Chart I-7Commodities Prices In China Bottom Line: There are reasonably high odds that as the U.S. dollar strengthens and commodities prices roll over, EM risk assets (stocks, currencies and credit markets) will start to relapse. EM Beyond Commodities: Still Shrinking Profits Table I-1EM Sectors Weights: In 2011 And Now Another question that many investors have been asking is as follows: Is there not a positive story in EM beyond commodities? Given that the weight of the EM equity market benchmark in commodities stocks - energy and materials - has drastically declined in recent years, from 29.2% in 2011 to 13.7% now (Table I-1), and the weight in technology stocks has risen substantially (from 12.9% in 2011 to 23.9% now), couldn't non-commodities stocks drive the index higher? In this regard, we have the following observations: Information technology stocks are overbought. The EM information technology equity index has surged to its previous highs (Chart I-8, top panel). This sector is dominated by five companies that have a very large weight also in the overall EM benchmark: Samsung (3.6% weight in the EM equity benchmark), TMSC (3.5%), Alibaba (2.9%), Hon Hai Precision (1%) and Tencent (3.8%). Their share price performance has been spectacular, and some of them have gone ballistic (Chart I-9). TMSC and to a lesser extent Samsung have benefited from the rising prices of semiconductors (Chart I-9, second panel from top). However, it is not assured that semiconductor prices will continue soaring from these levels as global aggregate demand remains very weak. In short, the outlook for semi stocks is by and large a semiconductor industry call, not a macro one. As for Alibaba and Tencent, they are bottom-up stories - not macro bets at all. At the macro level, we reassert that EM/China demand for technology goods and services as well as for health care will stay robust. Hence, from a revenue perspective, technology and health care companies will outperform other EM sectors. This still warrants an overweight allocation to technology and health care stocks, a recommendation that we have had in place since June 2010 (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Odds are that tech outperformance will persist, but we are not sure about absolute performance, given overbought conditions and not-so-cheap valuations. Excluding information technology, the EM benchmark is somewhat weaker (Chart I-10). Chart I-8EM Technology Stocks: Sky Is Limit? Chart I-9Individual Tech Names Are Overbought Chart I-10EM Equities: Overall And Excluding Tech There is no improvement in EM corporate profitability The return on equity (RoE) for EM non-financial listed companies has stabilized at very low levels, but it has not improved at all (Chart I-11, top panel). The reason we use non-financials' RoE rather than overall RoE is because in EM the latter is artificially inflated at the moment, as banks are originating a lot of new loans but are not sufficiently provisioning for bad loans. Among the three components of non-financials RoE, net profit margins have stabilized but asset turnover is falling and leverage continues to mushroom (Chart I-11, bottom two panels). Remarkably, the relative performance between EM and U.S. stocks has historically been driven by relative RoE. When non-financial RoE in EM is above that of the U.S., EM stocks outperform U.S. ones, and vice-versa (Chart I-12). This relationships argues for EM stocks underperformance versus the S&P 500. Chart I-11EM Non-Financials: ##br##RoE And Its Components Chart I-12EM Versus U.S.: ##br##Relative RoE And Share Prices Overall EM EPS is still contracting in both local currency and U.S. dollar terms (Chart I-13). Even though the rate of contraction is easing for EPS in U.S. dollar terms, it is due to EM exchange rate appreciation versus the greenback this year. Furthermore, EPS in U.S. dollars is contracting in a majority of non-commodities sectors (Chart I-13A, Chart I-13B). The exceptions are utilities and industrials, which both exhibit strong EPS growth despite poor share price performance. The latter could be a sign that strong industrials and utilities EPS have been due to temporary factors and are not sustainable. Chart I-13AEM EPS Growth: Overall And By Sector Chart I-13BEM EPS Growth: Overall And By Sector Banks hold the key. Apart from commodities/the U.S. dollar and tech stocks, EM banks' share prices are probably the most important precursor to the direction of the overall EM benchmark. Financials are the second-largest sector in the EM equity benchmark (26.4% weight), so if bank share prices break down, the broader EM index will likely relapse. Our analysis of bank health in various EM countries leads us to believe that banks are under-provisioned for non-performing loans (NPL) (Chart I-14A, Chart I-14B). As EM growth disappointments resurface, investors will question the quality of banks' balance sheets and push down bank equity valuation. Hence, odds are bank share prices will drop sooner than later. Chart I-14AEM NPLs Are Unrecognized ##br##And Under-Provisioned Chart I-14BEM NPLs Are Unrecognized ##br##And Under-Provisioned In turn, concerns about EM banks will heighten doubts about overall EM growth and the EM equity benchmark