Economy

Highlights Analysis on South Africa is published below. The “EM” label does not guarantee a secular bull market. None of the individual EM bourses has outperformed DM on a consistent basis over the past 40 years. EM share performance in both absolute terms and relative to DM has exhibited long-term cycles of around seven to 10 years. Getting these cycles right is instrumental to successful investing in EM. EM investing is predominantly about exchange rates. From a long-term (structural) perspective, EM equities are only modestly cheap in absolute terms but are very cheap versus the U.S. Feature We often receive questions from asset allocators about the long-term outlook for EM equities and currencies. The general perception among longer-term allocators is that while EMs may underperform over the short term, they always outperform developed markets (DM) in the long run. Consistently, the overwhelming majority of investors’ long-term return forecasts ascribe the highest potential return to EM equities and bonds among various regions and asset classes. This week we focus on the historical long-term performance of EMs. Contrary to popular sentiment, our findings show that EM stocks and currencies have not outperformed their U.S./DM peers in the past 40 years – as long as EMs have existed as an asset class. Hence, there is no guarantee that EM share prices and currencies will always outperform their DM counterparts on a secular basis going forward. Notably, EM share performance in both absolute terms and relative to DM has exhibited long-term cycles of around seven to 10 years. Getting these cycles right is instrumental to successful investing in EM. At the moment, the odds are that the current bout of EM equity and currency underperformance is not yet over, and more downside is likely before a major upturn emerges. The “EM” Label Does Not Guarantee A Secular Bull Market EM share prices have been in a wide trading range since 2010 (Chart I-1), despite the 10-year bull market in the S&P 500. Chart I-1Lost Decade For EM Stocks Remarkably, there is no single EM bourse that has been in a bull market during this decade (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). This proves that this has indeed been a “lost” decade for EM. Chart I-2Individual EM Bourses: A Very Long-Term Perspective Chart I-3Individual EM Bourses: A Very Long-Term Perspective Historically, secular bull markets have been followed by bear markets not only in the boom-bust economies of Latin America, EMEA and Southeast Asia but also in former Asian tiger economies including Korea, Taiwan and Singapore (Chart I-4). This is despite the fact that per-capita real income has been growing rather rapidly in these Asian economies. Chart I-4Former Asian Tigers: Long-Term Equity Performance Remarkably, China and Vietnam have been exhibiting similar dynamics over the past 20 years – rapid per-capita real income growth and poor equity market returns (Chart I-5). Chart I-5China And Vietnam: Stock Prices And GDP Per Capita The message from all of these charts is as follows: Periods of industrialization and urbanization – even if successful – do not always entail structural bull markets. The U.S. fits this pattern as well. During the period between 1870 and 1900, the U.S. was experiencing industrialization and urbanization along with many productivity enhancements such as the steam engine, electricity and infrastructure construction. Even though America’s prosperity and real income per-capita levels surged during this period, corporate earnings per share and stock prices were rather flat (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The U.S. In The Late 1800s: Stocks, Profits And GDP Hence, rising per-capita real income and prosperity do not translate into higher share prices on a consistent basis. This is not to say that no country can ever deliver healthy stock market gains in the long run. Some certainly will, and it is our job to identify and expose these to clients. The point is that the “emerging market” status does not guarantee a structural bull market. Asset Allocation: Play Cycles Chart 7 illustrates that EM relative equity performance versus DM in general and the U.S. in particular has gone through several major swings over the past 40 years. Remarkably, none of the individual EM bourses has outperformed DM on a consistent basis over this time frame (Chart I-8A and I-8B). Chart I-7EM Versus DM: Relative Total Equity Returns Chart I-8ANo Single EM Bourse Has Outperformed DM In Past 40 Years Chart I-8BNo Single EM Bourse Has Outperformed DM In Past 40 Years Failure to outperform DM stocks is not only inherent for bourses in twin-deficit and inflation-prone regions/countries such as Latin America, Russia, Turkey, South Africa and South East Asia (including India), but it has also been true for share prices in rapidly growing countries such as China and Vietnam (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Chinese And Vietnamese Stocks Have Not Outperformed DM Remarkably, equity markets in the former Asian tigers – Korea, Taiwan and Singapore – have also failed to outperform their DM peers in the past 40 years (Chart I-10). This is in spite of the fact that real income per-capita growth in these Asian nations has by far outpaced that in both the U.S. and DM (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Former Asian Tigers Have Not Outperformed DM Equities... Chart I-11…Despite Economic Outperformance Evidently, the assumption that EM stocks will outperform DM equities on the back of higher potential growth rates is not validated by historical data. First, higher potential growth does not always ensure robust realized GDP growth. Second, even if real GDP-per-capita growth rises considerably, this does not always guarantee superior equity market returns. Some of the reasons for this include productivity benefits being transferred to employees rather than to shareholders, chronic equity dilution, and a misallocation of capital that boosts economic growth at the expense of shareholders. Bottom Line: EM relative stock performance versus DM has been fluctuating in well-defined long-term cycles. In our view, EM relative equity performance has not yet reached the bottom in this downtrend. We downgraded EM stocks in April 2010 and have been recommending a short EM equities / long S&P 500 strategy since December 2010 (please refer to Chart I-7 on page 5). EM Investing Is Primarily About Exchange Rates Exchange rates hold the key to getting EM equity cycles right for international investors. As demonstrated in Chart I-12, historically the bulk of EM equity return erosion has been due to currency depreciation. Chart I-12EM Investing Is All About Exchange Rates Exchange rates of structurally weak EM economies depreciate chronically. Common reasons include lack of productivity growth, high inflation, current account deficits, uncontrolled fiscal expansion, and reliance on volatile foreign portfolio flows. Periods of currency depreciation also occur in emerging Asian economies that have low inflation and typically run current account surpluses. Chart I-13 shows spot rates for Korea, Taiwan and Singapore versus the SDR which is a weighted average of USD, the euro, JPY, GBP, and CNY.1 Chart I-13Former Asian Tiger Currencies: Wide Fluctuations None of these Asian-tiger currencies has consistently appreciated versus the SDR. As in the case of share prices, there have been multi-year exchange rate swings. Further, U.S. dollar total returns on EM local bonds are also primarily driven by their currencies (Chart I-14). Consequently, the cycles in EM local currency bonds match EM exchange rate cycles. Chart I-14Total Return On Local Currency Bonds EM credit spread fluctuations are also by and large contingent on their exchange rates. Credit spreads on EM sovereign and corporate U.S. dollar bonds gauge debt servicing risk. The latter is highly influenced by exchange rates. Currency depreciation (appreciation) increases (decreases) debt servicing costs thereby affecting credit spreads. Bottom Line: Exchange rate fluctuations are driven by macro crosscurrents, making macro an indispensable know-how for EM investing. We maintain that EM currencies are susceptible to renewed weakness against the U.S. dollar as China’s growth continues to weaken, weighing on EM growth and thereby their respective exchange rates (Chart I-15). In turn, the U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency and does well when global growth decelerates. Chart I-15EM Currencies Are Pro-Cyclical Valuations: The Starting Point Matters… In recent years, a long-term bullish case for EM equities and currencies has often been made on the grounds of cheap valuations. Chart I-16 illustrates the equity market-cap weighted real effective exchange rate for EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan – a measure that is pertinent for both EM equity and fixed-income investors.2 It reveals that EM currency valuations are only slightly below their historical mean. Chart I-16EM Ex-China, Korea, Taiwan Currencies Are Modestly Cheap As to the CNY, KRW and TWD, their valuations are not at an extreme, and the CNY holds the key. The main long-term risk to the RMB is capital outflows from Chinese households and companies as discussed in February 14 report. For long-term investors, the pertinent equity valuation yardstick is the cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio – i.e., to look beyond a business cycle. Hence, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model – i.e., it works in the long term. Only investors with a time horizon greater than three years should use this valuation measure in their investment decisions. Our CAPE model gauges equity valuations under the assumption of per-share earnings converging to their trend line. The latter is derived by a regression of the cyclically adjusted EPS in real U.S. dollar terms on time. The EM CAPE ratio presently stands at 0.5 standard deviations below its historical mean (Chart I-17). This means EM stocks are modestly cheap from a long-term perspective. Meanwhile, the U.S.’s CAPE ratio is very elevated (Chart I-18). Chart I-17EM Equities Are Modestly Cheap From AA1 Structural Perspective Chart I-18U.S. Stocks Are Expensive From AA1 Structural Perspective On a relative basis, EMs are very attractive relative to U.S. stocks (Chart I-19). This entails that the probability of EM stocks outperforming U.S. equities is very high from a secular perspective – longer than three years. Chart I-19EM Equities Are Cheap Versus U.S. From AA1 Structural Perspective Nevertheless, a caveat is in order. Our CAPE model assumes that EPS in real U.S. dollar terms will rise at the same pace as it has historically. The slope of the time trend – the historical compound annual growth rate (CARG) of EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms – is 2.8% for EM and 2% for the U.S. Please note that we determined the earnings time trend (trend line) using historical ranges – 1983 to present for EM, and 1935 to present for the U.S. Hence, these CAPE models assume that EM EPS will grow 0.8 percentage points (2.8% minus 2%) faster than U.S. corporate EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms, as they have done historically. Under this assumption, EM stocks are considerably cheaper than the U.S. market. That said, in the medium term, corporate earnings are the key driver of EM share prices, and contracting profits pose a risk to EM performance, as discussed in our February 21 report. Bottom Line: From a long-term perspective, EM equities and currencies are only modestly cheap in absolute terms. Based on our CAPE ratio model, EM stocks are very cheap versus the U.S. However, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation measure, and only investors with a time horizon of longer than three years should put considerable emphasis on it. …But Beware Of A Potential Value Trap If for whatever reason there is a change in the slope of the EM EPS long-term trend – i.e., per-share earnings fail to expand in the coming years at their historical rate, as discussed above, our CAPE model would be invalidated. In such a case, EM share prices are unlikely to enter a secular bull market in absolute terms and outperform their U.S. counterparts structurally. The key to sustaining the current upward slope in the long-term trajectory of EPS in real U.S. dollar terms is for EM/Chinese companies to undertake corporate restructuring and increase efficiency. Critically, recurring Chinese credit and fiscal stimulus as well as cheap and abundant money from international investors have not fostered corporate restructuring in China, nor in other EM countries. The basis is that easy and cheap financing and economic growth propped-up by periodic Chinese stimulus has made companies complacent, undermining their productivity and efficiency. The ultimate outcome will be weak corporate profitability over the long run. Another long-term risk to corporate earnings in China and some other EMs is the expanding role of the state in the economy. In these circumstances, China/EM corporate profitability will also suffer over the long run. The basis is that in any country the private sector is better than the government in generating strong corporate earnings. Bottom Line: Without structural reforms and corporate restructuring in EM/China, EM stocks are unlikely to outperform their DM peers on a secular basis. Investment Conclusions The medium-term EM outlook remains poor for the reasons we elaborated on in last week’s report titled, EM: A Sustainable Rally or A False Start? Further, investor sentiment on EM is very bullish, and positioning in EM equities and currencies is elevated (Chart I-20). We continue to recommend underweighting EM stocks, credit markets and currencies versus their DM counterparts and the U.S. in particular. Chart I-20Investors Are Very Bullish On EM From a long-term perspective, EM equity and currency valuations are modestly cheap. However, a durable long-term expansion in EM economies is contingent on a sustainable bottom in Chinese growth. The latter hinges on deleveraging and corporate restructuring in China, neither of which have occurred to a meaningful extent. For EM equity portfolios, we presently recommend overweighting Mexico, Brazil, Chile, central Europe, Russia, Thailand and Korean non-tech stocks. Our current (not structural) underweights are South Africa, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Peru. Within the EM equity space, two weeks ago we booked triple-digit profits on our strategic long positions in EM tech versus both the overall EM index and EM materials stocks, respectively. These positions were initiated in 2010. The basis for these strategic recommendations was our broader theme for the decade of being long what Chinese consumers buy, and short plays on Chinese construction, which we initiated on June 8, 2010. This week we are closing our long central European banks / short euro area banks equity position. We recommended it on April 6, 2016, and it has produced a 14% gain since then. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com South Africa: Debt Deflation Or Currency Depreciation? South Africa’s public debt dynamics are on an unsustainable track. Two prerequisites for public debt sustainability are (1) for interest rates to be below nominal GDP growth or (2) continuous robust primary fiscal surpluses. Hence, a government can stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio by either having nominal GDP above its borrowing costs, or by running persistent and sizable primary fiscal surpluses. Neither of these two stipulations are presently satisfied in South Africa. The gap between government local currency bond yields and nominal GDP growth is at its widest in over the past 10 years (Chart II-1). Meanwhile, the primary fiscal deficit is 0.75% of GDP (Chart II-2). Chart II-1South Africa: An Unsustainable Gap Chart II-2South Africa Has Not Had A Primary Fiscal Surplus In A Decade Faced with very low real potential GDP growth stemming from the economy’s poor structural backdrop, the authorities in South Africa ultimately have two choices to stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio: Tighten fiscal policy substantially, trying to achieve persistent large primary budget surpluses; or Inflate their way out of debt, which would require a large currency depreciation to boost nominal GDP growth above borrowing costs. With this in mind, we performed a simulation on public debt, assuming fiscal tightening but no substantial currency depreciation (Table II-1). The first scenario uses the 2019 consolidated budget government assumptions and projections for nominal GDP, government revenues and expenditures, i.e., it is the government's scenario. In this scenario, the public debt-to-GDP ratio rises only to 58% by the end of the 2021-‘22 fiscal year. However, government forecasts always end up being optimistic. We believe this scenario is implausible due to its overestimation of nominal GDP, and hence government revenue growth. As the government tightens fiscal policy, nominal GDP growth and ultimately government revenue will disappoint substantially. For the second scenario, we used government projections for fiscal spending in the coming years, but our own estimates for nominal GDP and government revenue growth. Notably, excluding interest payments and fiscal support for ailing state-owned enterprises like Eskom, nominal growth of government expenditures in the current year is at 7.5%, and estimated to be 6.8% the next two fiscal years. That is why we project nominal GDP and government revenue growth to be very weak. The basis of our assumption is as follows: Barring considerable currency depreciation, as the authorities undertake substantial fiscal tightening in the next three years, nominal GDP and consequently government revenue growth will plunge. Importantly, government revenues exhibit a non-linear relationship with nominal GDP – government revenues fluctuate much more than nominal GDP (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Government Revenues Are 'High-Beta' On Nominal GDP Growth As government revenue growth underwhelms, the primary deficit will widen and the public debt-to-GDP ratio will escalate, reaching 70% of GDP by the end of the 2021-‘22 fiscal year, according to our projections (Table II-1). Overall, without considerably lower interest rates and material currency depreciation, the government’s financial position will enter a debt deflation spiral. Fiscal tightening will hurt nominal growth damaging fiscal revenues. As a result, the fiscal deficit will widen – not narrow – and the debt-to-GDP ratio will rise. Therefore, the only feasible option for South Africa to stabilize public debt is to reduce interest rates dramatically and depreciate the currency. This will engender higher inflation and nominal growth, thereby boosting government revenues and capping the public debt burden. At 10%, the share of foreign currency debt as part of South Africa’s public debt is low. Hence, currency depreciation will do less damage to public debt dynamics than keeping interest rates at high levels. On the whole, the rand is a very structurally weak currency, and is bound to depreciate due to deteriorating public debt dynamics. Chart II-4 plots the real effective exchange rate of the rand based on CPI and PPI. It is evident that its valuation is not yet depressed. Chart II-4The Rand Is Modestly Cheap Meanwhile, cyclical headwinds also warrant currency depreciation (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Widening Trade Deficit Warrants Currency Depreciation Market Recommendations Continue shorting the ZAR versus the U.S. dollar and the MXN. Consistent with the negative outlook for the exchange rate, investors should underweight South African local currency government bonds and sovereign credit within respective EM portfolios. Finally, we recommend EM equity portfolios remain underweight South African equities. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1       Special Drawing Rights. The value of the SDR is based on a basket of five currencies: the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the Japanese yen, and the British pound sterling. 2      We exclude these three currencies since their bourses have very large equity market cap in the EM stock index and, hence, would make any aggregate currency measure unrepresentative for the rest of EM.   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Await the U.K. parliament to coalesce a majority on a on a credible strategy for Brexit that is also acceptable to the EU27. At that point, buy the pound, the FTSE250, and U.K. homebuilder shares. An eerie calm has descended over developed economy currencies. But the Chinese yuan has rebounded sharply. Stay tactically overweight emerging market currencies, cyclical equity sectors, and equities versus bonds. But don’t expect these rallies to last beyond the summer. Feature Chart of the WeekAn Eerie Calm Has Descended Over The Currency Markets. Why? End Of The Road For May From the moment almost three years ago that the U.K. voted to leave the EU, it was clear that a rational and measured Brexit would require the U.K. to remain in a customs union with the EU. Rational and measured because a customs union would protect the cross-border supply chains which are vital to so many U.K. businesses. Rational and measured because a customs union would avoid a hard customs border on the island of Ireland, and thereby prevent a break-up of the U.K. Rational and measured because a customs union would best deliver on the narrow 52:48 vote to leave the EU, which was driven by a desire to control migration and the supremacy of the European Court of Justice – both of which are compatible with remaining in a customs union – rather than a desire to strike independent trade deals – which is not. Yet Theresa May did not steer to this rational and measured Brexit, because she knew it would rip apart the Conservative party, a hard minority of which sees the sovereignty of trade policy as its Holy Grail. Beholden to this minority, May put her party interest above the national interest. But now, May has run out of road. Her Brexit deal has been rejected twice by huge parliamentary majorities. In the coming days, parliament, through a series of indicative votes, is likely to wrest control of the Brexit process from the government. So far, parliament has expressed what it is against (a no-deal Brexit), but it has yet to express what course of action it is for. We await the U.K. parliament to coalesce a majority on a credible strategy for Brexit that is also acceptable to the EU27. At that point, irrespective of the exact strategy, we will buy the pound, the FTSE250, and U.K. homebuilder shares. Important Message From The Currency Markets An unusually eerie calm has descended over the currency markets (Chart of the Week). For the past six months, GBP/USD has drifted within a tight 5 percent range, USD/JPY has also moved within a similarly narrow range, and EUR/USD has been trapped within an even tighter 3 percent range (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2GBP/USD And EUR/USD Have Been Very Calm Recently Chart I-3USD/JPY Has Also Been Very Calm Recently The calm is eerie because Brexit tensions have actually intensified as the Article 50 clock has run down without a breakthrough; the Federal Reserve has made a dramatic volte-face from its sequential rate hikes; the ECB has pivoted back to dovish after the German economy narrowly avoided a technical recession; and the Japanese economy contracted sharply in the third quarter of 2018. Adding to the eeriness of the calm in currency markets, the equity and bond markets have experienced wild gyrations. Global equities plunged 20 percent before quickly recovering most of the losses, while long bond prices moved by close to 15 percent1 (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5).1 Chart I-4While Equities Have Been Turbulent, Currencies Have Been Calm Chart I-5While Bonds Have Been Turbulent, Currencies Have Been Calm Given all of this turbulence, why have currency markets remained a relative oasis of calm? The simple answer is that exchange rates are, by definition, relative prices. And in the major economies, growth and inflation rates have moved in the same direction by the same amount at roughly the same time. In fact, looking at quarter-on-quarter growth rates, the major economies have all recently experienced identical 1.5 percent slowdowns: from 4 to 2.5 percent in the U.S.; and from 2.5 percent to around 1 percent in both the euro area and the U.K.2  (Chart I-6 - Chart I-8). Chart I-6U.S. GDP Growth Slowed By 1.5 Percent Chart I-7Euro Area GDP Growth Slowed By 1.5 Percent Chart I-8U.K. GDP Growth Slowed By 1.5 Percent Markets do not care about the level of growth. They care much more about the change in growth. Financial markets are a discounting mechanism, and what matters most to the price is the change in the assumptions that are embedded within it. For example, if the price were discounting a major economy to grow at 4 percent and that rate of growth subsequently fell to 2.5 percent, then the seemingly benign outcome of respectable growth would cause interest rate expectations to decline. In another major economy, if growth slowed from 2.5 percent to 1 percent, it would precipitate a broadly similar decline in interest rate expectations.  In this situation of synchronised and meaningful slowdowns across major economies, and the consequent policy responses, equity and bond absolute prices would experience wild gyrations. By contrast, currencies are relative prices. So if the decline in major economy growth rates and interest rate expectations were broadly similar, currency markets would remain a relative oasis of calm. Which perfectly describes the observation of the last six months. This observation of near-identical slowdowns in the major economies supports our thesis that their genesis came from outside the developed economies, which we expounded in A European Cycle ‘Made In China’. And now we present the smoking gun. While an eerie calm has descended over developed economy currencies, all the action has been in emerging economy currencies, especially the Chinese yuan which has rebounded sharply. The message from the currency markets reinforces our thesis: last year’s growth downswing and the current upswing were made in China (see final chart). Never Focus On Levels Of Economic Growth It is worth repeating that a head-to-head comparison of growth rates across different economies is a meaningless exercise. Here’s a simple way to grasp this crucial point: a 1.5 percent growth rate would be a very pleasing outcome for Europe, it would be a very unpleasing outcome for the U.S., and it would be a catastrophic outcome for China. The reason is that if a population is growing, the economy needs to generate real growth well in excess of the rate of population growth to improve (per person) living standards. That excess comes from productivity growth which lifts standards of living and wellbeing. In the case of Germany or Japan where the population is not growing, or is indeed shrinking, the GDP growth rate that is consistent with these rising standards of living is much lower than in those economies where the population is growing (Chart I-9 and Chart I-10). Chart I-9The Same Productivity Growth In The Euro Area And The U.S. ... Chart I-10... Generates Different GDP Growth Necessarily, an economy with weaker demographics – like Germany or Japan – will flirt with technical recessions much more often than one with population growth – like the U.S. or China. But this is just Arithmetic 101. It doesn’t mean that Germany or Japan are in a fundamentally worse shape when it comes to all-important productivity growth and improving wellbeing. Just as important for investors, earnings per share (eps) growth depends on productivity growth and not on GDP growth. Granted, higher GDP from an increasing population will boost a firm’s sales, but without increasing productivity, the firm will have to hire more staff to produce those sales. In essence, the firm will have to employ more capital – issue more shares – which means than earnings per share will not grow. To reemphasise, levels of GDP growth, in themselves, do not drive financial markets. The Perils Of Data-Dependency Recently, the world’s major central banks have become even more wedded to ‘data-dependency’, for two reasons: first, under ever increasing external scrutiny, objectivity to the economic data boosts the transparency and rationale of central bank policy; second, data-dependency acts as a foil to politicians who might want to influence or interfere with the independence of monetary policy. No names mentioned! We applaud the central banks for their good intentions. Yet enhanced data-dependency also carries perils, as it increases the amplitude of the ever-present and natural oscillations in economic growth. The reason is that the high-profile hard data on which monetary policy ‘depends’ such as CPI inflation and GDP growth record what happened in the past, and sometimes in the distant past. Meanwhile, a monetary policy shift today will act on the economy in the future due to the unavoidable lags in transmission. It follows that enhanced data-dependency is akin to a crop farmer who uses last season’s depressed price, from oversupply, to justify planting much less seed for next season. The inevitable undersupply at next season’s harvest will then cause the crop price to surge. Making the farmer plant much more for the following season, at which point the price will collapse again. And the oscillations will continue ad infinitum. Unfortunately, the more backward the data on which policy actions depend, the higher the amplitude of the price and output oscillations.   Right now, growth sensitive investment positions are midway through exactly such an up-oscillation, justifying a near-term overweight in emerging market currencies, cyclical equity sectors, and equities versus bonds. But these rallies are highly unlikely to last beyond the summer (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Recent Mini-Cycle Is ‘Made In China’ Stay tuned for the next turn. Fractal Trading System* We are pleased to report that long DAX versus the 30-year bund achieved its 2.5 percent profit target which is now crystallised and closed. This week we note that the sharp sell-off in AUD/CNY is close to the limit of tight liquidity that has signaled recent reversals in this cyclical currency cross. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long AUD/CNY. Set a profit target of 1.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-12 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com   Dhaval Joshi,  Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 The German 30-year bund. 2 Based on annualised quarter-on-quarter real GDP growth rates. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights So What? The late-cycle rally still faces non-trivial political hurdles. Why? U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit continue to pose risks. A shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a temporary negative impact on equity markets. A bombshell would increase Trump’s chances of removal from office. We give 35% odds to tarrifs on autos and auto parts, and 10% odds to a hard Brexit. Feature In our February 6 report we outlined how a “Witches’ Brew” of geopolitical risks had the potential to short-circuit the late-cycle equity rally. A month later, that brew is still bubbling. President Donald Trump’s approval rating has rebounded but going forward it faces challenges from negative headlines (Chart 1). These include a soaring trade deficit, a large influx of illegal immigrants on the southern border, a weak jobs report for February, a setback in North Korean diplomacy, and an intensification of the scandals plaguing Trump’s inner circle. Chart 1Don't Get Comfortable Just Yet, Mr. President Each of these issues calls into question the effectiveness of Trump’s core policies and the stability of his administration, though in reality they are only potentially problematic. While Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s forthcoming report poses a tail risk, the substantial threat remains Trump’s trade policy.  Indeed, investors face “the persistence of uncertainties related to geopolitical factors” and the “threat of protectionism,” according to European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, who spoke as he rolled out a new round of monetary stimulus for Europe and its ailing banks. What did Draghi have in mind? The obvious culprits are the U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit. There were other issues – such as “vulnerabilities in emerging markets” – but the first three are the most likely to have turned Draghi’s head. The global economic outlook is likely to improve on the back of Chinese stimulus and policy adjustments by the ECB and Federal Reserve. But growth has not yet stabilized and financial markets face additional volatility due to the fact that none of these “geopolitical factors” is going to be resolved easily. The good news is that Trump, overseeing a precarious economy ahead of an election, has an incentive to play softball rather than hardball.  Mueller’s Smoking Gun? News reports suggest that Mueller will soon issue the final report of his investigation into President Trump’s election campaign links with Russia. There is really only one way in which the Mueller report could be market relevant: it could produce smoking-gun evidence that results in non-trivial impeachment proceedings. Any scandal big enough to remove Trump from office or clearly damage his reelection chances is significant because financial markets would dislike the extreme policy discontinuity (Chart 2). Anything short of this will be a red herring for markets, though admittedly many of our clients disagree. Very little is known about what Mueller will report and how he will interpret his mandate. Mueller’s investigation may or may not make it to the public in full form, at least initially, and he may or may not make any major additional indictments. Congress will strive to get access to the report, which is internal to the Justice Department, while spin-off investigations will proliferate among lower-level federal district attorneys and congressional committees. The legal battle, writ large, will run into the 2020 election and beyond. House Democrats alone can decide whether to bring articles of impeachment against Trump, but the case would be struck down in the Senate if it did not rest on ironclad evidence of wrongdoing that implicated Trump personally. Republican Senators will not jump ship easily – especially not 18 of them. That would require a sea change in grassroots support for Trump. Trump’s approval among Republicans remains the indicator to watch, and it is still strong (Chart 3). If this number crashes in the aftermath of the Mueller report, then Trump could find himself on a Nixonian trajectory, implying higher odds of a Senate conviction (Chart 4). At that point, markets would begin discounting a Democratic sweep in 2020, with business sentiment and risk assets likely to drop at the prospect of higher taxes and increased regulation (Chart 5). Chart 5A 2020 Democratic Sweep Would Dent Business Sentiment After all, if scandals remove Trump from office, then not only is a Democrat likely to win the White House, but any Democrat is likely to win – even a non-centrist like Bernie Sanders or other Democratic candidates like Kamala Harris who have swung hard to the left. Meanwhile, the odds of Democrats taking control of the Senate (while keeping the House) will rise. With Democratic candidates flirting with democratic socialism and proposing a range of left-wing policies, the prospect of full Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches would weigh on financial markets. We doubt that the Mueller report can fall short of a smoking gun while still dealing a fatal blow to Trump. The Democrats control the House, so if the scandal grows to gigantic proportions, they will impeach. Yet if they impeach without an ironclad case, Trump will be acquitted. And if Trump is acquitted, it is hard to see how his chances of reelection would fall. The impeachment of former President Bill Clinton looms large over Democrats, since it ended up boosting his popularity. If Democrats are overzealous to no end, it will help Trump’s campaign. If Trump should then win re-election, he will have veto power and likely a GOP Senate, so his policies will remain in place. The outcome for markets would be policy continuity, though the market-positive aspects of Trump’s first term may not be improved while the market-negative aspects, such as his trade policy and foreign policy, may reboot. Mueller is an all-or-nothing prospect: he either leads us to the equivalent of the Watergate Tapes or not. Lesser crimes are unlikely to have a decisive impact on the election. But volatility is likely to go up as the report comes due, just as it did during the Lewinsky scandal (Chart 6), at least until the dust settles and there is clarity on impeachment. And an equity sell-off at dramatic points in the saga cannot be ruled out, especially if global factors combine with actual impeachment (Chart 7). Chart 6Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol... Chart 7… And Potentially Dampen Returns Bottom Line: A specific, shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a negative impact on equity markets and risk assets, but any such moves would be temporary as long as the growth and earnings backdrop remain positive and Mueller does not drop a bombshell that increases Trump’s chances of removal from office. Separating The Budget From The Border The president faces adverse developments on the southern border after having initiated a controversial national emergency in order to transfer military funds to construct new barriers. The U.S. has seen an abnormally large increase in apprehensions and attempted entries this year (Charts 8A & 8B). Ultimately the influx calls attention to the porous southern border and as such may help to justify Trump’s policy focus. For now it raises the question of why the administration’s tough tactics are failing to deter immigrants. Meanwhile his emergency declaration has divided the Republican Party, with several members likely to join with Democrats in a resolution of disapproval that Trump will veto. Congress will not be able to override the veto, but Trump’s decree also faces challenges in the judicial system. We doubt that the Supreme Court will rule against him but it certainly is possible. The ruling is highly likely to come before the election. Meanwhile Trump is kicking off the FY2020 budget battle with his newest request of $8.6 billion for the border wall and cuts to a range of discretionary non-defense spending. The presidential budget is a fiction – it is based on unrealistic cuts to a range of government programs. Any budget that is passed will bear no relation to the administration’s proposals. Opinion polls referenced above clearly demonstrate that Trump’s approval rating suffered from the recent government shutdown. This does not mean that he will conclude the next budget battle by the initial deadline of October 1 or that a late-2019 shutdown is impossible. He might accept a short shutdown to try to secure defense spending that would arguably legitimize his repurposing of military funds for border construction. But his experience early this year means that the odds of another long-running, bruising shutdown are low. Might Trump refuse to raise the debt ceiling later this year to get his way on the wall? This is even less likely than a shutdown due to the negative impact that a debt ceiling constraint would have on social security recipients and bond markets. Trump also has the most to lose if the 2011 budget caps snap back into place in 2020 due to any failure of the FY2020 negotiations (Chart 9). As such, the debt ceiling – which the Treasury Department can keep at bay until the end of the fiscal year in October – and the 2020 budget may be resolved together this time around. In short, Trump will be forced to punt on congressional funding for the wall later this year and will have to campaign on it again in November 2020, with the slogan “Finish the Wall.” This is a market-positive outcome, as the hurdles to fiscal spending in 2020 are likely to be reduced: Trump will have to concede to some Democratic priorities and abandon his proposed cuts. The Democrats, for their part, are likely to have enough moderates to get the next budget over the line with Republican support. To illustrate, Republicans only need 21 votes for a majority, while no fewer than 26 Democrats were recently chastised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for cooperating with Republicans. The implication is that a bipartisan majority can be found. Since Trump cannot get his budget cuts, and does not really even want them, the projected contraction of the budget deficit in 2020 will be reduced or erased (Chart 10). On the margin, this would support higher inflation and bond yields.  The biggest threat to Trump’s reelection is still the risk that the long business cycle will expire by November next year. However, the exceedingly low February payrolls print was misleading – the unemployment rate fell and wage growth was firm (Chart 11). American households are in relatively good shape and that bodes well for Trump, for the time being. Chart 11American Households Are In Good Shape Bottom Line: The economy is relatively well supported and Trump and the Democrats are ultimately likely to cooperate on the budget under the table, reducing the risks of a debt ceiling breach, or an extended government shutdown later this year, or a fall off the 2020 stimulus cliff. The Trade Deficit: Trump’s Pivot To Europe Trade policy is where Trump’s challenges merge with Draghi’s woes. The U.S. trade deficit lurched upwards to a ten-year high of $621 billion in 2018 (Chart 12). The trade deficit is uniquely important to Trump because he campaigned on an unorthodox protectionist agenda in order to reduce it. It will be very difficult for him to evade the consequences if the deficit is higher, as a share of GDP, in November 2020 than it was in January 2017. Chart 12Trade Deficit Jump Is A Blow To Trump The underlying cause of the rising deficit is that a growing American economy at full employment with a relatively strong dollar will suck in larger quantities of imports. This effect is overriding any that Trump’s tariffs have had in discouraging imports. Meanwhile the global slowdown, reinforced by trade retaliation and negative sentiment, are harming U.S. exports (Chart 13). The administration’s policies of fiscal stimulus combined with encouraging private investment are guaranteed to lead to a higher current account deficit, barring an offsetting (and highly unlikely) rise in private saving. The current account deficit must equal the gap between domestic saving and investment and a rising fiscal deficit represents a drop in saving. Chart 13Trade War Hurting U.S. Exports What does the trade deficit imply for the U.S.-China talks? On one hand, the U.S. could put more pressure on China after feeling political heat from the large deficit. On the other hand, China has always offered to reduce the bilateral trade deficit directly through bulk purchases of goods, particularly commodities. It is Trump’s top negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, who has insisted that China make structural changes to reduce trade imbalances on a long-term and sustainable basis.1  In a sign of progress, the U.S. and China have reportedly arrived at a currency agreement. No details are known and therefore it is impossible to say if it would mean a more “market-oriented” renminbi, which could fluctuate and have a variable impact on the trade deficit, or a renminbi that is managed to be stronger against the dollar, which would tend to weigh on the deficit, as Trump might wish. The two negotiating teams are working on the text of five other structural issues that should also mitigate the deficit. Moreover, China’s new foreign investment law, if enforced, could increase American market access by leveling the playing field for foreign firms. However, there is still no monitoring mechanism, the two presidents have not scheduled a final signing summit, and the deterioration in North Korean peace talks also works against any quick conclusion. If Trump concludes a deal, the next question for investors is whether he will impose Section 232 tariffs on auto and auto imports on the EU and other partners (Chart 14). The European Commission’s top trade negotiator, Cecilia Malmstrom, recently met with Lighthizer in Washington to discourage tariffs. She refused to admit agriculture into the negotiations, as per a U.S.-EU joint statement in July 2018, but proposed equalizing tariffs on industrial goods as a way for both sides to make a positive start (Chart 15). She said that the U.S. repealing the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs are necessary for any final deal. And she reiterated that any new tariffs (e.g., the proposed Section 232 tariffs on autos and auto parts) would prevent a deal and provoke immediate retaliation on $23 billion worth of American exports. Malmstrom also said that the EU would prefer to work with the U.S. on reforming the World Trade Organization and addressing China’s trade violations. This approach fits with that of Japan, which has joined the U.S. and EU in trilateral discussions toward reforming the global trade architecture in a bid to mitigate U.S. protectionism and constrain China. The problem with the EU’s position is that once the U.S. and China make a trade deal, the U.S. will not have as immediate of a need to form a trade coalition against China (other than in dealing with WTO issues). Moreover, Japan will be forced to accept a deal with the U.S. in short order. A rotation of Trump trade policy to focus on Europe is likely. We give 35% odds to tariffs on autos and auto parts. The USMCA will increase the cost of production in North America while Europe is so far excluding cars from negotiations with the U.S., so there is room for a clash. But any tariffs on autos will be less sweeping than those against China. Trump will play softball rather than hardball for the following reasons: The public is less skeptical of trade with Europe and Japan than with China. The auto sector is heavily concentrated in the Red States and many states that are heavily exposed to trade with the EU are also critical to Trump’s reelection (Map 1). Section 232 tariffs that are required to be enacted by May 18 would have plenty of time to impact the U.S. economy negatively by November 2020. Congress and the defense establishment are against a trade war with U.S. allies, while bipartisanship reigns when it comes to tougher actions toward China. The bilateral trade deficit is less excessive with Europe than with China (see Chart 12 above). The U.S. carmaker and auto parts lobby are unanimously against the tariffs – and in fact has called for the removal of the steel and aluminum tariffs in a stance that echoes that of the EU. The existing steel and aluminum tariffs provide Trump with leverage in the negotiations with the EU and Japan, whereas the U.S. has agreed not to impose new tariffs on these partners while trade negotiations are underway. New tariffs would nix negotiations and ensure that the ensuing quarrels are long and drawn out, with a necessarily worse economic impact. To initiate a new trade war in the wake of the U.S.-China war would be to undercut the positive impact on trade, financial conditions, and sentiment that is supposedly driving Trump’s desire for a China deal in the first place. The U.S. eventually will need to build a trilateral coalition to hold China to account and ensure that it does not slide back into its past mercantilist practices. Even limited or pinprick tariffs will have an adverse impact on equity markets, given that they will hit Europe at a time when its economy is decelerating dangerously and when Brexit uncertainty is already weighing on European assets and sentiment (see next section).  This may be why both the U.K. and Germany have recently softened their positions on Chinese telecom company Huawei, which they have been investigating for national security concerns related to the rollout of 5G networks. They are signaling that they are not going to sacrifice their relationship with China if the U.S. is dealing with China bilaterally while threatening to turn around and slap tariffs on their auto exports. If the U.S. goes ahead with tariffs – on the basis that its China agreement allows it to isolate Europe – the EU will not be a pushover, as exports to the U.S. only amount to 2.6% of GDP (Chart 16). The result of the U.S.-China quarrel has been a deepening EU-China trade relationship and that trend is set to continue (Chart 17), especially if the U.S. continues to use punitive measures that increase the substitution effect and the strategic value of the Chinese and European markets to each other. Chart 16The EU Will Not Be A Pushover In Face Of U.S. Tariffs Chart 17EU-China Trade Relationship Deepening Bottom Line: In the wake of any U.S.-China agreement, we give a 35% chance that Trump will impose tariffs on European cars and car parts. Such tariffs are not our base case because they are unlikely to shrink the U.S. trade deficit and would have a negative impact on the Red State economy. But lower magnitude tariffs cannot be ruled out – and the impact on the euro and European industrial sector would clearly be detrimental in the short run. Assuming that global and European growth is recovering, a tariff shock to Europe’s carmakers could present a good opportunity to buy on the dip. Any U.S.-EU trade war will ultimately be shorter-lived and less disruptive than the U.S.-China trade war, which is likely to resume at some point even if Presidents Trump and Xi get a deal this year. The United Kingdom: Snap Election More Likely A series of important votes is taking place in Westminster this week, with the end result likely to be an extension to negotiations over a withdrawal deal at the EU Council summit on March 21. Conditional on that extension, the odds of a new election are sharply rising. The first vote, as we go to press on Tuesday, has resulted in a rejection of Prime Minister Theresa May’s exit plan by 149 votes – the second rejection after her colossal defeat in January by 230 votes. The loss was expected because the EU has not offered a substantial compromise on the contentious Irish “backstop” arrangement, which would keep Northern Ireland and/or the U.K. in the European Customs Union beyond the transition date of December 31, 2020. All that was offered was an exit clause for the U.K. sans Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland is part of the U.K. and the introduction of additional border checks on the Irish Sea would mark a new division within the constitutional fabric. This is unacceptable to the Conservative Party and especially to the Democratic Union Party of Northern Ireland, which gives May her majority in parliament. On Wednesday, we expect the vote for a “no deal” exit, in which the U.K. simply leaves the EU without any arrangements as to the withdrawal (or future relationship), to fail by an even larger margin than May’s plan. Leaving without a deal would cause a negative economic shock due to the automatic reversion to relatively high WTO tariff levels with the EU, which receives 46% of the U.K.’s exports and is thus vital in the maintenance of its trade balance and terms of trade (Chart 18). It is impossible to see parliament voting in favor of such an outcome – parliament was never the driving force behind Brexit, with most MPs preferring to remain in the EU.     Chart 18No Deal Brexit A Huge Blow To U.K. The risk is that parliament should fail repeatedly to pass the third vote this week, a motion asking the EU for an extension period to the March 29 “exit day.” This is unlikely but possible. In this case, the supreme decision-making body of the U.K. will be paralyzed. A bloodbath will ensue in which the country will either see Prime Minister May ousted, a snap election called, or both. If the extension passes, the EU Council is likely to go along with the decision. It is in the EU’s near-term economic interest not to trigger a crash Brexit and in its long-term interest to delay Brexit until the U.K. public decides they would rather stay after all. The problem is that it will not want to grant an extension for longer than July, when new Members of the European Parliament take their seats after the May 23-26 EU elections. The U.K. may be forced to put up candidates for the election. What good would an extension do anyway? The likeliest possibility is, yet again, a new election. The conditions are not yet ripe for a second referendum, though the odds are rising that one will eventually occur. The Labour Party has fallen in the opinion polls amidst Jeremy Corbyn’s indecisive leadership and a divisive platform change within the party to push for a second Brexit referendum (Chart 19). An election now gives May’s Conservatives an opportunity to build a larger and stronger majority – after all, in the U.K. electoral system, the winner takes all in each constituency, so the Tories would pick up most of the seats that Labour loses. May’s faction might be able to strengthen its hand vis-à-vis hard Brexiters who have less popular support yet currently have the numbers to block May’s withdrawal plan. Chart 19A New Election Would Be Opportunistic Theresa May might be unwilling to call an election given her fateful mistake of calling the snap election of 2017. If she demurs, she could face an internal party coup. There is a slim chance that a hard Brexiter could take the helm, bent on steering the U.K. out of the EU without a deal. Parliament, however, would rebel against such a leader. Ultimately, the economic and financial constraints of a crash Brexit are too hard and we expect that the votes will reflect this fact, whether in an adjusted exit deal or a new election. But both outcomes require an extension.  However, we must point out that the constitutional and geopolitical constraints alone are not sufficient to prevent a crash out: parliament is the supreme lawmaking authority and there is no other basis for the U.K. to leave in an orderly fashion. The United Kingdom has survived worse, as many hard Brexiters will emphasize. A crash is a mistake that can happen. But the odds are not higher than 10%-20% given the stakes (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Path To Salvation Remains Fraught With Dangers With the EU economy not having stabilized and the U.S. contemplating Section 232 trade tariffs, Brexit is all the more reason to be wary of sterling, the euro, and European equities in the near term, especially relative to the U.S. dollar and U.S. equities. Gilts can rally even in the event of an extension given the uncertainty that this would entail, though the BCA House View is neutral. Bottom Line: Expect parliament to ask for an extension. At the same time, the odds of a new election have risen sharply. The absence of a new election could lead to a power struggle within the Tory party that could escalate the risk of a hard Brexit, though we still place the odds at 10%. A second referendum is rising in probability but will only become possible after the dust settles from the current crisis. Investment Conclusions The ECB’s stimulus measures are positive for European and global growth over a 6-to-12-month time frame. They suggest that financial assets could be supported later in the year, depending in great part on what happens in China. China’s combined January and February total social financing growth reinforces our Feb 20 report arguing that the risk of stimulus is now to the upside. As People’s Bank Governor Yi Gang put it, the slowdown in total social financing last year has stopped. The annual meeting of the National People’s Congress also resulted in largely accommodative measures on top of this credit increase. Nevertheless, stimulus operates with a lag, and for the reasons outlined above we are not yet willing to favor EUR/USD or European equities within developed markets. A 35% chance of tariffs is non-negligible. We expect U.S. equities to outperform within the developed world and Chinese equities to outperform within the emerging world on a 6-to-12 month basis.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Lighthizer now has bipartisan support in Congress, whose members will lambast Trump if he squanders the historic leverage he has built up in exchange for a shallow deal that only temporarily weighs on the trade deficit. 

Highlights February’s credit release earlier this week confirmed that credit growth is not yet on a “blowout” trajectory. If maintained, the recent pace of credit expansion implies a moderate credit cycle, not a large acceleration like what occurred in 2015/2016. We agree that a trade deal between China and the U.S. is likely to occur, but a sustained, cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) rise in Chinese relative equity performance requires stability in the outlook for earnings, which have not yet reflected the ongoing economic slowdown. A confirmed meeting date between Presidents Trump & Xi coupled with more evidence that a moderate credit expansion is underway would likely lead us to upgrade our cyclical stance towards Chinese investable stocks (to overweight). Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, data releases later this week will provide a crucial read on the pace of the slowdown in coincident economic activity. The ongoing weakness in trade and producer prices suggests that activity has continued to decelerate as the previously beneficial trade frontrunning effect washes out of the data. While we agree that January’s gargantuan credit number means that growth will bottom at some point this year, the February data released earlier this week highlights that credit growth is not yet on a “blowout” trajectory. If maintained, the recent pace of credit expansion implies a moderate credit cycle, not a large acceleration like what occurred in 2015/2016. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary From an investment strategy perspective, we recommended in our February 27 Weekly Report that investors place Chinese investable stocks on upgrade watch, but that an immediate shift to a cyclical overweight was not yet warranted. The recent outperformance of investable stocks vs. the global benchmark largely reflects global investor expectations of a trade deal between China and the U.S. in the very near future, which we agree is likely to occur. But we have underscored that a sustained, cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) rise in Chinese relative equity performance requires stability in the outlook for earnings, which have not yet reflected the slowdown that is underway. Barring a substantial trade-deal-driven rise in the RMB (which would dampen profits further and raise the bar for credit), a confirmed meeting date between Presidents Trump & Xi coupled with further evidence that a moderate credit expansion is underway would likely lead us to upgrade our cyclical stance towards Chinese investable stocks (to overweight). In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data below: The January and February data for several measures of coincident activity, including both measures of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) that we track, are set to be updated tomorrow. However, a number of data series that have been released over the past two months point to a continued deceleration: growth in rail cargo volume ticked down in January, producer prices are on the cusp of deflation, and nominal import and export growth decelerated again in February (measured either in US$ or RMB terms). The four components of our LKI leading indicator available for February have all sequentially declined, including the growth in adjusted TSF and adjusted TSF as a share of GDP. Credit had surged in January, but ticked down in February. Chart 1 illustrates the likely path of adjusted TSF as a share of GDP if the average pace of credit growth over the past three months is sustained. The chart implies that credit will have durably bottomed, but that the pace of advance will be weaker than that experienced in past cycles. Chart 1The Recent Pace Of Growth Implies A Moderate Credit Cycle​​​​​​​ January and February data for residential floor space started and sold will also be updated tomorrow, and it will be important to see whether the gap that has emerged between construction and sales has persisted. Floor space sold has reliably led starts since 2010, and we recently highlighted that the PBOC pledged supplementary lending program has led sales since 2015. The pace of PSL decelerated further in February, suggesting that the outlook for sales (which are already in negative YoY territory) is deteriorating. Based on the leading relationships that we have identified, residential construction volume is unsustainably strong. The seemingly inconsistent messages between the NBS and Caixin manufacturing PMIs in February (down and up, respectively) may in fact reflect the PBOC’s focus on easing financial conditions for small businesses. While the NBS PMI includes a much broader sample of firms than the Caixin PMI, the latter focuses heavily on private sector SMEs. Given this, February’s data may suggest that the export outlook is improving, but we would caution against the conclusion that the overall manufacturing sector has bottomed until both PMIs are clearly rising. Over the past month, the most notable development in China’s equity market has been the near-vertical outperformance of A-shares versus the global benchmark. A catch-up period for A-shares was arguably warranted given the sustained rally in investable stocks since early-November, but Chart 2 highlights that the speed of the recent rise has pushed relative A-share performance quickly into overbought territory. At a minimum, a period of consolidation over the coming few weeks is likely. Chart 2Too Far, Too Fast​​​​​​​ The relative performance of EM stocks ex-China is one of the equity components of our BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator, which has recovered over the past few months. However, Chart 3 highlights that the performance of EM ex-China reliably led Chinese investable stocks since the beginning of last year, and are now raising a red flag. A near-term relapse in investable equity performance would be consistent with our view that earnings face further downside risk over the coming few months. ​​​​​​​Chart 3EM Ex-China Is Flashing A Warning Sign For Chinese Investable Stocks Within the investable equity market, our low-volatility sector portfolio remains in an uptrend versus the broad market, although the composition of this portfolio has shifted significantly over the past few weeks. Financials, industrials, and energy stocks now account for 86% of our long MSCI China Low-Beta Sectors / short MSCI China trade, which is likely surprising to many investors given their traditionally cyclical characteristics. Chart 4 highlights that the relative performance of our low-beta trade has exhibited a reliably counter-cyclical message; this, in combination with the fact that it remains above its 200-day moving average, signals that it is still premature to shift to a cyclical overweight stance favoring Chinese stocks. Chart 4No Green Light Yet From Low-Vol Stocks Value stocks have been responsible for more of the rally in China’s investable market versus the global average than their growth peers (Chart 5). This underscores that at least part of the rise in investable performance has been due to a relative valuation trade, rather than strong conviction that the Chinese economy will strengthen materially over the coming year. Chart 5The Rally Has Been Led By Cheap Stocks Table 2 highlights that the 3-month interbank repo rate is down materially from its 12-month high, a decline that is now passing through into lower bank lending rates. According to the PBOC, the weighted average lending rate declined 30 basis points in Q4, after having been essentially unchanged in Q3. The decline validates our model for predicting the rate, which had been calling for a non-trivial decline. Despite the continual expression of concern in the financial press about rising onshore corporate bond defaults, spreads on SOE corporate bonds have been steady over the past 6 months. Spreads remain elevated when compared with late-2016 levels, but the recent trend in spreads does not suggest that domestic financial conditions are getting tighter. Chart 6 shows that the recent rise in CNY-USD is consistent with a tariff-based framework that we had presented for the exchange rate several times last year. While the rate was on its way to breaking through the psychologically important level of 7 for USD-CNY, trade talks with the U.S. have helped the rate rise to a point that is consistent with the current tariff regime. CNY-USD has already overshot to the upside based on interest rate differentials, but Chart 6 implies that further gains may occur if tariff rollbacks are part of an eventual deal with the U.S. Chart 6CNY-USD May Rise Materially Further If Tariffs Are Rolled Back Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Dovish Central Banks & Duration: Bond markets have shifted rapidly in recent weeks, pricing out any and all rate hikes expected over the next year in the major developed economies. With global growth likely to rebound in the latter half of the year, bond yields are now exposed to a hawkish repricing and recovery in inflation expectations, especially in the U.S. Stay below benchmark on overall portfolio duration on a medium-term basis. Model Bond Country Allocations: We are sticking with our current country tilts in our model bond portfolio, as the recent shift in central banker biases has done little to change the relative fundamental drivers between countries. Stay underweight the U.S., Canada & Italy, and overweight core Europe, Japan, the U.K., Spain & Australia, in currency-hedged global government bond portfolios. Feature Well, That Escalated Quickly With global growth remaining soggy, an increasing number of major central banks have been forced to rapidly shift in a more dovish direction. This past week alone, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) all signaled that interest rates would be on hold for some time. The ECB went the extra step of announcing a new bank funding program (TLTRO-3), as we predicted last week, to prevent a deeper euro area growth downturn at a time of, as ECB President Mario Draghi described it, “pervasive uncertainty”. Government bond yields declined sharply in all three regions, as markets digested the dovish message from more cautious policymakers. Our Central Bank Monitors for the major developed economies are all decelerating, in line with the soft patch of global growth. Yet only the RBA Monitor has fallen to a level clearly signaling a need for easier monetary policy in Australia. For the other major countries, the Monitors are indicating that an unchanged monetary policy stance is appropriate, and all for the same reason – the loss of economic momentum has not been enough to loosen tight labor markets and drive core inflation rates lower. Government bond yields have already responded to a loss of global growth momentum by pricing out any rate hikes that were expected over the next year, most notably in the U.S. and Canada. Inflation expectations have also adjusted downwards in response to both diminished growth expectations and last year’s sharp plunge in global energy prices. We expect global growth to rebound in the latter half of 2019, alongside higher oil prices, leaving bond yields exposed to upside data surprises and a repricing of expectations for inflation and rate hikes (Chart of the Week). We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon, as government bond yields are likely to rise above the very flat forwards in most markets. Chart 1A Bottoming Out Process For Bond Yields While maintaining a below-benchmark duration stance, the synchronized shift in central bank forward guidance justifies a review of the recommended country allocations in our model fixed income portfolio. Taking Stock Of Our Country Tilts In Our Model Bond Portfolio Global government bond yields peaked back in early November and have fallen in all of the major developed economies (Chart 2). Decomposing the move in benchmark 10-year yields into inflation expectations (using CPI swap rates) and real yields (the difference between nominal yields and CPI swap rates) shows that the bulk of that decline has come from lower real rates in the countries with positive policy rates (U.S., Canada, U.K. and Australia). For countries with zero or negative policy rates (core Europe, Japan), most of the yield decline has been due to falling inflation expectations. Yet the drivers of the decline in yields have changed from the latter two months of 2018 to the first few months of 2019. Generally speaking, the late-2018 bond market rally reflected falling inflation expectations, while recent changes have been a function of moves in real yields. Only in Australia have real yields and inflation expectations both declined steadily since the early November peak in global bond yields. The greater influence of the real component of yields makes sense, as markets now discount fewer rate hikes and more accommodative monetary policy. Currently, our recommended country allocation in the Governments portion of our model bond portfolio includes underweights in the U.S., Canada and Italy and overweights in Australia, the U.K., Japan, Germany, France and Spain (the latter is a position versus Italy within an overall underweight stance on Peripheral European debt). In light of the more ubiquitously neutral/dovish global policy bias, we are reevaluating those country tilts per the following indicators: 1. Cyclical growth indicators: Both manufacturing purchasing managers indices (PMIs) and the leading economic indicators (LEIs) produced by the OECD are well off the cyclical peaks (Chart 3). In terms of levels, the PMIs are holding above the 50 threshold, suggesting expanding manufacturing activity, in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Australia, but are below 50 in the euro area and Japan. Chart 3Growth Has Lost Momentum Everywhere 2. Market-based inflation expectations: 10-year CPI swap rates have generally stabilized alongside energy prices, after the sharp drops seen in the latter months of 2018 (Chart 4). Australia is the lone exception where expectations continue to drift lower. The correlations between CPI swap rates and oil prices denominated in local currency are strongest in the U.S. and Canada and weakest in Australia. There is great diversity of the levels of CPI swap rates, however, from as low as 0.2% in Japan to as high as 3.5% in the U.K. Chart 4Inflation Expectations Are Stabilizing Outside Of Japan & Australia 3. Our Central Bank Monitors vs. our 12-month discounters: Except for Australia, our Monitors are all hovering very close to the zero line, indicating no pressure on policymakers to move policy rates (Chart 5). Our 12-month discounters, which measure the interest rate changes over the next year priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS), are all close to zero, as well (again, with the exception of Australia, where a full 25bp rate cut is already priced). Chart 5Our Central Bank Monitors Are Calling For Stable Policy (ex Australia) Just looking at these indicators, the ideal combination would be to underweight countries where yields are vulnerable to an upward repricing (PMIs still above 50, higher oil/CPI swaps correlations and no rate hikes priced) and to overweight countries where yields are less likely to rise (PMIs below 50, lower oil/CPI swaps correlations and where our 12-month discounters are not priced for rate cuts). Under these criteria, underweights in the U.S. and Canada are still justified, as are overweights in core Europe and Japan. The surprising firmness of the U.K. manufacturing PMI relative to the persistent downtrend in the U.K. LEI muddies the message a bit on Gilts, although the relatively high level of our 12-month discounter (still 13bps of hikes priced) is a bullish sign with our BoE Monitor now sitting right near zero. In Australia, the manufacturing PMI is also surprisingly firm but, the underlying weak momentum in overall Australian growth is leaving the door open to potential RBA rate cuts later this year. For all our country recommendations within our model bond portfolio framework, we always look at yields and returns on a currency-hedged basis in U.S. dollar terms. We do this to separate the fixed income component of global bond returns from the currency component. Yet when looking at the government bond yield curves in our model bond portfolio universe, hedged into USD, there is very little differentiation among those countries with the higher credit ratings (Chart 6). Only Spain (A-rated) and Italy (BBB-rated) have hedged yields that are outside the 2-3% range seen in the other major developed economies. From a fundamental point of view, those narrow yield differentials among the higher-rated markets largely reflect the convergence of trend economic growth rates. In a recent Weekly Report, we looked at the long-run growth rates of potential GDP and labor productivity for the U.S., euro area and Japan and noted that the differences between them were fairly modest.1 This justified narrow currency-hedged yield differentials between U.S. Treasuries, German Bunds and Japanese government bonds (JGBs). When we add Canada, Australia and the U.K. to the mix (Chart 7), we can see similar convergence of potential GDP growth to rates between 1-2% and long-run productivity growth around 0.5% (using OECD data for both). Chart 7No Major Differences In Long-Run Growth Rates The convergence is largely complete for all countries except Australia, where potential GDP growth is estimated to be 2.4%. Yet the long-run downtrend in potential growth is powerful and full convergence to the sub-2% levels seen in the other countries appears inevitable (and goes a long way in explaining the historically low level of Australian bond yields versus global peers). We can also see convergence in looking at the more recent history of the market pricing of the expected long-run neutral interest rate, using our real terminal rate proxy (the 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year CPI swap rate 5-years forward). Those measures for all of the major developed markets in our model bond portfolio are shown in Chart 8. The markets are pricing in real policy rate convergence, as well, with real rates expected to stay in a range between -0.5% (core Europe) and +0.5% (Canada). The U.K. is the one outlier, with the market pricing in a terminal real rate of -2%, although this likely reflects the markets discounting in the long-run effects of Brexit on the U.K. economy. Chart 8Markets Expect Near-Zero Real Terminal Rates (ex the U.K.) So what does all this mean for our recommended country allocations in our model bond portfolio? In Chart 9, we show the relative performance of the each country, hedged into U.S. dollars and duration-matched) versus the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index. Our overweight tilts are in the top panel, while our underweight tilts are in the bottom panel. Chart 9Sticking With The Country Allocations In Our Model Bond Portfolio Generally speaking, are recommendations have done well. Given our read on the indicators above, we see little reason to change the allocations. Our biggest concerns would be the underweights in Canada and Italy, given the sharp weakening of growth in both countries. For Italy, however, we view that as a negative given Italy’s high debt levels that require faster nominal growth to ensure debt sustainability. A more dovish ECB should help keep European bond volatility low, to the benefit of carry trades like Italian government bonds. However, we prefer to play that through our overweight in Spain while we await signs of stabilization in the Italian LEI before upgrading Italy in our model bond portfolio. As for Canada, we plan on doing a deeper dive on their economy and inflation trends in next week’s report before considering any changes to our allocation. Bottom Line: We are sticking with our current country tilts in our model bond portfolio, as the recent shift in central banker biases has done little to change the relative fundamental drivers between countries. Stay underweight the U.S., Canada & Italy, and overweight core Europe, Japan, the U.K., Spain & Australia, in currency-hedged global government bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com     1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Europe & Japan: The Anchor Weighing On Global Bond Yields”, dated February 26, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns