China
Highlights The U.S. and China have a roughly 60-day period to prevent the current trade "skirmish" from metastasizing into a full-blown trade war; The revised U.S.-Korea trade deal suggests that Trump's trade negotiators are credible and are targeting China, not U.S. allies; The U.S. will demand that China's recent RMB appreciation is backed by a long-term reduction in foreign exchange intervention; Tariff reciprocity is not significant, but market access and investment reciprocity are; China will offer concessions first, and will only go to a trade war if Trump imposes sweeping tariffs anyway; Short Chinese technology stocks; remain short China-exposed S&P500 stocks in expectation of further volatility. Feature The market is coming to terms with the fact that President Trump is willing to put his policies where his campaign rhetoric was, at least on trade policy. U.S. equities are down 5.7% since the White House announced Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and 2.34% since it announced forthcoming Section 301 tariffs against China. Although we have cautioned clients since November 2016 that protectionism is a real risk to global growth and risk assets,1 we believe that the current set of U.S. demands on China justify the moniker of a "trade skirmish," rather than a full-out war.2 That said, the 5.7% drawdown is appropriate, if a bit sanguine. Our "trade skirmish" view is low-conviction. President Trump remains unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects. As such, it is appropriate for the market to price a 20%-30% probability of a full-blown trade war. Given that the market drawdown in such a scenario could be 20% or more, the current market action is appropriately pricing the worst-case scenario. Why would a trade war between the U.S. and China elicit a bear market in U.S. equities if a similar confrontation between Japan and the U.S. did not in the late 1980s? For three reasons. First, the overvaluation of stocks is much greater today. Second, interest rates are much lower, restricting how much policymakers can react to adverse risks. Third, supply chains are much more integrated today, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. As such, we think the current drawdown is appropriate. That said, the administration's policy is not haphazard. President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer are on the same page, making China - and not NAFTA trade partners or South Korea - the main target of U.S. protectionism (Chart 1). The rapid pace at which the administration pivoted from global tariffs to targeting China gives a clear indication of what is afoot. The U.S. is using the threat of tariffs to cajole its allies into tougher trade enforcement against China (Table 1).3 We think this strategy can work, as outlined last week, but there is plenty of room for mistakes that could derail it. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs Table 1U.S. Gradually Exempting Allies From Tariffs Trump also wants to change U.S. policy on immigration and could use the NAFTA negotiation to gain leverage over Mexico. There is therefore still some probability that Trump triggers Article 2205 to leave NAFTA, but we believe it has declined substantively since we put it at 50% in November, particularly given the U.S.-South Korea negotiations we discuss below.4 This week we take a look at the revised U.S.-Korea trade deal and what it suggests about the Trump administration's trade agenda more broadly. Then we update the status of the U.S.-China trade frictions, which are only temporarily subsiding, if at all. Lessons From The KORUS Talks The just-completed renegotiation of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement (the "KORUS FTA") offers some clues to the Trump administration's trade tactics that may be relevant for future negotiations with NAFTA partners, China, and others. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the KORUS FTA, as the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea has ballooned since its implementation in March 2012 (Chart 2). Trump used the threat of withdrawing from the deal to pressure South Korean President Moon Jae-in not to ease sanctions on North Korea too rapidly. Chart 2Why Trump Likes Tariffs Now USTR Lighthizer and his South Korean counterpart, Hyun Chong-Kim, have agreed to the outlines of a revised deal.5 The key points are as follows: Steel tariff waiver for Korea: South Korea will receive a country-level exemption from the U.S.'s recently imposed steel tariffs.6 Going forward, Korean steel exports will be subject to quotas equivalent to 70% of the average annual import volume during 2015-17. Greater market access for U.S. autos: Korea will double the number of autos it imports on the basis of U.S. safety standards, from 25,000 to 50,000 per year from each U.S. carmaker. It can import more subject to its own safety standards. It will refrain from any new emissions-standards tests, will accept U.S. safety standards on auto parts, and will ease ecological policies and the customs process of verifying the origin of exports. Delayed market access for Korean trucks: The U.S. will retain the existing 25% tariff on Korean trucks through 2041, instead of 2021 (Chart 2, second panel). Fair treatment of U.S. pharmaceutical imports: Korea promises not to discriminate against U.S. drugs but to grant them fair treatment under KORUS provisions. Ancillary currency agreement: The two sides appended a "gentleman's agreement" on currency policies, which is not a formal part of the deal and not subject to legislative confirmation. South Korea agreed not to devalue the won competitively, or to manipulate it more broadly, and to provide greater transparency regarding its interventions in foreign exchange markets. There are three main takeaways from the above. First, the U.S. is obviously focusing on non-tariff barriers to trade, the main hindrance to trade in a world with already low tariff rates. The grievances with Korea were primarily due to safety standards, environmental policies, and burdensome administration that hindered U.S. exports despite the reduction of tariffs under the KORUS agreement. Second, USTR Robert Lighthizer - the seasoned negotiator of the historic 1980s trade disputes with Japan, and the man in charge of the current NAFTA and China negotiations - deserves his reputation as a competent policymaker. He apparently makes concrete demands and is capable of compromising to conclude deals. This reduces the risk, overstated by the media, that the inexperienced U.S. president is driving the trade negotiations. Third, the U.S. is not deliberately trying to punish its allies in pursuit of some mercantilist fantasy of closing every single trade imbalance. Strategic logic dictated that Washington and Seoul needed to conclude a deal quickly so as to better coordinate on North Korea, and they did so. It is highly unlikely that the concluded deal will end the U.S. trade imbalance with South Korea, but it will likely improve it substantively. Moon Jae-in continues to be a pragmatist in his dealings with Trump and Trump is joining Moon's "Moonshine" policy of engagement with North Korea. Talk of the U.S. abandoning its allies did not materialize. (Japan and Taiwan are likely to get deals soon.) Most importantly, this deal is a strong indication that the U.S. will continue to pressure China on its foreign exchange practices. It would make no sense for the U.S. to require its allies to disavow competitive devaluation and reduce currency interventions while not demanding similar assurances from China. On this front, China's recent appreciation of the yuan will not ultimately satisfy the U.S., as it is arbitrary. The U.S. will need to extract deeper guarantees, with the implicit threat of tariffs to prevent China from backsliding. Otherwise the U.S. would yield Chinese exporters a foreign exchange advantage relative to American trade partners who agree to stop intervening to preserve a favorable exchange rate with the USD. A simple comparison of these countries currency moves over the past eight years reveals how they have allowed less appreciation relative to the U.S. than in trade-weighted terms, and how China would benefit if the others were forced to stop this practice while it was left off the hook (Chart 3). Chart 3The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation This last conclusion fits with our study of previous cases of U.S. trade protectionism, in which the end-game was dollar depreciation relative to key trade partners.7 The KORUS case can be considered alongside Lighthizer's and the Trump administration's handling of the Section 301 investigation into China's forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft. The Trump administration came out swinging with unilateral 25% tariffs on about $60 billion worth of goods, to be listed on April 6 and enacted sometime in June. But it also signaled that it would allow a consultation period, and initiated a case through the World Trade Organization, thus reinforcing (rather than undermining) the global trading system. These developments give some grounds for optimism in the NAFTA negotiations and (less so) in the China negotiations. While China is preempting U.S. demands on its currency policy, it will be averse to providing any permanent guarantees, or to painful structural demands. This is due to its concerns about overall stability and its suspicion that the U.S. is pursuing a broader strategic containment policy against it. We discuss these issues below. Bottom Line: The preliminary conclusions of the KORUS FTA negotiation suggest that the Trump administration's trade leadership is credible, while Trump himself is looking for quick and concrete trade "wins" that can be presented to his domestic voter base. This is a marginally market-positive sign. But its ramifications are limited with regard to China, where strategic tensions and geopolitical competition will make it much harder to strike a similar deal quickly. U.S.-China: Fade The "Mirror Tax," Focus On Market Access And Tech China announced tariffs on roughly $3-$3.5 billion worth of U.S. goods on April 2 - ranging from fruits and nuts to wine and pork - in retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs that the U.S. imposed in March under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. China used the exact same tariff rates as the U.S. - 25% and 10% - while selecting the product list so as to produce roughly the same net trade impact in USD terms (Chart 4). The implication is that China will retaliate in kind to deter the U.S., but does not wish to "up the ante." This is largely what we expected, but the implication is significant: the U.S. is about to release a preliminary list on April 6 of $50-$60 billion worth of goods on which it will slap tariffs. This second round of tariffs - which is China-specific - follows from the probe under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. China's recent decision suggests that if negotiations fail, it will respond with tariffs worth roughly the same amount, which is a much bigger exchange of fire for these two economies. The actual retaliatory action would most likely occur in June, when the U.S.'s list is finalized and implemented, though China may hint at its product list much sooner, adding to trade fears and market volatility.8 The Trump administration claims that its product list will be chosen by an algorithm to maximize the impact on Chinese exporters while minimizing the impact on the American consumer. Consistent with this aim, some reports indicate that the goods will be advanced technological products set to benefit from China's "Made in China 2025" plan, in which China has laid down aggressive domestic content requirements (Chart 5). Chart 4Tit For Tat Chart 5China's High-Tech Protectionism What is the Trump administration's goal? Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin declared at the G20 finance ministers' meeting that he did not want to penalize Chinese imports so much as promote U.S. exports. Is this a credible basis for assessing the administration's policy? Yes and no. We think Mnuchin is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. When it comes to blocking imports or boosting exports, Mnuchin is right: the U.S. goal is not simply to punish Beijing for past unfair trade practices by blocking imports of Chinese goods. True, the Trump administration has focused on a lack of reciprocity in tariff rates. But a "mirror tax" or "mirror tariff" with China, which Trump has referred to, would not make much of a difference to the trade balance: Chart 6AThe U.S. Exports Soybeans And Cars To China Chart 6BChina Exports Phones And Computers To The U.S. Taking a look at the top ten exports of the U.S. and China to each other (Chart 6 A&B), it is quite clear that China imposes higher tariffs on U.S. goods than the U.S. imposes on Chinese goods (Chart 7 A&B). This follows from World Trade Organization rules and the relative level of economic development of the two countries. Chart 7AAmerican Exports To China Face Higher Tariffs... Chart 7B... Than Chinese Exports To America If we equalize these tariffs by raising U.S. tariffs to the same level as their Chinese counterparts for the same good, we wind up with a very small $6.2 billion gain to the U.S. trade balance (Chart 8). If we focus only on the top ten goods that both countries export to each other, and impose a hypothetical mirror tax, we wind up with an even smaller gain for the U.S. of $3.9 billion (Chart 9). This is small fry and cannot be the administration's goal (at least not its main goal). The real goal is to gain greater market access for U.S. exports in China. Here the U.S. may have a case, as China lags both its developed and emerging market peers in sourcing its imports from the U.S. (Chart 10). While China comprises 24% of total EM imports, it comprises only 15% of U.S. exports to EM. Even in commodity exports, where the U.S. has made major inroads in China, Beijing has recently limited the American share (Chart 10, middle panel). Chart 8Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact Chart 9Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact (2) Chart 10U.S. Grievance Is About Market Access A simple, back-of-the-envelope comparison of the U.S.'s top exports to China and EM ex-China suggests that the U.S. can make a case that its exports are suffering unduly in China: China's share of top U.S. exports is lower than one might expect it to be relative to EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 11 A&B). The U.S.'s market share of China's imports in key goods is lower than it is in EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 12 A&B). The U.S. share of China's top imports is smaller than the DM-ex-U.S. share (Chart 13 A&B). Chart 11AChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Broad) Chart 11BChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Detailed) Chart 12AU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Broad) Chart 12BU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Detailed) Chart 13AU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters Chart 13BU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters China has granted the legitimacy of U.S. complaints by pledging several times in the last few months to open market access. The latest news from the negotiations suggests that some progress is being made.9 Clearly the above is a very rough measure. Chinese consumers may not want to buy as much stuff from the U.S. as from Europe and Japan. The U.S. doubtless needs to improve its global competitiveness, and even then it may not gain as much market share in China as its DM peers. Nevertheless, Washington sees itself as the power that brought China into the global economy and allowed it to join the WTO. If China wants the U.S. to allow it to play a greater role in running the world, the U.S. is demanding a beneficial economic relationship in return. One way China is offering to deal with the problem is by buying American goods at the expense of U.S. allies' goods. For instance, Beijing has offered to buy more semiconductors from the U.S. and fewer from Taiwan and South Korea. This would alleviate the U.S. trade deficit a little, but at a greater expense to U.S. allies (Table 2). It would open up an opportunity for China to make more strategic acquisitions in those weakened, neighboring industries. It is not clear that the Trump administration will accept such a "concession," unless it is coupled with much greater concessions as compensation for selling out the allies. Table 2China's Trade Concessions To The U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies Similarly, China's concessions that have been offered so far - like lowering the 25% tariff on car imports - are tokens in the right direction but not sufficient to satisfy the U.S. at the current juncture. This means that the U.S. will demand structural changes that increase market access, from a stronger RMB to a more consumer-oriented economy, as part of what will be a