will sell off. Bottom Line: EM tech stocks are overbought, while banks are fundamentally vulnerable due to the bad-loan overhang. As commodities prices relapse anew and worries about the EM credit cycle resurface, the EM benchmark will drop considerably. An Update On Two Relative Equity Trades We reiterate two relative equity trades: short EM banks / long U.S. banks, and short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders. For investors who do not have these positions, now is a good time to initiate them. Short EM banks / long U.S. banks (Chart I-15). The credit cycle in EM/China will undergo a further downturn: credit growth is set to decelerate as banks recognize NPLs and seek to raise capital. Even if a crisis is avoided, the need to raise substantial amounts of equity will considerably erode the value of EM bank shares. Meanwhile, risks to U.S. banks such as a flat yield curve and a possible spillover effect from European banking tremors are considerably less severe than the problems faced by EM banks. Importantly, unlike EM banks, U.S. banks' balance sheets are very healthy. Short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Stay Short EM Banks##br## Versus U.S. Banks Chart I-16Stay Short Chinese Property ##br##Developers Versus U.S. Homebuilders Chinese property developers are on the verge of another downturn, as the authorities have tightened policy surrounding housing. Residential and non-residential property sales have boomed in the past 12 months, but starts have been less robust (Chart I-17). The upshot could still be high shadow inventories. Going forward, as speculative demand for housing cools off, property developers' chronic malaise - high leverage and lack of cash flow - will come back to play. Remarkably, property stocks trading in Hong Kong have failed to break out amid the buoyant residential market frenzy in the past 12 months, and are likely to break down as demand growth falters in the coming months (Chart I-18). Chart I-17China's Real Estate: ##br##Sales And Starts Will Contract Chart I-18Chinese Property Developers: ##br##On A Verge Of Breakdown? Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Thailand: Upgrade Stocks To Overweight And Go Long THB Versus KRW The death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej marks the end of an era not only because he symbolized national unity but also because his entire generation is passing. This generational shift has far-reaching consequences for Thailand's political establishment: in the long run it could hurt the Thai military's - and its allies' - attempt to cement their dominance over parliament. However, as Box II-1 (on page 17) explains, there is a low probability of serious domestic instability over the next 12 months2 - although beyond that risks will be heating up. For now, the military junta faces no major political or economic constraints: The junta has already consolidated control over all major organs of government and has purged or intimidated political enemies. The military will have to turn power back to parliament, or make a major policy mistake, for the opposition movement to rise again. The government's fiscal deficit has been stable (around 3% of GDP) over the past few years, public debt is at 33% of GDP, government bond yields are low and debt servicing costs are at 5% of total expenditures (Chart II-1). Hence, the military government can ramp up expenditures further to appease the disaffected. Indeed, the military junta has already accelerated public capital expenditures (Chart II-2) and investments have poured into the Northeast, a populous base of opposition to the junta. Chart II-1Thailand: More Room ##br##For Fiscal Stimulus Chart II-2Thailand: Government ##br##Capex Has Been Booming Likewise, fiscal expenditure has also accelerated in areas such as general public services, defense, and social protection (Chart II-3). Additionally, the Bank of Thailand (BoT) has scope to cut interest rates as the policy rate is still above a very low inflation rate (Chart II-4). This will limit the downside for credit growth and contribute to economic and political stability. Chart II-3Rising Public Spending Chart II-4Thailand: No Inflation; Room To Cut Rates The large current account surplus - standing at 11% of GDP - provides the authorities with plenty of fiscal and monetary maneuverability without having to worry about a major depreciation in the Thai baht (Chart II-5). Amid this sensitive political transition, the central bank will likely defend the currency if downward pressure on the baht emerges due to U.S. dollar strength. Therefore, we recommend traders to go long the Thai baht versus the Korean won (Chart II-6). Despite Korea's enormous current account, the won is at risk from depreciation in the RMB and the Japanese yen. Chart II-5Enormous Current Account ##br##Surplus Will Support The Baht Chart II-6Go Long THB Against KRW On the whole, although the Thai economy has been stagnant (Chart II-7), fiscal spending and low interest rates will limit the downside in growth. Bottom Line: We expect relative calm on the political surface in Thailand over the next 12 months and a stable macro backdrop. Therefore, we are using the latest weakness to upgrade this bourse from neutral to overweight within an EM equity portfolio (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Thai Growth Has Been Stagnant Chart II-8Upgrade Thai Stocks ##br##From Neutral To Overweight In addition, currency traders should go long THB versus KRW. Ayman Kawtharani, Research Analyst aymank@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com BOX 1 The Military Coup In 2014 Pre-empted The King's Death... The May 2014 military coup was timed to pre-empt this event. The king's health had been declining for years and it was only a matter of time until he died. This raised the prospect of an intense political struggle that could have escalated into a full-blown succession crisis. Thus the military moved preemptively so that it would be in control of the country ahead of the king's death and could reshape the constitutional system in the military's favor before his death, as it has done. ... And This Means Stability For Now If the populist, anti-royalist faction had been in control of government at the time of the king's death, it could have attempted to manipulate the less popular new king and take advantage of the vacuum of royal authority in order to reduce the role of the military and their allies. That in turn could have sparked a wave of mass protests from royalists, pressuring the government to collapse, or a military coup that would not have carried the king's implicit approval like the 2014 coup. That would have fed the narrative that a final showdown between the factions was finally emerging, and would have been highly alarming to foreign investors. But Risks Still Linger Make no mistake: a new long-term cycle of political instability is now emerging. Potential military mistakes and the return to parliamentary rule are potential dangers. The country's deep divisions - between (1) the Bangkok-centered royalist bureaucratic and military establishment and (2) the provincial opposition -have not been healed but aggravated since the 2014 coup and the new pro-military constitution: The junta's constitutional and electoral reforms will weaken the representation of the largest opposition party, the Pheu Thai Party, and will marginalize a large share of the 65% of the country's population that lives in the opposition-sympathetic provinces. It is also conceivable that the new king could trigger conflict by lending support to the populist opposition. For instance, he could pardon the exiled leader of the rural opposition movement, or he could transform the powerful Privy Council. However, we do not expect discontent to flare up significantly until late 2017 or 2018 when the military steps back and a new election cycle begins.3 We will reassess and alert investors if we foresee a rapid deterioration in the palace-military network, or in the military's ability to prevent seething resistance in the provinces. 1 The narrow U.S. dollar is a trade-weighted exchange rate versus the euro, Canadian dollar, Japanese yen, British pound, Swiss franc, Australian dollar, and Swedish krona. Source: The Federal Reserve. 2 The exception is that isolated acts of terrorism remain likely and could well strike key areas in Bangkok, signaling the reality that the underground opposition to military dictatorship remains alive and well. 3 The junta will use the one-year national period of mourning to its advantage and opposition forces will not want to be targeted for causing any trouble during a time of mourning. The junta could very easily delay the transition to nominal civilian rule, including the elections slated for November 2017. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

When earnings growth negatively diverges from GDP growth, the gap rarely closes <i>via</i> a rebound in profit growth. The most notable feature of prior episodes is weak corporate pricing power and the current period is no different; an ongoing profit margin squeeze means earnings in the next few months risk being a disappointment.

Deutsche Bank's woes highlight a much wider malaise within European banks: under-capitalisation and under-profitability. We explain why getting the banks right is crucial to a successful investment strategy in equity, bond and currency markets.

U.S. bank stocks have been joined at the hip with the expected 12-month change in the Fed funds rate since 2014, based on the notion that a rate hike will boost net interest margins. However, even if the Fed hikes rates, that may do little to help bank profits. The lesson from the dismal performance of Japanese bank stocks in their era of extraordinarily low interest rates is that outperformance has only occurred within the context of a steepening yield curve. We place low odds on a steepening in the U.S. yield curve if the Fed raises interest rates, given the softening in leading economic and employment indicators, not to mention the anchoring of U.S. long-term Treasurys by the shortage of global government bonds. Instead, an end to the long-term U.S. bank share underperformance phase requires broad-based economic reacceleration that drives an upturn in credit growth, stabilization in deteriorating credit quality and steeper yield curve. Until then, stay underweight and please see yesterday's Special Report on bank stocks for more details.