Economy

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

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