drawn-out effort to encourage China to rebalance its macroeconomy. Of course, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was only telling half the truth: the U.S. also wants to prevent China from stealing too much of America's market share too fast. When we look at China's comparative advantage - the goods categories in which China's export growth has been fastest in recent years, weighted by contribution to the total - the U.S. is the country that has the largest global market share in these very goods (Chart 14). For instance, telecoms equipment, car parts, TVs, electrical circuits, etc. The U.S.'s export mix is not as dependent on these goods as that of China's neighbors (Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea), but it is the chief exporter of these goods nevertheless. Because many of China's most competitive goods are still low value-added (toys, plastics, textiles, furniture), China is pursuing tech upgrades, innovation, and intellectual property: it would eat away at the U.S. share of more advanced goods. Chart 14China's Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share The Trump administration is trying to slow China's advance and put a stop to China's aggressive poaching of foreign tech and IP.10 This will include restrictions on Chinese direct investment and acquisitions to be announced by Mnuchin on May 21. We expect him to intensify an inherently stringent vetting process. The administration has already taken a proactive stance by blocking Canyon Bridge Capital Partners from acquiring Lattice Semiconductor and Singaporean company Broadcom's attempted acquisition of Qualcomm.11 Rumor has it that the administration is now considering invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which authorizes the president to take actions "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat." Trump would be able to cite China's use of state-backed companies, corporate espionage, and cyber-attacks in pursuit of technology and IP (Table 3). Table 3Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues... Especially When National Security Is Involved This is entirely aside from legislation pending in Congress, which the White House appears to support, that would provide the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) with the ability to block investments across entire industries, rather than on a case-by-case basis, and with a broader definition of national security and sensitive property and technologies.12 While American presidents have historically vetoed similar legislation against China, the Trump administration may not, depending on the outcome of talks. The key point is that the U.S. political establishment - across the spectrum - is alarmed about China's economic mercantilism. As Senator Elizabeth Warren recently declared to a group of top policymakers in Beijing: "Now U.S. policymakers are starting to look more aggressively at pushing China to open up the markets without demanding a hostage price of access to U.S. technology."13 Warren, a staunchly liberal senator from the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, is entirely on the same page as Trump. The takeaway for investors? China's tit-for-tat response to Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs should not be dismissed out of hand. The market is sensitive to trade fears and there is a clear avenue for them to get worse if the 60-day consultation period lapses without any major Chinese concessions. True, negotiations are ongoing and Trump's trade team has been shown to be both credible and willing to pursue trade disputes through the WTO. Nevertheless there are substantial measures aimed at China coming down the pike and the usual restraints on U.S. policy, centered on the U.S. business establishment lobbying policymakers, are not as effective as in the past. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s primary economic goal in the China negotiations is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access. The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. As such, Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology. Investment Conclusions Several clients have asked about the constraints on the different players if trade conflict should escalate over the coming months. On the surface the U.S. is in a stronger position because its outsized deficit with China means that measures constricting bilateral trade are inherently more damaging to China's output (Chart 15). Even some of China's best retaliatory options are difficult to put into practice, including selling U.S. treasuries or imposing sanctions on U.S. commodities (Table 4).14 Chart 15China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. Table 4China's Retaliation Options Are Limited... Even In Agriculture The U.S. also faces a constraint in imposing measures on China because manufacturing value chains today sprawl across various countries and multinational corporations. Tariffs therefore punish countries, including U.S. allies, that provide inputs to China or American companies that profit from them - think Apple. Moreover, tariffs will not in themselves change the U.S.'s fundamental savings-investment balance, suggesting that demand for foreign goods will simply shift to other producers and the trade deficit will be unaffected. However, supply chain risk is ultimately not prohibitive for the U.S. China has long ranked among the most exposed to supply-chain disruptions, while the U.S. ranks among the least (Chart 16). Moreover, U.S. allies in Europe and ASEAN stand to benefit if supply chains are rerouted from China (Chart 17). While the U.S. and allies would suffer higher initial costs as a result, they would gain the strategic advantage of reducing China's centrality to global supply chains. The latter has given Beijing an advantage in acquiring technology and moving up the value chain. Chart 16China Most Exposed To Supply-Chain Risk Chart 17U.S. Allies Benefit If Supply Chains Move While the Xi Jinping administration is weaning China off export reliance and U.S. reliance, the country still employs 28% of its workers in the manufacturing sector, which leaves it more exposed to disruptions than the U.S. if trade frictions should spiral out of control and weaken overall demand (Chart 18). While American workers are intimately familiar with the boom-and-bust cycle of free labor markets, China has not struggled with significant unemployment since 2003 (Chart 19). Its middle class was much smaller then. Chart 18Employment Is A Constraint On China Chart 19China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss In short, China will first attempt to appease the Trump administration through market access (and keeping the RMB strong) to maintain its supply-chain centrality and overall stability. If Trump accepts China's concessions, trade frictions will not spiral out of control - at least not this year. China will only accept a full-fledged trade war if Trump rejects its concessions and imposes punitive measures that threaten its stability. At that juncture, Xi would probably find it useful to demonize Trump and execute long-term changes to make China more self-sufficient, blaming the U.S.-initiated trade war for the painful consequences. This is why it matters if Trump's demands go beyond foreign exchange rates, improved market access, and IP enforcement - for instance, if they extend to capital account liberalization, the holy grail of American trade negotiations with China. Thus far, Trump's team has not raised this demand, but it is a subject we will revisit soon as it is likely to be China's red line, at least within the economic sphere. In light of our expectation for further trade-war related volatility, we would recommend shorting Chinese tech stocks15 and remaining short China-exposed U.S. stocks. The latter trade has been in the black by over 5% in just a week, but is currently up only 0.7%. It is a way to hedge the risk of further tensions between U.S. and China. Risks to this view are: if the U.S. reduces the Section 301 tariffs that it is threatening on or after April 6; if Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's investment restrictions due on May 21 are watered down; or if the U.S. makes no structural demands on China's economy but merely accepts temporary RMB appreciation and some big-ticket import orders. Otherwise the risk that trade tensions spiral out of control will remain elevated at least through the U.S. midterm elections on November 6. By then, Trump will need either to have cut a small-scale deal with China that he can tout for voters or to have taken more aggressive trade action pursuant to the Section 301 findings. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 A 60-day consultation period with both legislatures will follow but the deal will probably remain in more or less the same form. 6 Aluminum was not included, but South Korea is not a major source of aluminum products for the U.S. 7 Please see footnote 2 above. 8 Please see David Lawder, "Trump to unveil China tariff list this week, targeting tech goods," Reuters, April 2, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin spoke with Politburo member Liu He, who is Xi Jinping's top economic policymaker, and they reportedly pledged that they are "committed" to a solution on reducing the U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. is asking for a $100 billion reduction to the trade deficit within the year, as well as some progress on intellectual property enforcement. Supposedly the specific demands involve reducing the Chinese tariff on car imports and raising the foreign ownership cap on Chinese financial companies, the latter of which China has previously promised to do. Please see Andrew Mayeda, "U.S. Pushes China On Cars And Finance In Tariff Talks," Bloomberg, March 26, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 10 Please see the U.S. Trade Representative, "Findings of the Investigation into China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974," March 2018, available at ustr.gov. 11 In September 2017, the White House and Department of Treasury intervened in the attempt by a group of investors, including the state-owned China Venture Capital Fund, from acquiring Lattice, on the advice of CFIUS. Lattice makes computer chips that are highly versatile and can be used in military functions; the Chinese SOE was suspected of pursuing China's state-backed efforts to improve its semiconductor industry. Separately, in March 2018, President Trump blocked Singapore-based Broadcom's attempt to acquire Qualcomm, which would have been a hugely consequential tech merger due to the two companies' dominance in making processors. The Treasury Department feared that Chinese state entities might get access to Qualcomm's IP or that the merger might otherwise hinder Qualcomm's "technological leadership." Please see "CFIUS Case 18-036: Broadcom Limited (Singapore)/Qualcomm Incorporated," dated March 5, 2018, available at www.sec.gov. 12 Please see Andrew Mayeda, Saleha Mohsin, and David McLaughlin, "U.S. Weighs Use of Emergency Law to Curb Chinese Takeovers," March 27, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 13 She was speaking with Liu He, seasoned diplomat Yang Jiechi, and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe. Please see Michael Martina, "Senator Warren, in Beijing, says U.S. is waking up to Chinese abuses," April 1, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, and "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights Global growth has peaked, but will remain firmly above trend for the remainder of the year. The composition of global growth is shifting back towards the U.S. As often happens in the late stages of business-cycle expansions, asset markets have entered a more volatile phase. A global recession is likely in 2020. Equities: The correction is nearing an end, which will set the stage for a blow-off rally into year-end. For the time being, favor DM over EM stocks, Europe over the U.S., and value over growth. The "real" bear market will start next year. Government bonds: Global bond yields will trend higher over the next 12 months, but will begin moving lower by the middle of next year as recession risks mount. Over the long haul, yields are going higher - much higher. Credit: Spread product will eke out small gains relative to government bonds over the next 12 months. Spreads will blow out as the recession approaches. Investors will be shocked to learn that a lot of what they thought is investment-grade debt is really junk (or worse). Currencies: The U.S. dollar will bounce before resuming its bear market next year. The yen could weaken slightly against the dollar in 2018, but will hold its own against most other currencies. Energy-sensitive currencies such as the CAD will outperform other commodity currencies. Feature Booyah Writing frantically on October 8, 1998, CNBC commentator and former hedge fund manager Jim Cramer entitled his TheStreet.com piece with the indelible words "Get Out Now". Long-Term Capital Management had just imploded. Emerging Markets were crashing. Coming off the heels of a stratospheric ascent, the S&P 500 was down 22% from its highs. The tech-heavy NASDAQ had swooned 33%. The equity bull market had finally ended. Or so he thought. As fate would have it, the S&P 500 bottomed literally the very same minute that Cramer's piece came out.1 It went on to rise 68% before ultimately peaking in March 2000. Cramer would go on to avenge his 1998 call, wisely counseling his readers on October 6, 2008 to "take your money out of the stock market right now, this week." But on that fateful day in 1998, he was wrong. There are many differences in the economic environment between now and then, but on the crucial question of which way global equities are heading, history is likely to rhyme. As was the case in the late 1990s, the shakeout this year may be a prelude to a blow-off rally that takes stocks to new highs. Historically, equity bear markets and recessions almost always overlap (Chart 1). In fact, the most useful lesson I have learned over the past 25 years studying macro and markets is that unless you think a recession is around the corner, you should overweight stocks. It's as simple as that. Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Fortunately, another recession is not around the corner. Interest rates are rising but are not yet in restrictive territory. Fiscal policy is being loosened, particularly in the U.S. Easy fiscal policy and still-accommodative monetary policy rarely produce recessions. As we discuss below, a global recession will eventually arrive - probably in 2020 - but that is still two years away. Stocks normally sniff out recessions before they start. However, the lead time is usually about six months. As Table 1 illustrates, equities typically do well in the second-to-last year of business-cycle expansions. We are probably in that window now. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out A Whiff Of Stagflation So why the newfound angst? Partly, it is because markets were technically overbought and due for a correction. We warned clients as much in a report entitled "Take Out Some Insurance", published on February 2nd, one day before the VIX spike began.2 Fears of stagflation are also escalating. Inflation appears to be rising at the same time as global growth is slowing. Real potential GDP has increased at a snail's pace in the G7 economies over the past decade, the result of disappointing productivity gains and sluggish labor force growth (Chart 2). If the world is running out of spare capacity - and GDP growth is forced to climb down towards what many fear is an anemic trendline - then revenue and earnings growth are apt to decelerate. Chart 2Lackluster Productivity Gains And Anemic Labor##br## Force Growth Have Weighed On Potential GDP Escalating protectionism has further exacerbated anxieties about stagflation. President Trump has threatened to hike tariffs on steel and aluminum, go after China for allegedly stealing U.S. intellectual property, and pull out of NAFTA if a new deal is not negotiated in America's favor. An all-out global trade war would raise consumer prices and reduce output by impairing the efficient allocation of resources across countries. Investors have taken notice. None of these stagflationary concerns can be summarily dismissed, but they are less worrisome than they might appear. Let's start with trade wars. A Trade Spat, Not A Trade War We have long thought that we are in a secular bull market in populism. This is why we argued that investors were greatly understating the risks of Brexit in the weeks leading up to the referendum. It is also why we ignored the derision of others and predicted that Trumpism would prevail back in 2015 and that Trump himself would win the presidency by securing a larger-than-expected share of disgruntled white blue-collar workers in the Midwest.3 Trade protectionism, of course, is a major part of most populist agendas. However, the attractiveness of protectionism tends to ebb and flow depending on the state of the business cycle. There is a reason why the Smoot-Hawley tariff act was introduced during the Great Depression and not the Roaring Twenties. Both economically and politically, beggar-thy-neighbor policies are more appealing when unemployment is high and one more job abroad means one less job at home. That is not the case today, at least not in the U.S. Moreover, while the U.S. legal system gives the president free rein to impose tariffs and other trade barriers, Donald Trump is still constrained by the reaction of the business community and financial markets. After all, this is a president who likes to measure his self-worth by the value of the S&P 500. Needless to say, investors do not like protectionism. It is not surprising, therefore, that Trump has watered down his tariff rhetoric every time the stock market has sold off. It also not surprising that Trump has increasingly focused his wrath on China, a country with which the U.S. business community has had a love-hate relationship. A blue-ribbon commission recently estimated that intellectual property theft - most of it originating from China - costs the U.S. $225 billion-to-$600 billion per year.4 That is a lot of money that American companies could be making but aren't. China will undoubtedly complain that it is being unfairly singled out. It will also threaten retaliatory measures if the Trump administration imposes trade barriers on Chinese imports. In the end, those threats are likely to ring hollow. A war is only worth fighting if you think you can win. China has a very asymmetric trading relationship with the U.S., and one that gives it very little leverage. U.S. exports to China amount to less than one percent of U.S. GDP. That's peanuts - in some cases literally: Nearly half of U.S. goods exports to China consist of soybeans, wheat, cotton, nuts, and other agricultural products and raw materials. It would be difficult to tax them without hurting Chinese consumers. Of course, China could try to punish the U.S. by dumping Treasurys. But why would it? This would only drive down the value of the dollar, giving U.S. exporters a greater advantage. Trump wants that! Saying that you will retaliate against Trump's tariffs by no longer manipulating your currency is not exactly a credible threat.5 In the end, far from retaliating, China will try to placate Trump by easing restrictions on trade and foreign investment and making some politically-calculated purchases of U.S.-made goods. Boeing's stock sold off in the wake of escalating trade tensions. It probably should have risen. Peak Growth? In contrast to last year, global growth is no longer accelerating. Our Global Leading Economic Indicator is still rising, but the diffusion index, which measures the proportion of countries with rising LEIs, is down from its October 2017 high (Chart 3). Changes in the diffusion index have often foreshadowed changes in the composite LEI. An even more worrisome picture is painted by the OECD's LEI, which has actually dipped slightly over the past two months. The OECD's LEI diffusion index has also fallen below 50%. The Chinese economy appears to be slowing on the back of tighter monetary conditions (Chart 4). The Keqiang index, which combines data on electricity production, freight traffic, and bank lending, has come off its highs and our leading indicator for the index is pointing to further weakness. Property price inflation in tier 1 cities has fallen to zero. A number of clients noted during my visit to China last week that a wave of supply has hit the market over the past month following President Xi's warning that homes are for living and for not investing. A weaker Chinese property market could drag down construction spending, with adverse knock-on effects to commodity prices. Slower Chinese growth is rippling across the global economy (Chart 5). Korean exports - a bellwether for global trade - have decelerated. Japanese machinery orders have rolled over. The Baltic dry index has plunged by 40% from its December highs. The expectations component of the German IFO index has fallen to its lowest level since January 2017. Chart 3Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend,##br## But Has Probably Peaked For This Cycle Chart 4China's Industrial Sector Is Set ##br##To Slow Further China Is Slowing Chart 5Signs Of Slowing##br## Global Growth So far, the slowdown in global growth has been fairly modest. Goldman's global Current Activity Indicator (CAI), which combines both soft and hard data to gauge underlying economic momentum, was still up 4.9% in March, only slightly below recent cycle highs (Chart 6). The deterioration in a number of leading economic indicators suggests that the slowdown may have further to run. However, we would be surprised if it proves to be especially deep or long-lasting. Global financial conditions are still quite accommodative (Chart 7). Bank balance sheets are in good shape and rising capex intentions should support credit demand over the coming months, even in the face of somewhat higher borrowing costs. Improving labor markets should also bolster consumer confidence. Chart 6But Global Slowdown Has Been Fairly Modest Chart 7Global Financial Conditions Are Still Fairly Easy Back To The USA If global growth were decelerating because capacity constraints were starting to bite, this would be more worrying because it would mean any effort to stimulate demand would simply lead to more inflation rather than stronger economic growth. Reassuringly, that does not appear to be the case. The U.S. has slowed less than other large economies, even though it is closer to full employment. Notably, the manufacturing PMI has continued to rise in the U.S., but has dipped most everywhere else. Both Citigroup's and Goldman's economic surprise indices are still positive for the U.S., but have fallen into negative territory in Europe and Japan (Chart 8). Granted, Bloomberg consensus estimates suggest that U.S. growth will edge down to 2.5% in the first quarter. However, this may reflect ongoing seasonal adjustment problems. First quarter growth has averaged 1.7 percentage points less over the past decade than in the rest of the year. We are particularly skeptical of recent data showing that consumer spending has slowed, which is completely at odds with strong employment growth, rising home prices, and near record-high levels of consumer confidence. Looking out, U.S. demand growth should benefit from all the fiscal stimulus coming down the pike. We expect the fiscal impulse to rise from 0.3% of GDP in 2017 to 0.8% of GDP in 2018, and 1.3% of GDP in 2019 (Chart 9). The actual numbers could be even higher as our estimates do not include any additional expenditures on infrastructure, the possible restoration of earmarks (which could inflate pork-barrel spending), or the high likelihood that recent changes to the tax code will spawn all sorts of unforeseen loopholes, leading to lower-than-expected tax receipts. Chart 8U.S. Is The Standout Chart 9Fiscal Stimulus Bode Well For Growth Unfortunately, all this fiscal stimulus is coming at a time when the economy does not need it (Chart 10). The U.S. unemployment rate currently stands at 4.1%, 0.4 percentage points below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. Given the prospect of continued above-trend growth, the unemployment rate is likely to be close to 3.5% by early next year, which would be below the 2000 low of 3.8%. Chart 10Now Is Not The Time For Fiscal Profligacy Rebalancing Global Demand: The Role Of The Dollar What happens when fiscal stimulus pushes aggregate demand beyond an economy's productive capacity? One possibility is that imports go up, thereby allowing the additional demand to be satiated with increased production from the rest of the world. For this to happen, however, the prices of foreign-made goods sold in the U.S. need to decline relative to the prices of domestically-produced goods. U.S. imports account for only 15% of GDP. Thus, if the prices of U.S.-made goods do not change relative to the prices of foreign-made goods, only 15 cents or so of every additional dollar of income will fall on imports. After all, consumers do not care about the intricacies of balance of payments statistics when they are deciding whether to buy a foreign or domestic automobile. They care about relative prices. This means that either the nominal trade-weighted dollar must appreciate or the U.S. price level must rise relative to foreign prices. Both outcomes imply a "real appreciation" in the dollar exchange rate, which can be thought of as the volume of foreign goods and services that can be acquired by selling a basket of U.S. goods and services.6 In theory, one can envision a scenario where the nominal dollar exchange rate depreciates while the real exchange rate appreciates over the long haul because inflation rises significantly in the U.S. relative to its trading partners. Much of the market commentary has implicitly focused on just such an outcome. Massive fiscal stimulus, as the story goes, will lift U.S. inflation by so much that the dollar will fall over time. The problem with this narrative is that it is difficult to square with the facts. Long-term inflation expectations have actually risen more in the euro area and Japan since Trump got elected (Chart 11). The true puzzle is that rising U.S. real yields have not translated into a stronger dollar (Chart 12). Chart 11Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have ##br##Risen More In Japan And The Euro Area##br## Than The U.S. Since Trump Took Over Chart 12The Dollar Has ##br##Decoupled From Interest##br## Rate Differentials A Trump Risk Premium? What happened, as Hillary Clinton might ask? One answer is that Trump happened. Larry Summers has argued that political uncertainty around Trump's antics (protectionism, the Mueller probe, the porn stars, etc.) has made holding U.S. assets more risky.7 This risk has been exacerbated by the prospect of large current account and fiscal deficits - the so-called "twin deficits" - stretching for as far as the eye can see. If this theory is correct, the increase in U.S. real bond yields may be less the result of better growth expectations and more the consequence of a rising risk premium on long-term government debt. It's an intriguing hypothesis, but it cannot explain why business confidence is near all-time highs or why the S&P 500, despite this year's selloff, has risen by 23% since the U.S. presidential election. It also cannot explain why the yield curve has flattened recently, which is not what you would expect if investors were shunning long-term bonds. Perhaps it is best not to overthink things. The dollar is a high-momentum currency (Chart 13). At the start of 2017, the greenback was overbought (Chart 14). Then global growth began to accelerate, which has historically has been bad news for the dollar (Chart 15). The lion's share of that growth also came from outside the U.S. None of this is true today, but the downward trend in the dollar has remained intact, and that is proving hard to break. Chart 13USD Is A Momentum Winner Chart 14USD Was Overbought At The Start Of 2017 Hard but not impossible. The dollar could get a bit of a reprieve. USD Libor has broken out recently (See Box 1 for details). As Chart 16 illustrates, there has been an extremely close relationship between the dollar index and the 3-month lagged value of the Libor-OIS spread. The cost of shorting the dollar is about to spike as borrowing rates linked to Libor reset over the next few weeks. The Libor spread will eventually come down, but perhaps not before the negative momentum against the dollar has turned into positive momentum. Chart 15Slowing Global Growth Tends##br## To Be Bullish For The Dollar Chart 16Shorting The Dollar Is About##br##To Get A Lot More Expensive Fixed-Income: Hedged Or Unhedged? Chart 17Bond Yields, Currency-Hedged When European investors buy U.S. bonds, they take on exposure to both the value of the bond and what happens to the euro-dollar exchange rate. If they do not want to assume the currency risk, they can sell the dollar forward, effectively locking in the number of euros they will receive for every dollar sold. The purchase of the bond increases the demand for dollars, while the commitment to sell the dollar increases the supply of dollars. For the value of the dollar, it is largely a wash.8 Likewise, if U.S. investors do not want to bear currency risk when purchasing German bunds, they can sell the euro forward. This also entails two offsetting transactions: One that boosts the demand for euros and one that raises the supply of euros. The spike in USD Libor has increased the currency-hedged return of non-U.S. bonds relative to U.S. bonds. Chart 17 shows that the yield on 10-year Treasurys, hedged into euros, has fallen to 0.06%, which is below the 0.5% yield offered by German bunds. In contrast, the 10-year bund yield, hedged into dollars, has risen to 3.16% - which is above the 2.78% yield offered by Treasurys. All things equal, it becomes less attractive for foreign investors who wish to buy U.S. bonds to hedge currency risk as USD Libor rises. In contrast, it becomes more attractive for U.S. investors to currency-hedge their overseas bond purchases when USD Libor goes up. Unhedged bond purchases bid up the currency of the issuer, but hedged purchases do not. If a smaller share of foreign investors decide to hedge currency risk when buying Treasurys, while a larger share of U.S. investors decide to hedge currency risk when purchasing foreign bonds, the net demand for dollars will rise. This could help the dollar over the coming months. Go Long Treasurys/Short German Bunds, Currency-Unhedged The correlation between the German-U.S. 30-year bond spread and EUR/USD was extremely tight in 2017 but has completely broken down this year (Chart 18). At this juncture, betting on a normalization of this correlation - effectively, a bet that U.S. Treasurys will outperform bunds in currency-unhedged terms - has become too good to resist. In fact, it is almost a "can't lose" wager. Consider the fact that 30-year Treasurys are yielding 182 basis points above comparable-maturity bunds. The euro would have to rise to 1.23*(1.0182)^30=2.11 against the dollar over the next 30 years for investors to lose money on this investment. Chart 18Unsustainable Divergence? Granted, inflation is likely to be lower in the euro area. CPI swaps are forecasting that euro area inflation will be roughly 40 bps lower compared to the U.S. over the next three decades. However, this would only lift the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) value of EUR/USD from its current level of 1.32 to 1.49. In other words, long-term investors betting on the euro are effectively betting on a major euro overshoot. The discussion above raises a more fundamental point. Investors often equate their view about the direction in which a currency is heading with whether to be bullish or bearish on it. We completely agree that the trade-weighted dollar will weaken over the long haul because most valuation metrics suggest that the greenback is still expensive. However, given the carry advantage the U.S. enjoys, long-term investors would still be better off overweighting U.S. fixed-income assets. Regional Equity Allocation U.S. equities have outperformed their global peers since the start of 2017 in local-currency terms but have underperformed in common-currency terms (Chart 19). If the dollar rebounds over the next few months, as we expect, this should boost the local-currency value of European stocks since many large multinational European companies generate sales in dollars. Sector skews should also work in Europe's favor. Financials are the largest overweight in euro area bourses, while technology is the biggest overweight in the U.S. (Table 2). Chart 19U.S. Equities Have Outperformed In Local-Currency Terms, But Not In Common-Currency Table 2Global Sector Skews: Tech Resides In The U.S. And Growth Indexes,##br## Financials Live In The Eurozone And Value Indexes While global growth has peaked, it will remain firmly above trend. This will ensure that spare capacity continues to shrink, taking global bond yields higher. Since the ECB will not raise rates for at least another year, the yield curve in the euro area will steepen, boosting the profitability of European banks (Chart 20). Tech companies are particularly sensitive to changes in discount rates since they often trade on the assumption that most of their earnings will be realized far into the future. As such, higher long-term real bond yields will adversely affect U.S. tech names, especially in an environment where the dollar is strengthening (more than 50% of U.S. tech sales are derived from abroad). Recent concerns over the way Facebook and other tech companies have handled privacy issues could further sour sentiment towards the sector. The outlook for Japanese stocks is a tough call. Japan, like Europe, is trading at a discount relative to the U.S. based on our in-house valuation metrics (Chart 21). However, we do not see much downside for the yen, even after its recent appreciation. The currency remains very cheap by historic standards, Japan's current account surplus has widened to 4% of GDP, and unlike the euro, speculative positioning is short. While Japanese corporate earnings have been able to expand rapidly over the past 16 months without the support of a weaker currency, now that profit margins are near record highs (Chart 22), further gains in profits and equity prices are likely to be limited. Chart 20Euro Area Yield Curve ##br##Steepening Will Boost Banks Chart 21Japanese And Euro Area##br##Stocks Are Relatively Cheap The combination of higher U.S. rates, a stronger dollar, and weaker Chinese growth will weigh on EM equities over the coming months. There is $17 trillion in U.S. dollar-denominated debt held outside the U.S., most of it in emerging markets. Ironically, weaker Chinese growth will hurt other EMs more than it hurts China. China accounts for more than 50% of base metal demand compared to only 13.5% for oil (Chart 23). This means that the outlook for metal producers such as Brazil, South Africa, Chile, and Australia is more challenging than for energy producers such as Canada and Norway. Chart 22Global Profit ##br##Margin Picture Chart 23Base Metals Are More Sensitive##br## To Slower Chinese Growth Favor Value Over Growth We expect global value stocks to start outperforming growth stocks after more than a decade of deep underperformance (Chart 24). The valuation measures constructed by Anastasios Avgeriou and his global equity sector strategy team suggest that value stocks are trading more than two standard deviations cheap relative to growth stocks. Earnings revisions are also starting to move in favor of value names9. Similar to the U.S./euro area equity split, financials are overrepresented in value indices, while technology is overrepresented in growth indices. The weights of the energy and consumer discretionary sectors in the U.S. index are roughly the same as the weights of those two sectors in the euro area index. However, energy is overrepresented in global value indices while consumer discretionary is overrepresented in growth indices. Despite our outlook for a somewhat stronger dollar, our commodity strategists see upside for oil prices this year thanks to continued discipline by OPEC 2.0. This should help energy stocks. On the flipside, consumer discretionary stocks often struggle in a rising rate environment, so this should tilt the playing field in favor of value (Chart 25). Chart 24Value Versus Growth: ##br##Compelling Entry Point Chart 25Consumer Discretionary Stocks Do##br## Poorly In A Rising Rate Environment With all this in mind, we are initiating a trade recommendation to go long the All-Country World Value Index relative to the corresponding Growth Index starting today. Investment Conclusions Volatility typically rises in the late stages of business-cycle expansions, as inflation picks up and monetary policy becomes progressively less accommodative (Chart 26). We have entered such a phase. This does not mean that equities cannot go higher. Chart 27 shows that the VIX rose in the late 1990s, even as stocks zoomed to new highs. We are probably at the tail end of an equity correction now. A blow-off rally into year-end is likely. Chart 26A More Hawkish Fed Usually Means A Higher VIX Chart 27Volatility Can Increase As Stock Prices Rise We expect the fed funds rate to move into restrictive territory in the second half of 2019. Given the usual lags between changes in monetary policy and the real economy, this would place the next recession in 2020. By then, the U.S. fiscal impulse will have dropped back to zero. It is the change in the fiscal impulse that matters for growth. If growth has already slowed to a trend-like pace by late 2019 due to increasingly binding supply-side constraints, the economy could easily stall out in 2020. The extent to which investors may wish to participate in any blow-off rally this year is a matter of personal preference. As was the case in the late 1990s, long-term expected returns have fallen to fairly low levels. A comparison between the Shiller PE ratio and subsequent 10-year returns over the past century suggests that the S&P 500 will deliver a total nominal annualized return of only 3% over the next decade (Chart 28). A composite valuation measure incorporating both the trailing and forward PE ratio, price-to-book, price-to-cash flow, price-to-sales, market cap-to-GDP, dividend yield, and Tobin's Q shows only modestly higher expected returns for stock markets outside the U.S. (Appendix A). As such, while we recommend overweighting global equities over a 12-month horizon, we would not fault investors for taking some money off the table now. A somewhat more defensive posture would certainly be warranted. Recall that the NASDAQ bubble burst in March 2000, but the S&P 500, excluding the technology sector, did not peak until May 2001. During the intervening period, S&P tech stocks underperformed the rest of the market by 70% (Chart 29). As was the case back then, a shift away from tech leadership may be afoot. This would support our value over growth, and euro area over the U.S., recommendations. Chart 28Demanding U.S. Valuations Point##br## To Low Long-Term Returns Chart 29The Force Of Tech At ##br##The Turn Of The Century Spread product should be able to eke out small gains relative to government bonds over the next 12 months. Ratings migration has improved markedly following the energy related downgrades in 2014 and 2015. An improving rating migration ratio is usually associated with corporate bond outperformance relative to Treasurys (Chart 30). Spreads will blow out as the recession approaches. In this month's issue of The Bank Credit Analyst, my colleague Mark McClellan simulated the effect on investment grade credit from: 1) A 100 basis-point increase in interest rates across the curve; and (2) A more severe scenario where interest rates rise by 100 basis points and corporate profits fall by 25% peak- to-trough. Mark's calculations suggest that the next recession will see the interest coverage ratio drop more than in previous downturns (Chart 31).10 Investors may be shocked to discover that a lot of what they thought is investment-grade debt is really junk (or worse). Chart 30Ratings Migration Is Supportive For Credit But... Chart 31...Corporate Leverage Will Take Its Toll We suggested going long the dollar in August 2014. This view worked well for a while but struggled mightily last year. However, the broad trade-weighted dollar index has been fairly stable since September, and is actually up 2.3% since its January lows (Chart 32). The greenback is due for another rally, one that no doubt would catch many traders by surprise. After a heated internal debate, BCA shifted its house view on bonds towards a more bearish stance in July 2016. As fate would have it, our note entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" came out on the same day that the U.S. 10-year yield reached an all-time closing low of 1.37%.11 We observed in February that bond positioning had become extremely short and, thus, tactically, yields could come down a bit. This has indeed happened. Over a 12-month horizon, however, we continue to see yields rising more than what is currently priced in. Both the TIPS 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rates are 20-40 basis point below the 2.3%-to-2.5% range that prevailed in the pre-recession period (Chart 33). Somewhat higher oil prices should also boost inflation expectations. Chart 32Up Then##br## Down Chart 33Breakevens Still Below Levels Consistent##br## With 2% Inflation Mandate In addition, the real yield component could rise as the market revises up its expectation of the terminal rate. Revealingly, the mean and median terminal dots in the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections increased by 8.3 and 12.5 bps, respectively, in March, but are still more than 100 bps below where they were five years ago. Bond yields will increase in the euro area, as the ECB continues to taper asset purchases. We see less scope for yields to rise in the U.K., as the Brexit hangover continues to weigh on growth. Yields in Japan will remain repressed due to the continuation of the Bank of Japan's Yield Curve Control regime. As the next recession approaches, global bond yields will fall, but are unlikely to take out their 2016 lows. As we discussed in a series of recent reports, both yields and inflation will make a series of "higher highs" and "higher lows" in the U.S. and most other countries over the next decade and beyond.12 Appendix B shows stylistic diagrams of how we expect returns across the major asset classes to evolve over the next decade. The spike in the U.S. Libor-OIS spread appears to be driven by the confluence of a couple of factors. First, Congress raised the debt ceiling on February 9th. This has allowed the U.S. Treasury to rebuild its cash reserves by issuing more T-bills. The sale of these T-bills has drained cash from the overnight market. Second, U.S. corporations have started to repatriate dollars held overseas following the passage of the tax bill. This has further exacerbated the dollar shortage abroad. Libor represents unsecured lending, and hence embeds a credit risk premium. Banks and other financial institutions have been reluctant to put up capital to arbitrage the difference between the rate on Libor and OIS (the latter being a good risk-free proxy for the market's expectation of where short-term policy rates will be). This reluctance reflects regulatory changes, rather than systemic financial risk of the sort experienced during the Global Financial Crisis and the European Sovereign Debt Crisis. The 3-month TED spread - the difference between Libor and Treasury yields - has moved up only modestly due to the fact that short-term Treasury yields have also risen relative to short-term interest rate expectations. Bank CDS spreads have barely increased at all. The Libor-OIS spread will probably fall over the remainder of this year. However, the cost of shorting the dollar will still rise as the Fed continues to raise policy rates. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Box 1 What's Up With Libor? The spike in the U.S. Libor-OIS spread appears to be driven by the confluence of a couple of factors. First, Congress raised the debt ceiling on February 9th. This has allowed the U.S. Treasury to rebuild its cash reserves by issuing more T-bills. The sale of these T-bills has drained cash from the overnight market. Second, U.S. corporations have started to repatriate dollars held overseas following the passage of the tax bill. This has further exacerbated the dollar shortage abroad. Libor represents unsecured lending, and hence embeds a credit risk premium. Banks and other financial institutions have been reluctant to put up capital to arbitrage the difference between the rate on Libor and OIS (the latter being a good risk-free proxy for the market's expectation of where short-term policy rates will be). This reluctance reflects regulatory changes, rather than systemic financial risk of the sort experienced during the Global Financial Crisis and the European Sovereign Debt Crisis. The 3-month TED spread - the difference between Libor and Treasury yields - has moved up only modestly due to the fact that short-term Treasury yields have also risen relative to short-term interest rate expectations. Bank CDS spreads have barely increased at all. The Libor-OIS spread will probably fall over the remainder of this year. However, the cost of shorting the dollar will still rise as the Fed continues to raise policy rates. 1 In his book, Confessions Of A Street Addict, which I highly recommend, Cramer wrote: On October 8, a dreary, chilly rainy Thursday in New York ... the stock market bottomed. At eighteen minutes after 12:00 P.M. I ought to know. I caused it. At 12:18 P.M. I capitulated. I couldn't take it anymore. I gave up both literally, at my fund, and virtually, on my website, TheStreet.com, where I penned a piece entitled "Get Out Now". And the prop wash from that article marked the low point in the most vicious bear market of the last century. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Take Out Some Insurance," dated February 2, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy reports, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015; "Worry About Brexit, Not Payrolls", dated June 10, 2016; "Three (New) Controversial Calls", dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Also see BCA New York Investment Conference presentations: "Five Controversial Calls - Call #5: The Trumpists Will Win" (September 2015), and "Three Controversial Calls - Call #1: Trump Wins And The Dollar Rallies" (September 2016). 4 Please see "Update To The IP Commission Report - The Theft Of American intellectual Property: Reassessments Of The Challenge And United States Policy," The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property (The National Bureau of Asian Research), (2017). 5 The fact that China's foreign exchange reserves have been trending sideways since early last year does not mean that past interventions should be disregarded. Just as both theory and evidence suggest that quantitative easing affects bond yields primarily through the "stock channel" (how many bonds central banks own) rather than the "flow channel" (the purchase or sales of bonds in any given period), the yuan's value is also more affected by the stock of foreign assets the PBOC controls rather than its recent interventions. This makes intuitive sense. If a central bank drives down its currency by buying a lot of foreign assets, and then suspends further purchases, one might expect the currency to stop falling, but one would not expect it strengthen to where it was before the intervention began. 6 Expressed mathematically, the real exchange rate between two currencies is the product of the nominal exchange rate and the ratio of prices between the countries. A real appreciation tends to make a country less competitive, either through a nominal increase in its currency or through an increase in prices in that country relative to those of its trading partners. 7 Larry Summers, "Currency Markets Send A Warning On The US Economy," March 5, 2018. 8 We say "largely" a wash because while selling the dollar forward is not exactly the same as short-selling it in the spot market due to the presence of the so-called currency basis swap spread, it is economically similar. When European investors short-sell the dollar, they are effectively borrowing dollars at Libor, selling them for euros, and parking the proceeds in a short-term account that pays Euribor. Three-month U.S. Libor is 230 bps these days, while three-month Euribor is -33 bps. Thus, European investors lose 263 bps by currency-hedging their U.S. bond purchases. Conversely, when U.S. investors go short the euro, they are effectively borrowing euros, selling them for dollars, and then parking the proceeds in a short-term account paying Libor. Thus, they gain the equivalent amount from the decision to currency-hedge purchases of euro area bonds. 9 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Size And Style Update," dated March 9, 2018, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?" dated March 29, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016; and Strategy Outlook, "Third Quarter 2016: End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 9, 2016. 12 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "What Central Bankers Don't Know: A Rumsfeldian Taxonomy," dated March 16, 2018; Weekly Report, "A Structural Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 16, 2018. Appendix A APPENDIX A CHART 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. APPENDIX A CHART 2Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. APPENDIX A CHART 3Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. APPENDIX A CHART 4Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B APPENDIX B CHART 1Market Outlook: Bonds APPENDIX B CHART 2Market Outlook: Equities APPENDIX B CHART 3Market Outlook: Currencies APPENDIX B CHART 4Market Outlook: Commodities Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights There is growing evidence that China's industrial sector is slowing, as are Asian trade flows. EM stocks have seen their tops. Even though current trade tensions between the U.S. and China could well dissipate, we are at the beginning of a long-term geopolitical standoff between these two superpowers. We are reinstating our long MXN / short BRL and ZAR trade. We are also upgrading Mexican sovereign credit and local bonds to overweight within their respective EM benchmarks. This week we review our recommended country allocation for the EM sovereign credit space. Feature The combination of budding signs of deceleration in both China and global trade, the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China as well as elevated equity valuations, leaves EM stocks extremely vulnerable. Odds are that EM share prices have made a major top. A few financial indicators point to a top in EM risk assets and commodities, while several leading economic indicators herald a global trade slowdown. Taken together we are reiterating our bearish stance on EM risk assets. Market- And Liquidity- Based Indicators Financial market indicators are signalling a major top in EM risk assets and commodities prices: The relative total return (carry included) of four equally weighted EM (ZAR, RUB, BRL and CLP) and three DM (AUD, NZD and CAD) commodities currencies versus an equally weighted average of two safe-haven currencies - the Japanese yen and Swiss franc - has rolled over at its previous highs, and is about to break below its 200-day moving average (Chart I-1). This technical profile points to rising odds of a major down-leg in this carry adjusted ratio of seven 'risk-on' versus two 'safe-haven' currencies, herein referred to as the risk-on / safe-haven currency ratio. Importantly, Chart I-2 demonstrates that this risk-on / safe-haven currency ratio has historically been coincident with EM share prices. A breakdown in this ratio would herald a major downtrend in EM equities. This is consistent with our qualitative assessment that EM equities have seen the peak in this rally. Chart I-1A Major Top In Risk-On Versus ##br##Safe-Haven Currency Ratio Chart I-2Risk-On Versus Safe-Haven Currency Ratio##br## And EM Share Prices: Twins? The annual rate of change in the risk-on / safe-haven currencies ratio leads global export volumes by several months. It currently indicates that global trade has already peaked, and a meaningful slowdown is in the cards (Chart I-3). As we documented in March 15 report,1 global cyclical sectors - mining, machinery and chemicals - have been underperforming since January. Industrial metals prices, including copper, are gapping down, as are steel and iron ore prices in China (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Global Trade Is Set To Slow Chart I-4A Breakdown In Metals Prices Is In The Making Our aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse for China projects considerable downside risks for industrial metals prices (Chart I-5). In this context, a question arises: Why is oil doing well so far? Chart I-6 illustrates that industrial metals prices typically lead oil at peaks. Oil prices have historically been a lagging variable of global business cycles. Chart I-5China's Slowdown Is Far From Over Chart I-6Industrial Metals Lead Oil Prices At Tops Furthermore, our two measures of U.S. dollar liquidity have rolled over. These two measures have a high correlation with EM share prices and are inversely correlated with the trade-weighted U.S. dollar (Chart I-7A and Chart I-7B). The dollar is shown inverted on Chart I-7B. The rollover in these measures of U.S. dollar liquidity is due to shrinking U.S. banks' excess reserves at the Federal Reserve. The Fed's ongoing balance sheet reduction and the Treasury's replenishment of its account at the Fed will continue to shrink banks' excess reserves, and thereby weigh on these measures of U.S. dollar liquidity. In short, downside risks to EM stocks and upside risks to the U.S. dollar have increased. Last but not least, China's yield curve has recently ticked down again and is about to invert, signaling weaker growth ahead (Chart I-8). Chart I-7AU.S. Dollar Liquidity And EM Stocks... Chart I-7B...And Trade-Weighted Dollar (Inverted) Chart I-8China's Yield Curve Is About To Invert Hard Data In addition, certain economic data have also decisively rolled over, in particular: Taiwanese shipments to China lead global trade volumes by several months, and they now portend a meaningful slowdown in global export volumes (Chart I-9). The basis for this relationship is that Taiwan sends a lot of intermediate products to mainland China. These inputs are in turn assembled by China and then shipped worldwide. Therefore, diminishing trade flow from Taiwan to China is a sign of a slowdown in world trade. The three-month moving average of Korea's 20-day exports growth rate, which includes the March data point, reveals that considerable softness in global trade is underway (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Another Sign Of Peak In Global Trade Chart I-10Korean Export Growth Is Already Weak China's shipping freight index - the freight rates for containers out of China - is softening, and its annual rate of change points to weaker Asian exports (Chart I-11). The annual growth rate of vehicle sales in China has dropped to zero, with both passenger cars and commercial vehicles registering no growth in the past three months from a year ago (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Container Freight Rates In Asia Are Softening Chart I-12China's Auto Sales: Post-Stimulus Hangover Finally, measures of industrial activity in China such as total freight volumes and electricity output growth continue to downshift (Chart I-13). Next week we are planning to publish a Special Report on China's property market. Our initial research shows that structural imbalances remain acute in the nation's real estate market, and a downturn commensurable if not worse than those that occurred in 2011 and 2014-'15 is very likely. Will the Fed and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) reverse their stance quickly to stabilize growth or preclude a downdraft in global risk assets? In the U.S., the primary trend in core inflation is up. Chart I-14 demonstrates that measures of core inflation have recently risen. This, along with the tight labor market, potential upside surprises in U.S. wages and a still-large fiscal stimulus entails that the bar for the Fed to turn dovish will be somewhat higher this year. It may take a large drawdown in the S&P 500 and a meaningful appreciation in the dollar for the Fed to come to the rescue of risk assets. Chart I-13Chinese Industrial Sector Is Decelerating Chart I-14U.S. Core Inflation Has Bottomed The Chinese authorities on the other hand, had already been facing enormous challenges in balancing the needs for structural reforms and achieving robust growth before the eruption of the trade confrontation with the U.S. As such, the balancing task is becoming overwhelming. Even if the Chinese authorities stop tightening liquidity now, the cumulated impact of earlier liquidity and regulatory tightening will continue to work its way into the economy, thereby slowing growth. Bottom Line: There is growing evidence that China's industrial sector is slowing, as are Asian trade flows. This is bearish for commodities and EM risk assets. Geopolitics: Icing On The Cake The recent U.S. trade spat with China has arrived at a time when global trade and China's industrial cycle have already begun to downshift, as discussed above. At the same time, investor sentiment on global risk assets remains very complacent, and equity and credit markets are pricey. As such, the U.S.-China trade confrontation has become the icing on the cake. U.S. equity valuations are elevated - the median stock's P/E ratio is at an all-time high (Chart I-15). While EM share prices are not at record expensive levels, valuations are on the pricey side. The top panel of Chart I-16 shows the equal-weighted average of trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book, price-to-cash earnings and price-to-dividend ratios for the median EM sub-sector. This valuation indicator is about one standard deviation above its historical mean. Chart I-15U.S. Equities: Median P/E ##br##Is At Record High Chart I-16EM Stocks Are Expensive##br## In Absolute Term The bottom panel of Chart I-16 illustrates the same valuation ratio relative to DM. Contrary to prevailing consensus, EM equities are not cheap relative their DM peers. Using median multiples of sub-sectors helps remove outliers. We discussed EM stock valuations in greater detail in our January 24 and March 1 special reports; the links to these reports are available on page 17. As to the duration and depth of the U.S.-China trade confrontation, we have the following remarks: If the U.S.'s plan to impose import tariffs on Chinese goods is primarily about domestic politics ahead of the mid-term elections later this year, as well as to obtain some trade concessions from China, then the current standoff will be resolved in a matter of months. If the true intention of the U.S. is to contain China's geopolitical rise to preserve its global hegemony, this episode of import tariffs will likely mark the beginning of a much longer and drawn-out geopolitical confrontation. In such a case, the U.S.-China relationship will likely witness a roller-coaster pattern with periods of ameliorations followed by periods of escalation and confrontation. Critically, mutual distrust will set in - if not already the case - which will hamper cooperation on various issues. As trade tensions ebb and flow in the months ahead, the reality is that America is worried about losing its geopolitical hegemony to the Middle Kingdom. Our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service have been noting for several years that a U.S.-China confrontation is unavoidable.2 Bottom Line: Even though the current trade tensions between the U.S. and China could well dissipate, we are at the beginning of a long-term geopolitical standoff between these two superpowers. Re-Instating Long MXN / Short BRL and ZAR Trade Chart I-17MXN's Carry Is Above Those Of BRL And ZAR Odds are that the Mexican peso will begin outperforming the Brazilian real and the South African rand. The main reason why we closed these trades in October was due to NAFTA renegotiation risks. Presently, with the U.S.-Sino trade confrontation escalating, the odds of NAFTA abrogation are declining. In fact, the U.S. may attempt to strike a deal with its allies, including its NAFTA partners, to focus more directly on China. Consequently, a menace hanging over the peso from the Sword of Damocles, i.e., NAFTA retraction, will continue to diminish. Consistently, the risk premium priced into Mexican risk assets will wane, helping Mexican markets outperform their EM peers. Interestingly, for the first time in many years, the Mexican peso's carry is above those of the Brazilian real and the South African rand (Chart I-17). Therefore, going long MXN versus ZAR and BRL are carry positive trades. Importantly, the Mexican peso is cheap. Chart I-18A illustrates the peso is cheap in absolute terms, according to the real effective exchange rate (REER) based on unit labor costs. Chart I-18B shows the peso's relative REER against those of the rand and real. These measures are constructed using consumer and producer prices-based REERs. The peso is cheaper than the South African and Brazilian currencies. Not only is Mexico's currency cheap versus other EM currencies, but Mexican domestic bonds and sovereign spreads also offer great value relative to their EM benchmarks (Chart I-19).Finally, the Mexican equity market has massively underperformed the EM benchmark and is beginning to look attractive on a relative basis. Chart I-18AMXN Is Cheap In Trade-Weighted Terms... Chart I-18B...And Relative BRL And ZAR Chart I-19Mexican Local Currency And Dollar Bonds Offer Value If and as dedicated EM portfolios rotate into Mexican domestic bonds and equities, this will bid up the peso. Brazil and South Africa are leveraged to China and metals, while Mexico is exposed to the U.S. and oil. Our main theme remains that U.S. growth will do much better than that of China. While a potential drop in oil prices is a risk to the peso, Mexican goods shipments to the U.S. will remain strong, benefiting the nation's balance of payments. Macro policy in Mexico has been super-orthodox: the central bank has hiked interest rates significantly, and the government has tightened fiscal policy (Chart I-20, top panel). This has hurt growth but is positive for the trade balance and the currency (Chart I-20). Mexico will elect a new president in July, and odds of victory by leftist candidate Lopez Obrador are considerable. However, we do not expect a massive U-turn in macro policies after the elections. Importantly, the starting point of Mexico's macro settings is very healthy. In Brazil, government debt dynamics remain unsustainable, yet its financial markets have been extremely complacent. Brazil needs much higher nominal GDP growth and much lower interest rates to stabilize its public debt dynamics. As we have repeatedly argued, a major currency depreciation is needed to boost nominal GDP and government revenues. Besides, Brazil is set to hold general elections in October, and there is no visibility yet on the type of government that will enter office. In South Africa, financial markets have cheered the election of President Cyril Ramaphosa, but the outlook for structural reforms is still very uncertain. The recent decision to consider a constitutional change in Parliament that would allow the confiscation of land from white landlords may be an indication that investors have become overly optimistic on the outlook for structural reforms. In short, the median voter in both Brazil and South Africa favors leftist and populist policies. This entails that the odds of supply side reforms without meaningful riots in financial markets are not great. Finally, the relative performance of the MXN against the BRL and ZAR, including carry, seems to be attempting to make a bottom (Chart I-21). Chart I-20Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Chart I-21A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? Bottom Line: Go long MXN versus an equally weighted basket of BRL and ZAR. Consistently, we also recommend overweighting Mexican local currency bonds and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. We will review the outlook for Mexican stocks in the coming weeks. EM Sovereign Credit Space: Country Allocation Asset allocators should compare EM sovereign and corporate credit with U.S. and European corporate bonds rather than EM local bonds or equities. The basis is that EM sovereign U.S. dollar bonds are a credit market, and vastly differ from local bonds and equities in terms of volatility, risk-reward trade-off and many other parameters. In short, EM credit markets should be compared to DM credit markets and EM equities to DM equities. EM local currency bonds are a separate, unique asset class.3 We continue to recommend underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. and European corporate bonds. Within the EM sovereign space, our overweights are: Mexico, Argentina, Russia, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines, Chile and Peru. Neutral: Colombia, Indonesia, Egypt and Nigeria. Our underweights are: Brazil, Venezuela, Malaysia, Turkey and South Africa. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Disguised Risks", dated March 15, 2018; the link is available on page 17. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "We Are All Geopolitical Strategies Now", dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 You may request May 7, 2013 Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report discussing our perspectives on how asset allocation for EM financial markets should be done. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights The biggest demand-side risk to base metals this year remains a larger-than-expected China economic slowdown. A managed slowdown appears to be under way, with Beijing giving every appearance of balancing macro-prudential policies in a way that does not severely derail the economy. It goes without saying a loss of control over this process could produce a hard landing in China, with more severe consequences for the economy in general, and base metals in particular. Energy: Overweight. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia appear to be negotiating a 10- to 20-year deal that would institutionalize OPEC 2.0 as a production-management coalition. This has global significance, which we will be exploring in future research.1 Base Metals: Neutral. Fears of a trade war between the U.S. and China following the announcement of up to $60 billion in tariffs - meant to redress alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property - sent copper prices below $3/lb last week. There are tentative signals this threat is receding; if confirmed, base metals, particularly copper, would rally. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices rallied more than $50/oz over the past week, following the announcement of U.S. tariffs directed at China, only to fall ~ $25/oz by mid-week as trade tensions lessened. We remain long the metal as a portfolio hedge against such risks. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese officials threatened to levy countervailing tariffs against imports of U.S. ags, steel pipes, and scrap aluminum in response to the $60 billion tariff package announced by the U.S. last week. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin attempted to calm rising tensions, with assurances the U.S. and China would reach an agreement that avoids the imposition of tariffs. Feature Once-hot metals markets are at risk of cooling (Chart of the Week). Despite the weak U.S. dollar and relatively strong - albeit more risky - global economic environment, investors have been hesitant to take large bullish positions in metals, largely because of fears of a slowdown in China. This fear is not unfounded, and this week we assess how likely such a slowdown is, and the consequences for metals markets. China accounts for ~ 50% of demand for most metals we cover (Chart 2). Construction, infrastructure, automotive, and manufacturing sectors have an outsized role as end users of metals, and their performance will be especially significant to the demand outlook going forward (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekMetals Markets At Risk Of Cooling Chart 2Don't Overlook China Chart 3Keep An Eye On Key Sectors China Intentionally Out Of Sync With Global Business Cycle? Chart 4China's Cycle Peaked Last Year Analysts generally believe commodities tend to outperform late in the business cycle as economies start to overheat and central banks move to restrain inflation. We believe these dynamics will pan out differently this time around. China's current business cycle likely peaked last year (Chart 4), and entered a moderation phase. As the single largest consumer of metals on the planet, it would be extremely important for global base metals markets if China's business cycle is out of sync with the rest of the world, which, based on the IMF's latest assessment, remains in a robust growth phase. This alone could justify a less bullish stance on metals this year, and could mute the late-cycle phase returns we would typically expect. Nevertheless, the synchronized global upturn being tracked by ourselves and the IMF is the first such upswing since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).2 In a note exploring China's significance in global commodity markets, researchers at the IMF found that surprises in China's Industrial Production (IP) announcements - measured as the scaled deviation of actual year-on-year (y/y) IP growth from the median Bloomberg consensus estimate just before the announcement - have an important effect on metal prices.3 Given China's outsized role in global commodity markets, this result is intuitive. Another relevant finding from their research is that the impact of Chinese IP surprise is larger when global risk is elevated - measured by the VIX. This is especially significant in the case of negative surprises.4 These findings are all the more relevant now, given the higher likelihood of negative surprises from China as it sets in motion a managed slowdown on a scale never before seen. Provided the synchronized nature of global growth remains intact, we expect global demand ex-China will partially mitigate the negative impact of domestic policies in China aimed at slowing the economy. Nonetheless, we do expect volatility to be higher this year. The Backdrop Chart 5Secondary Industry Output Past Its Peak Both China's official manufacturing PMI and the Li Keqiang Index peaked in 2017 and have since weakened significantly, raising fears of softening demand fundamentals for metals this year. Even though growth in the services sector remains robust, it is not as relevant to metal demand as manufacturing and infrastructure (Chart 5). Nevertheless, it could help support metals demand indirectly as growth in the services sector - i.e., the so-called tertiary industries, which now account for more than half of Chinese GDP - could spur demand for physical goods, and in turn re-energize the manufacturing cycle. This will depend crucially on maintaining income growth to spur demand for consumer durables and discretionary purchases (e.g., automobiles requiring gasoline). Similarly, China's GDP came in above target last year, coinciding with a recovery in secondary industries - i.e., construction and manufacturing, which are big metals consumers. However, secondary industry output appears to have peaked, which we believe is further evidence a benign moderation is already underway in China. This is compounded by the ongoing transition in China's economic structure - a services-led Chinese economy is not as supportive for metals demand as a manufacturing one. At present, out of the indicators of the general health of China's economy we track, the sole beacon of hope comes from the Caixin manufacturing PMI, which currently stands above its 12-month moving average level. Given the slew of other series pointing to a benign slowdown, we are inclined to push this PMI strength aside as an exception rather than the rule. Oh, Don't Forget A Possible Trade War Our analysis of metals markets is made difficult by the possibility of a trade war between the U.S. and China. The Trump Administration already has pledged to impose tariffs of up to $60 billion on Chinese imports over alleged intellectual-property theft. The net effect of these tariffs would be a reduction in demand for Chinese products - propagating a slowdown in the manufacturing sector. Despite these grim data readings, we expect Chinese policy makers to continue holding the reins in this policy-induced slowdown. We expected a deceleration going into the year, which now is evident in the data, but a severe and unruly unwinding is not our base case scenario. Macro-Prudential Measures Driving Up Interest Rates Chart 6Market Rates Are Trending Higher The Peoples Bank of China's (PBOC) 1-week interbank repo rate has been the official policy rate since 2015. However, it does not reflect the reality of rising interest rates in China. Instead, BCA Research's China Investment Strategists point to the 3-month rate as the de facto indicator of the monetary policy environment in China.5 While the former is up ~50 bps since late 2016, the latter has increased by about 200 bps during the same period. The wide rate spread reflects Beijing's renewed regulatory efforts to crack down on shadow banking (Chart 6). Our China Strategists note that the main trigger for a China slowdown likely would be monetary-policy tightening. However, the uptrend in market interest rates has been driven by regulatory decisions - the implementation of macro-prudential policies - rather than direct monetary policy tightening. In their scenario-based analysis, BCA's China specialists conclude that since China's economy is already cooling, increases in the benchmark lending rate - the 1-week interbank repo rate - are not needed. If anything, such increases would pressure the average lending rates into tight-monetary-policy territory. Although a hawkish PBOC - absent a meaningful improvement in economic outlook - is on our analysts' list of risks to monitor this year, they do not expect aggressive policy tightening in China, as they do not foresee an inflationary breakout. The Impact The exceptional performance of metals last year was in part driven by infrastructure spending and a rebound in real estate investment in China. Since then, Beijing has also tightened the leash on the property sector. Additionally, a deceleration in infrastructure investment is now evident. This is unsurprising given that two of the three "critical battles" highlighted by Xi Jinping threaten the housing and infrastructure sectors. Furthermore, automobile production and sales do not suggest a reason for optimism. President Xi Jinping has been experimenting with various measures to rein in housing speculation including restrictions on home purchases, encouraging an affordable rental market, and the introduction of "joint-ownership" housing.6 In addition, a "long term property mechanism" as well as a national property tax are in the works. The objective is to discourage speculative home building and property speculation generally, while ensuring sufficient supply in the market to help alleviate shortages, thus curbing exorbitant price increases. The impact of these policies - in the form of a cooling housing market - is evident in home prices in Tier 1 cities. After having decelerated meaningfully at the end of last year, they recorded y/y declines in the first two months of this year (Chart 7). While not as pronounced, home prices in Tier 2 and 3 markets have also slowed considerably compared to 1H17. However, BCA Research's China investment strategists point out that although prices of homes in Tier 1 cities generally lead Tier 2 and 3 markets, this overlooks other significant indicators of the health of China's real estate sector.7 Our China specialists argue that residential floor space sold should be used as the leading gauge of the property market. They find that floor space sold leads Tier 1 prices which guides floor space started and land area purchased. While the latter two are relatively weak, the recent upturn in floor space sold may point toward a more positive future for the Chinese housing sector. A rebound in the House Price Diffusion Index as well as a falling floor-space-available-for-sale versus sales ratio makes them a little less pessimistic about the market's future, suggesting a potential pickup in construction if floor space started does in fact take its cue from the pickup in floor space sold. Nevertheless, it remains too early to get a clear reading on the future of China's real estate sector at this point. On a positive note, the percentage of Chinese households planning to buy a house in the next three months remains high (Chart 8). Further, while the percentage of total new bank loans that are housing mortgages and loans to real estate developers came down slightly last year, they have rebounded, and now make up roughly half of total new bank loans. However, new mortgage loans as a percent of home sales have decelerated sharply. Chart 7Pick Up In Floor Space Sold:##BR##A Positive Sign? Chart 8Large Number Of Households##BR##Plan To Purchase Homes While the slowdown in real estate may not turn out to be as severe as some of the data suggests, Beijing's government spending is decelerating (Chart 9). While spending in transportation infrastructure has decelerated from double-digit figures recorded earlier last year, spending on utilities has come down considerably. In line with other sectors, automobile production slowed considerably in China last year (Chart 10). It has been decelerating on a monthly basis since December, and most recent February data shows large y/y declines. Going forward, we expect the phasing out of tax breaks for small vehicles in China to continue slowing demand growth for cars there. Chart 9Government Spending##BR##Decelerated Significantly Chart 10Auto Production And Sales##BR##Not Lending Support Bottom Line: A tighter regulatory and credit backdrop is evident in recent readings on China's real estate, infrastructure, and automobile sectors. Given the importance of these industries as end users of metals, the above heralds a more tepid view of China's demand for metals going forward, as we continue to expect moderation in China's economy. Nevertheless, the global market will remain supported by strength elsewhere. On the supply side, disruptions remain an upside risk this year. Stay neutral for now. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the producer coalition lead by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which, at the end of 2016, agreed to remove 1.8mm b/d of production from the market. The coalition has been remarkably successful in maintaining production discipline, which, together with strong global demand growth, has put OECD oil inventories on a steep decline path. Please see "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand" in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for our latest assessment of global supply and demand and our price forecaset. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Brighter Prospects, Optimistic Markets, Challenges Ahead," in the IMF's January 2018 World Economic Outlook Update. 3 Please see IMF Spillover Notes "China's Footprint in Global Commodity Markets," dated September 2016. 4 The IMF also found U.S. IP surprises have a similar impact on commodity markets, despite its smaller share of global imports. The Fund puts this down to the fact that the U.S. is an indicator for global growth. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report titled "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "What's Next In China's Bid To Cool Housing Market: QuickTake," available at bloomberg.com, dated March 4, 2018. 7 Please see China Investment Strategy's Weekly Report titled "Is China's Housing Market Stabilizing?," dated February 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Highlights The current U.S.-China trade skirmish is essentially the beginning of a new cold war. The U.S. and China are engaged in a struggle for supremacy, so trade conflicts will persist. The conflict could evolve into a "game of chicken" - the most dangerous type of game. The U.S. needs Europe's help against China - but an adventure in Iran could cost it that help. Geopolitical risks will cap the rise in bond yields over the next six months, push up oil, and give a tailwind to global defense stocks. Feature The opening salvo of the U.S.-China trade war has caught the investment community by surprise as the market is quickly repricing the odds of a global trade war.1 Nervousness over the breakdown of globalization comes at the same time as our key China view - that Beijing's structural reforms will constrain growth - are beginning to have an impact on global growth (Chart 1).2 Chart 1China Reforms Dragging On Global Growth Fortuitously, we found ourselves in Asia at the onset of "hostilities" and were thus able to see regional investors' reactions in real time. Our clients focused their questions on the economic impact of the announced tariffs (yet to be determined, in our view), constraints facing President Trump (minimal as well), and potential Chinese retaliation (understated). The focus, however, should be on the big picture. The March 23 U.S. announcement of tariffs on around $50 billion worth of Chinese imports is not just the opening salvo of a trade war. Rather the emerging trade war is the opening salvo of a new cold war, a global superpower competition between the U.S. and China that will define the twenty-first century. Put simply, the U.S. and China are now enemies. Not rivals, competitors, or sparing partners. Enemies. It will take the market some time for investors to internalize this idea and price it properly. Meanwhile, in the short term, fears of a full-born global trade war are overblown. The trade tensions are really only about two countries, with uncertain global implications. Investors are right to be cautious, but risks to global earnings are overstated at this time. How Did We Get Here? The ongoing trade tensions are not merely a product of a nationalist Trump administration that decided to call out China for decades of unfair trade practices. They are also the product of the geopolitical context, which we have defined through three "big picture" themes. These three themes allowed us to correctly forecast that the defining feature of the twenty-first century would be a Sino-American conflict. We would be thrilled to see this culminate merely in a trade war. The themes are: Multipolarity (Chart 2)3 Apex of globalization (Chart 3)4 The breakdown of laissez-faire economics (Chart 4)5 Chart 2Multipolarity Is Messy And Volatile Chart 3When Hegemony Declines, Globalization Declines Chart 2 elucidates a key lesson of history: the collapse of British hegemony at the end of the nineteenth century ushered in two world wars. Political science, game theory, and history teach us that periods of multipolarity are rarely peaceful.6 Today's world is not exactly multipolar, as the U.S. remains the preeminent global power. However, regional powers - such as China, the EU, Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and perhaps Turkey and Brazil - have a lot more room to maneuver within their spheres of influence. This means that global rules written by the U.S. at the conclusion of the Second World War are being rewritten for regional contexts. Normatively there is nothing wrong with this process. But practically, multipolarity means that "challenger powers" - such as China today or the German empire in the late nineteenth century - seek to undermine rules and norms of behavior that they had little or no say in setting up. And such rules are necessary to underpin geopolitical stability and grease the wheels of globalization. As Chart 3 shows, trade globalization peaked in the past when the hegemon could no longer enforce global rules. We have therefore emphasized to clients since 2014 that, if we are right that the world is multipolar, then we are essentially at the apex of globalization. A parallel process has seen the breakdown of the laissez-faire consensus, which underpinned the expansion of trade in goods, labor, and capital across sovereign borders. Economic globalization has lifted many boats around the world, but outsourcing - combined with technological innovation - has seen the lower middle class in developed nations face diminishing returns (Chart 4). Chart 4Globalization: No Friend To Developed-Market Middle Class That said, a revolt against globalization and "globalists" is thus far mainly an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, and particularly an American one. Why? Because the particularities of the U.S. laissez-faire economic model, with its scant social protections, laid its middle class bare to the vagaries of globalization and technological change (Chart 5). However, there is no guarantee that other DM countries will not succumb to the same pressures down the line. Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve: Or, How Anglo-Saxons Turned Against Laissez Faire This background is important for investors because merely blaming a nationalist Trump administration or a mercantilist Beijing for today's tensions ignores the underlying context. President Trump can change his mind on a dime, but the geopolitical context can only evolve slowly.7 Mercantilism is here to stay; it is a feature, not a bug, of a multipolar world. Contrast today's tensions with those of the 1970s and 1980s between the U.S. and its major trade partners. The 1971 Smithsonian Agreement and the 1985 Plaza Accord ended overt trade protectionism by the U.S. (in 1971), and threats thereof (in 1985), by securing the compliance of these trade partners with Washington's currency and trade demands. Japan further conceded to U.S. demands in 1989 after a two-year trade war. Today, the U.S. and China are not geopolitical allies huddled under the same nuclear umbrella for protection against an ideologically fueled rival. They are ideological rivals. The reason it took a decade for the conflict to erupt is two-fold. First, the U.S. became entangled in the global war on terror after 9/11, which took its focus off of its emerging competitor in Asia. Second, the consensus view - that China would asymptotically approach a Western democracy as it embraced capitalism - has proven to be folly.8 Bottom Line: The China-U.S. trade conflict is a product of today's particular geopolitical context. At heart, it is a conflict for geopolitical primacy in the twenty-first century and thus unlikely to end quickly. Sino-American Conflict Is Intractable The current U.S.-China trade tensions are more of a skirmish than a war. We think that there is considerable room for a step-down in tensions over the next 12 months. First, the Trump administration has not launched an economic war against China. Not only has the U.S. restricted its list of Chinese goods under tariff consideration to just $50 billion of imports - roughly 12% of total Chinese exports to the U.S. - but it has decided to bring a case against China to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The latter is hardly a move by a mercantilist administration dead-set on across-the-board economic nationalism. Second, China has responded almost immediately by offering several concessions, including renewing pledges to open its economy to inward investment and to protect intellectual property (IP) rights. While these may seem like boilerplate concessions that Beijing has floated before, the current context of trade tensions and domestic structural reforms makes it more likely that Chinese policymakers will follow through on their promises. As such, we can see the current round of tensions tapering off, especially after the U.S. midterm elections. However, we doubt that the structural trajectory of Sino-American relations will be significantly altered even if current tensions subside. First, from China's perspective, its extraordinary economic ascent (Chart 6) is merely the return of the millennium's status quo (Chart 7). The last 180 years - roughly from the beginning of the First Opium War in 1839 to today - were the aberration. During this short period of Chinese weakness, the West - with Britain and then the U.S. at the helm - conspired to restructure global rules and norms of geopolitical and economic behavior without input from the Middle Kingdom. Chart 6China's Economic Rise Has Been Extraordinarily Fast... Chart 7China Sees Its Success As A Return To The Status Quo As such, China's influence in key post-WWII economic institutions like the WTO and the IMF is limited while its military has second-class status even in its own "Caribbean Sea," the South China and East China Seas. From the U.S. perspective, China's growth over the past two decades was made possible by U.S. hegemony. The U.S. secured the global rules and norms that enabled China to integrate seamlessly into the global marketplace and then compete its way to the top. Not only did the U.S. allow China to access its credit-fueled markets, but the U.S. Navy protected China's maritime trade, including vital energy supplies transiting from the Middle East. As a thank you for these efforts, China reneged on its WTO commitments, periodically suppressed its currency, stole American intellectual property, and withheld market access from U.S. corporations via tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Washington policymakers, and not only Trump's hawkish advisors, are turning against China. There is an emerging consensus among the U.S. foreign policy, defense, intelligence, and economic policy elites that: Sino-American economic symbiosis is over (Chart 8); Chart 8U.S.-China ##br##Symbiosis Is Dead Chart 9The U.S. Is Least##br## Exposed To Trade Chart 10China's Share Of Global##br## Exports Has Skyrocketed The U.S. can afford to confront China over trade because it is the least exposed major economy to global trade (Chart 9); The Chinese have acquired a massive share of global exports without a commensurate opening of their domestic market (Chart 10); Arresting Chinese technology transfer and intellectual property theft is a national security issue (Chart 11); The U.S. can confront China because it has emerged victorious from every global conflagration in the past (Chart 12). Chart 11China Imports Conspicuously Little U.S. IP Chart 12America Is Chaos-Proof Fundamentally, American policymakers want to see China's rapid economic growth slow, they want to see China's capital markets and companies constrained by openness to global competition, and they want to put a leash on China's catch-up in the technological and manufacturing value chain (Chart 13). This is not their stated objective as it would imply that the U.S. wants to see China weakened, and the Chinese leadership miss its decade and century economic development goals. But this is precisely what the U.S. establishment wants. As such, the political and economic visions of American and Chinese policymakers are directly at odds with one another. What does this mean for investors? Over the past several years we have developed a reputation of being sanguine about geopolitics. While many of our peers in the political analysis industry overstate the probability of geopolitical risk, we have (successfully) bet against the worst-case scenario in several prominent crises.9 We like to think that this is because we combine game theory with an understanding of the underlying power dynamics. By emphasizing constraints, we have successfully identified how power dynamics constrain the worst-case outcome.10 When it comes to Sino-American tensions, however, we have always been alarmists. This is because we believe the constraints to conflict are overstated, not understated. Furthermore, the potential market impact of a new cold war is unclear and potentially very large. Both the U.S. and China fundamentally think they can win a trade war. This means that they are engaged in a "regular game of chicken," named after the 1950s practice of racing hot rods head-on in order to prove one's manhood.11 Game theory teaches us that a game of chicken is the most unpredictable game because it can create an equilibrium in which all rational actors have an incentive to keep driving head on - to stick to their guns - despite the risks. In Diagram 1, we can see that continuing to drive carries the greatest risk, but also the greatest reward, provided that your opponent swerves. Chart 13China's Steady Climb Up##br## The Value Ladder Continues Diagram 1A Regular ##br##Game Of Chicken Since all actors in a game of chicken assume the rationality of their opponents, they also expect them to eventually swerve. In the current context, this means that the U.S. assumes that China is driven by economic rationality and will not dare face off against the U.S., which has far less to lose given its modest exposure to global trade. Chinese policymakers, however, also think they can win. They look over the Pacific and see a country riven by political polarization (Chart 14) where half of the country thinks the other is "a threat to the nation's well-being" (Chart 15).12 China, meanwhile, has just consolidated its political leadership and feels confident enough in its domestic stability to dabble with growth-constraining economic reforms. Beijing can use any trade tensions with the U.S. to further justify painful reforms. Chart 14Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 15Live And Let Die Who is right? We do not know. And that scares us as it means that the most sub-optimal equilibrium - the bottom-right quadrant of Diagram 1 - is more probable than people think. An important difference maker, one that would alter Beijing's risk calculus considerably, is Europe. Despite being highly leveraged to China's growth, the EU still exports nearly double the value of goods to the U.S. than China (Chart 16). In addition, Europe's trade surplus with the U.S. mostly pays for its deficit with China (Chart 17). Chart 16The EU Exports More To U.S. Than China Chart 17EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China Over the next several months, investors will be able to gauge whether the Trump administration is filled with ideological nationalists who believe in Fortress America or wily realists who know how to get things done. The key question is whether Trump will embrace America's traditional transatlantic alliance with Europe and harness it for the trade war with China. If he embraces it, we will predict that the combined forces of U.S. and Europe will successfully force China to concede to the pressure. If Trump fails, however, we could have a prolonged U.S.-China trade war. Early indications are optimistic. The U.S. gave the EU an exemption from tariffs on steel and aluminum imports on March 22, a delay that will end on May 1. This followed a March 21 meeting between EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. We suspect, but have no evidence, that the U.S. asked the EU to join in its effort to force China to change its trade practices at the WTO. As an exporting bloc, the EU has a lot more to lose from attacking China than the U.S. But it also has much to lose from unabated Chinese mercantilism and technological theft, and much to gain if China opens its doors wider. As such, we posit that Europe will, in the end, join the U.S. and Japan in a concerted effort to pressure China. This will increase the probability that Beijing ultimately gives in to trade pressure. In the long term, it will also ensure that President Trump does not break the critical transatlantic alliance with Europe, which would be paradigm shifting. But, on the other hand, it will set China and the West on a collision course. China's and the West's suspicions of each other will ossify. Bottom Line: In the short term, trade tensions are likely overstated as U.S. actions against China are largely muted and restrained. In the long term, the U.S.-China trade war could potentially devolve into a "game of chicken," the most dangerous type of conflict. The key variable will be whether the U.S. administration is savvy enough to arrange European collaboration against China. If the U.S. treats the EU harshly and ignores its transatlantic ally on other issues - such as conflict with Iran, discussed below - we could be in for a wild ride in the coming months and years. Either way, Europe stands to gain from a conflict between China and the U.S. Both sides are likely going to try to enlist the EU on their side. As such, we are opening a long Europe industrials / short U.S. industrials trade. Meanwhile, growing trade tensions, policy-induced slowdown in China, and repricing of geopolitical risks in East Asia and the Middle East should cap global bond yields over the next six months. We take 50.4bps and 54.4bps profits on our short U.S. 10-year government bond vs. German bund and short Fed Funds December 2018 futures trades. Iran: The Next Target Of Trump's "Maximum Pressure" Policy President Trump's North Korea policy worked brilliantly in 2017. The policy of "maximum pressure" combined military maneuvers, economic sanctions, and extremely bellicose rhetoric to convince Pyongyang and regional powers that the U.S. has lowered its threshold for full-scale war on the Korean peninsula. China reacted swiftly, starving North Korea of hard currency through economic sanctions (Chart 18). The result was a declaration by Pyongyang in late November that it had finally completed its quest to obtain a nuclear deterrent (an exaggeration at best), an olive branch for the Olympics, and an offer by Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un to meet with President Trump. Chart 18China Gives Kim To Trump The policy of "maximum pressure" yielded such extraordinary results with North Korea that President Trump is now eager to trademark the process and apply it to Iran and potentially other global issues. Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has replaced two establishment advisors with hawks. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been replaced with CIA Director and noted Iran-hawk Mike Pompeo. Meanwhile, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster has been replaced by conservative pundit (and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN) John Bolton. Bolton is on record arguing that the U.S. should bomb Iran. The role of the national security advisor varies with the president. Some presidents rely on the position more than others. However, given this administration's inexperience with foreign policy, the role is critical in shaping the White House worldview. The national security advisor manages the staff of the National Security Council (NSC), whose role is to coordinate with the vast network of U.S. intelligence agencies and filter information to the president. Given how large America's foreign, defense, and intelligence establishment is, and given the nature of human and signals intelligence, U.S. presidents often have to act upon diametrically opposing pieces of intelligence. As such, the national security advisor and the NSC can play a critical role in deciding what intelligence makes it to the president's desk and in what context. Staffers in the National Security Council (NSC) are often apolitical. We have been told that several current experts are leftovers from the Obama administration. It is likely that an ideological pundit like John Bolton, who served briefly in the George W. Bush administration, will set out to quickly eliminate non-partisan staffers on the NSC and tilt the information flow away from the empirical to the conspiratorial. With Bolton and Pompeo effectively in charge of U.S. foreign policy it is possible that the U.S. will misapply "maximum pressure" policy to Iran and bungle the complicated coordination with geopolitical allies on China. In particular, the U.S. has to endear itself to the EU if it wants a global economic alliance against China. But the EU also does not want to renegotiate Iran sanctions. Abrogating the 2015 nuclear deal - the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) - would throw the tentative Middle East equilibrium into chaos. While Iran has played a role in preserving the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it has largely kept its vast network of Shia militias and allies in check, particularly in Lebanon and Iraq. Ironically, it was the Obama administration's "flawed" JCPA that has allowed Trump to focus on China in the first place. As we argued when the deal was signed, the conservative critics of the deal itself were correct. The JCPA did not degrade Iran's nuclear capability but merely arrested it.13 The point of the deal was implicitly to give Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East so that the U.S. could extricate itself and focus on China. The Obama administration assessed, in our view non-ideologically, that the U.S. cannot fight two wars at the same time. If the Trump administration decides not to waive sanctions on May 12, it will be in abrogation of the deal. Unlike North Korea, however, Iran has multiple levers it can deploy against the U.S. and its allies' interests in the region. As such, the policy of "maximum pressure" will create much greater risks when applied to Iran. At the very end, it could be as successful as when applied to North Korea, but our conviction view is much lower (and to remind clients, we were optimists about the strategy when applied to North Korea!).14 Furthermore, and again unlike North Korea, Iran is beset with domestic risks. This actually makes it less likely that Tehran will cooperate with the U.S. North Korea is a simple domestic political system where Kim Jong Un can alter policy on a whim without much domestic pushback. In Iran, the dovish and moderate President Hassan Rouhani has to contend for power with hawks who have been critical of the JCPA. Meanwhile, the restive youth population could rise up at the first sign of elite division or weakness. This complicated domestic dynamic is why we cautioned clients back in January that Iran would likely add geopolitical risk premium to the oil markets.15 Bottom Line: It appears that President Trump, motivated by the success of his "maximum pressure" strategy against North Korea, now thinks he can apply it as successfully to Iran. This raises the prospect that Trump will discontinue the waiver of economic sanctions on May 12, effectively re-imposing a slew of economic sanctions against Iran and foreign companies looking to conduct business with it. Geopolitical risks are likely to rise in the Middle East as a result of U.S.-Iran tensions. As we go to publication, Saudi authorities have intercepted another Houthi missile heading towards Riyadh just days after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman visited Washington, D.C. The White House appears to relish the opportunity to fight a war on two fronts, a trade war with China and a geopolitical war with Iran. Expect volatility and an elevated geopolitical risk premium in oil markets. Stay overweight global defense companies across markets. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, and "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001). 7 Would President Hillary Clinton have avoided a trade war with China? We do not think so. Secretary Clinton was considered a "China Hawk" while at the State Department and pushed for the "Pivot to Asia." Jennifer Harris, the lead architect of Clinton's economic statecraft agenda in the U.S. State Department, recently penned a book that called for greater use of economic tools for geopolitical ends. The book, War By Other Means, introduces the term geoeconomics and calls for the U.S. to use economic instruments to promote and defend national interests. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Blog, "We Read (And Liked)... War By Other Means," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 In 2000, while campaigning on behalf of China's WTO entry, President Bill Clinton remarked, "economically, this agreement (China's WTO entry) is the equivalent of a one-way street. It requires China to open its markets ... to both our products and services in unprecedented new ways. All we do is to agree to maintain the present access which China enjoys ..." Please see "Full Text of Clinton's Speech On China Trade Bill," dated March 9, 2009, available at nytimes.com. 9 To name just a few: the risk of an Israeli attack against Iran, the risk of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the risk of Euro Area collapse, the risk of Saudi-Iranian war, the risk of Russian-Turkish war, etc. 10 For the best example of how game theory is combined with our constraint-based paradigm, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After Greece," dated July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 See James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, and "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights The China-specific tariffs proposed by the Trump administration last week represent a great escalation in U.S. protectionism, but the actual measures may be smaller than what was initially announced. The proposed tariffs, if applied as stated, would likely shave 2% off of China's export growth over the coming 6-12 months. This would prevent an acceleration that we would have otherwise expected given the strength of the global economy. A 2% deceleration in export growth is not in and of itself a significantly negative event for China's economy, but the shift in U.S. protectionism from rhetoric to action and the continued decline in our leading indicators makes a tenuous case for a continued overweight stance towards Chinese stocks. We recommend that investors put Chinese ex-tech stocks on downgrade watch over the course of Q2. The recent weakness in the Hong Kong dollar is not a sign of any major economic weakness or financial market instability that should concern investors. However, the prospect of tighter monetary policy is a potential threat to the highly leveraged Hong Kong economy that needs to be monitored. Feature The Trump administration doubled down on its protectionist agenda last week, by announcing its intention to levy US$50 billion in tariffs against a variety of imports from China. This follows the administration's decision earlier in the month to impose a tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, which we discussed at length in our March 7 Weekly Report.1 While the China-specific tariffs represent a great escalation in protectionism relative to those on steel and aluminum imports, there are several important factors for investors to take into consideration: Chart 1President Trump Can Ill-Afford ##br##Any Major Economic Turmoil The decision on Chinese import tariffs is not yet final, as the White House will propose a list of Chinese goods potentially subject to tariffs for public comment and consultations. This opens the door for an enormous lobbying effort from U.S. retailers and negotiations with Chinese officials, signaling that the end result is not set in stone. China's very muted retaliation (so far) increases the odds of a benign, negotiated outcome. Following the initial announcement of the steel and aluminum tariffs, the Trump administration significantly watered down the measures by granting Canada and Mexico an exemption and allowing exemption applications from other countries. This could suggest that the final tariffs to be applied against Chinese imports will be considerably smaller than what the administration signaled last week. Finally, given that the U.S. midterm election will be occurring later this year and that the administration can ill-afford to lose control of the legislative process, President Trump's actions on trade may be designed to maximize the perception of serious trade reform without threatening to substantially impact U.S. or global ex-U.S. economic momentum (Chart 1). This perspective would further support the notion that the bark of China-specific tariffs will be worse than the ultimate bite. The Impact Of Proposed Tariffs On Growth Still, investors cannot assume that the tariffs will be significantly watered down, meaning that it is important to have a forecast for the impact of the proposed tariffs on Chinese growth. We take a simple approach to judging the economic impact on nominal export growth, by calculating an aggregate tariff rate as if the amount of proposed tariffs applied equally across all Chinese exports to the U.S. We then multiply that rate by an estimate of U.S. import price elasticity, and again by the weight of U.S. exports as a share of total Chinese exports. Table 1 presents a list of import elasticity estimates for the G7 countries, both over the short- and long-term. Given that the short-run is our primary concern when modeling the likely cyclical impact on Chinese exports, we use the 0.6 elasticity estimate for the U.S. as a starting point for our analysis. We shock this estimate upwards to 0.8, for two reasons: To generate a relatively conservative estimate of the impact on Chinese export growth It is not clear whether the demand for goods from China is more or less price elastic than goods from other countries. However, given that the majority of Chinese exports to the U.S. are consumer-oriented (and thus less differentiated than highly specialized industrial goods), it is plausible that the price elasticity of Chinese imports is higher than it is on average. Table 1U.S. Short-Run Import Price Elasticity Is Not Trivial Given that US$50 billion is roughly 10% of annual U.S. imports from China, our simple approach suggests that the proposed tariffs would cause China's total export growth to decelerate about 1.6% (10% effective tariff rate times -0.8 import price elasticity times 20% export weight). Including the effect of Chinese re-exports to the U.S. via other major trading partners would slightly increase this estimate, meaning that 1.5 - 2.0% is a conservative range of estimates for the tariff impact. When applied to the current growth rate of Chinese exports, the impact of this estimate would be minimal. Chart 2 shows that Chinese nominal export growth recently accelerated to 22% even when shown as a 3-month moving average, suggesting that a U.S. import tariff would be coming at a time of considerably strong export momentum. In fact, China's February export data was so positive that it raised the Citigroup economic surprise index for China to a 9-year high (Chart 3). Chart 2At First Blush, Chinese Export Growth ##br##Has Accelerated Significantly Chart 3The Pop In Export Growth Has##br## Turbocharged The Surprise Index However, our view is that the growth rates of China's nominal imports and exports do not currently reflect the underlying pace of trade, with both series likely overstating the recent pace of growth. On the import side, we have highlighted in previous reports that import demand has recently outpaced what the Li Keqiang index would suggest. On the export side, a model of global US$ imports from China regressed against extrapolated global industrial production growth has an extremely strong fit over the past several years, and implies that the underlying pace of Chinese export growth is closer to 10%. Chart 4 illustrates this estimate of underlying export growth (based on global imports from China) along with the impact of the proposed tariffs, and highlights that a 2% export growth shock would simply prevent the 2% acceleration in underlying growth that we would normally expect over the coming months given the recent pickup in our global LEI. Chart 4If Enacted, The Proposed Tariffs Will ##br##Prevent An Acceleration In Export Growth Bottom Line: The import tariffs proposed by the Trump administration, if applied as stated, would likely shave about 2% off of China's export growth over the coming 6-12 months. This would prevent an acceleration that we would have otherwise expected given the strength of the global economy. The Implications For Chinese Stock Prices A 2% deceleration in export growth is not a significantly negative event for China's economy, especially if underlying export growth was set to trend higher due to strong global activity. But it does have the strong potential to mute a source of positive economic momentum, at a time when the industrial sector is clearly slowing. We presented our decision tree for Chinese stocks (Chart 5) in our first report of the year,2 and referenced it again in our March 7th report. The decision tree lays out four key questions for investors to answer over the coming 6-12 months in order to decide on the ideal allocation to Chinese equities within a global portfolio: Is The Global Economy Slowing Significantly? Is Significant Further Monetary Policy Tightening Likely? Is The Pace Of Renewed Structural Reforms Likely To Be Too Aggressive? Is The Existing Slowdown In China's Growth Momentum Metastasizing? Chart 5The Chinese Equity 'Decision Tree' While the answer to questions 2 and 3 remains "no", Trump's shift towards protectionism certainly raises the risk of an eventual "yes" to the first question, especially given that our analysis has assumed no retaliation or counter-retaliation. Regarding the issue of China's industrial sector slowdown, the Li Keqiang index is not falling sharply, but it remains in a downtrend and is set to decline further according to our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator (Chart 6). At best, the answer to question 4 is a lukewarm "no". We have previously noted that the uptrend in Chinese ex-tech stock prices vs their global peers over the past two years suggests that investors should have a high threshold for reducing exposure to China. We continue to agree with that assessment, but we must also acknowledge that the shift in U.S. protectionism from rhetoric to action and the continued decline in our leading indicators makes a tenuous case for a continued overweight stance towards Chinese stocks. We are not yet changing our investment recommendations, but we are putting Chinese ex-tech stocks on downgrade watch for Q2. An outright recommendation to cut exposure to neutral will likely occur in response to a technical breakdown which, for now, does not appear to be imminent (Chart 7). Chart 6China's Industrial Sector Is Set To Slow Further Chart 7Still In An Uptrend, For Now Bottom Line: A 2% deceleration in export growth is not in and of itself a significantly negative event for China's economy, but the shift in U.S. protectionism from rhetoric to action and the continued decline in our leading indicators makes a tenuous case for a continued overweight stance towards Chinese stocks. We recommend that investors put Chinese ex-tech stocks on downgrade watch over the course of Q2. An Update On The Hong Kong Dollar The Hong Kong dollar (HKD) has been weakening for the better part of a year, but recently it has fallen quite sharply relative to its history and now trades very close to the weak side of the peg (7.85 Hong Kong dollars to 1 U.S. dollar). The pace of recent weakness has caught the attention of investors and market participants, in part because it would be the first time in 12 years since the HKD threatened to decline below the lower end of the peg. In our view, both the HKD's weakness over the past year and the recent slide have been caused largely by technical factors, and are not in and of themselves signs of any major economic weakness or financial market instability that should concern investors. As highlighted in Chart 8, the significant rise in USD/HKD (a depreciation in the Hong Kong dollar) can be explained by a sizeable rise in the 3-month U.S. LIBOR / Hong Kong HIBOR spread. Panel 2 shows that the first portion of the rise in LIBOR vs HIBOR can be explained on the Hong Kong side. 3-month HIBOR itself has fallen quite substantially relative to the base rate, which has risen in lockstep with the Fed funds rate. This decline in 3-month HIBOR suggests that there is a supply-demand imbalance in the Hong Kong interbank market (in favor of excess supply), and that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) is likely to reduce the aggregate balance maintained by commercial banks in the days and weeks ahead (after having reduced it by HKD 80 billion in the second half of 2017; Chart 9) in order to defend the peg. Chart 8HKD Weakness Caused By Factors##br## On Both Sides Of The Pacific Chart 9To Raise 3-Month HIBOR, ##br##The HKMA Has To Tighten Interbank Liquidity Panel 3 of Chart 8 highlights that the second portion of the LIBOR/HIBOR spike is due to events completely unconnected with Hong Kong's monetary policy or its banking system. As discussed in detail in last week's U.S. Bond Strategy,3 the sharp rise in 3-month LIBOR relative to the Fed funds rate (the opposite of what is occurring in Hong Kong) appears to be driven by the U.S. Treasury rebuilding its cash balance following the recent extension of the debt ceiling, the money market effect of U.S. corporations repatriating U.S. dollars, and the Fed's ongoing balance sheet contraction. The combination of these two factors has created incentives for investors to sell the Hong Kong dollar and buy the U.S. dollar, which explains the weakness of the former. While these factors are technical in nature and are likely to dissipate over time, they are both significantly rooted in the fact that the U.S. is tightening its monetary policy. This will be discussed in more depth in next week's report, as the combination of tighter monetary conditions, the ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector, and the extremely high levels of leverage in Hong Kong's private sector legitimately raises the odds of a smashup over the coming 1-2 years. We will gauge how bearish investors should be on Hong Kong and will present a new indicator that investors can use to monitor whether tighter monetary policy is likely to tip the economy into a debt-driven downturn. Stay tuned. Bottom Line: The recent weakness in the Hong Kong dollar is not a sign of any major economic weakness or financial market instability that should concern investors. However, the prospect of tighter monetary policy is a potential threat to the Hong Kong economy that needs to be monitored. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China And The Risk Of Escalation," dated March 7, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The "Decision Tree" For Chinese Stocks," dated January 4, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Profiting From A Higher LIBOR," dated March 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations