Emerging Markets

Special Report

Executive Summary Major EM’s Defense Spends Will Be Comparable To That Of Developed Countries​​​​ Tectonic geopolitical trends are taking shape in Emerging Markets (EMs) today that will leave an indelible imprint on the next decade. First, EMs have gone on a relatively unnoticed public debt binge at a time when the economic prospects of the median EM citizen have deteriorated. This raises the spectre of sudden fiscal populism, aggressive foreign policy or social unrest in EMs. China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia appear most vulnerable to these risks. Second, the defense bill of major EMs could be comparable to that of the top developed countries of the world in a decade from now. Investors must brace for EMs to play a central role in the defense market and in wars, in the coming years. To profit from ascendant geopolitical risks in China, we reiterate shorting TWD-USD and the CNY against an equal-weighted basket of Euro and USD. To extract most from the theme of EM militarization, we suggest a Long on European Aerospace & Defense relative to European Tech stocks.   Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG EUROPEAN AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / EUROPEAN TECH EQUITIES (STRATEGIC) 2022-03-18   Bottom Line: Even as EMs are set to emerge as protagonists on the world stage, investors must prepare for these countries to exhibit sudden fiscal expansions, bouts of social unrest or a newfound propensity to initiate wars. The only way to dodge these volatility-inducing events is to leverage geopolitics to foresee these shocks. Feature Only a few weeks before Russia’s war with Ukraine broke out, a client told us that he was having trouble seeing the importance of geopolitics in investing. “It seems like geopolitics was a lot more relevant a few years back, with the European debt crisis, Brexit, and Trump. Now it does not seem to drive markets at all”, said the client. To this we gave our frequent explanation which is, “Our strategic themes of Great Power Struggle, Hypo-Globalization, and Nationalism/Populism are now embedded in the international system and responsible for an observable rise in geopolitical risk that is reshaping markets”. In particular we highlighted our pessimistic view on both Russia and Iran, which have incidentally crystallized most clearly since we had this client conversation. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyBrazil: The Road To Elections Won't Be Paved With Good Intentions Globally key geopolitical changes are afoot with Russia at war. In the coming weeks and months, we will write extensively about the dramatic changes we see taking shape in the realm of geopolitics and investing. We underscored the dramatic geopolitical realignment taking place as Russia severs ties with the West and throws itself into China’s arms in a report titled “From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi”. In this Special Report we highlight two key geopolitical themes that will affect emerging markets (EMs) over the coming decade. The aim is to help investors spot these trends early, so that they can profit from these tectonic changes that are sure to spawn a new generation of winners and losers in financial markets. (For BCA Research’s in-depth views on EMs, do refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) webpage). Trend #1: Beware The Wrath Of EMs On A Debt Binge Chart 1The Pace Of Debt Accumulation Has Accelerated In Major EMs Investors are generally aware of the debt build-up that has taken place in the developed world since Covid-19. The gross public debt held by the six most developed countries of the world (spanning US, Japan, Germany, UK, France and Italy) now stands at an eye-watering $60 trillion or about 140% of GDP. This debt pile is enormous in both absolute and relative terms. But at the same time, the debt simultaneously being taken on by EMs has largely gone unnoticed. The cumulative public debt held by eight major EMs today (spanning China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) stands at $20tn i.e., about 70% of GDP. Whilst the absolute value of EM debt appears manageable, what is worrying is the pace of debt accumulation. The average public debt to GDP ratio of these EMs fell over the early 2000s but their public debt ratios have now doubled over the last decade (Chart 1). EMs have been accumulating public debt at such a rapid clip that the pace of debt expansion in EMs is substantially higher than that of the top six developed countries (Chart 1). These six DMs have a larger combined GDP than the eight EMs with which they are compared. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyIndia's Politics: Know When To Hold 'Em, Know When To Fold 'Em (For in-depth views on China’s debt, do refer to China Investment Strategy (CIS) report here). Now developed countries taking on more debt makes logical sense for two reasons. Firstly, most developed countries are ageing, and their populations have stopped growing. So one way to prop up falling demand is to get governments to spend more using debt. Secondly, this practice seems manageable because developed country central banks have deep pockets (in the form of reserves) and their central banks are issuers of some of the safest currencies of the world. But EMs using the same formula and getting addicted to debt at an earlier stage of development is risky and could prove to be lethal in some cases. Also distinct from reasons of macroeconomics, the debt binge in EMs this time is problematic for geopolitical reasons. This Time Is Different EMs getting reliant on debt is problematic this time because their median citizen’s economic prospects have deteriorated. Growth is slowing, inflation is high, and job creation is stalling; thereby creating a problematic socio-political backdrop to the EM debt build-up. Growth Is Slowing: In the 2000s EMs could hope to grow out of their social or economic problems. The cumulative nominal GDP of eight major EMs more than quadrupled over the early 2000s but a decade later, these EMs haven not been able to grow their nominal GDP even at half the rate (Chart 2). Inflation Remains High: Despite poorer growth prospects, inflation is accelerating. Inflation was high in most major EMs in 2021 (Chart 3) i.e., even before the surge seen in 2022. Chart 2Major EM’s Growth Engine Is No Longer Humming Like A Well-Tuned Machine​​​​​ Chart 3Despite Slower Growth, Inflation In Major EMs Remains High​​​​​ Rising Unemployment: Employment levels have improved globally from the precipice they had fallen into in 2020. But unemployment today is a far bigger problem for major EMs as compared to developed markets (Chart 4). If the economic miseries of the median EM citizen are not addressed, then they can produce disruptive sociopolitical effects that will fan market volatility. This problem of rising economic misery alongside a rapid debt build-up, can also be seen for the next tier of EMs i.e. Mexico, Indonesia, Iran, Poland, Thailand, Nigeria, Argentina, Egypt, South Africa and Vietnam. While the average public debt to GDP ratios of these EMs fell over the early 2000s, the pace of debt accumulation has almost doubled over the last decade (Chart 5). Furthermore, the growth engine in these smaller EMs is no longer humming like a well-tuned machine and inflation remains at large (Chart 5). Chart 4Unemployment - A Bigger Problem In Major EMs Today​​​​​ Chart 5Smaller EMs Must Also Deal With Rising Debt, Alongside Slowing Growth​​​​​ Chart 6The Debt Surge In EMs This Time, Poses Unique Challenges History suggests that periods of economic tumult are frequently followed by social unrest. The eruption of the so-called Arab Spring after the Great Recession illustrated the power of this dynamic. Then following the outbreak of Covid-19 in 2020 we had highlighted that Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa are at the greatest risk of significant social unrest. We also showed that even EMs that looked stable on paper faced unrest in the post-Covid world, including China and Russia. In this report we take a decadal perspective which reveals that growth is slowing, and debt is growing in EMs. Given that EMs suffer from rising economic miseries alongside growing debt and lower political freedoms (Chart 6), it appears that some of these markets could be socio-political tinderboxes in the making. Policy Implications Of The EM Debt Surge “As it turns out, we don't 'all' have to pay our debts. Only some of us do.” – David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Melville House Publishing, 2011) The trifecta of fast-growing debt, slowing growth and/or low political freedoms in EMs can add to the volatility engendered by EMs as an asset class. Given the growing economic misery in EMs today, politicians will be wary of outbreaks of social unrest. To quell this unrest, they may resort broadly to fiscal expansion and/or aggressive foreign policy. Both of these policy choices can dampen market returns in EMs. Chart 7India's Performance Had Flatlined Post Mild Populist Tilt Policy Choice #1: More Fiscal Spending Despite High Debt Policymakers in some EMs may respond by de-prioritizing contentious structural reforms and prioritizing fiscal expansion. The Indian government’s decision to repeal progressive changes to farm laws in late 2021, launch a $7 billion home-building program in early 2022 and withholding hikes in retail prices of fuel, illustrates how policymakers are resorting to populism despite high public debt levels. As a result, it is no surprise that MSCI India had been underperforming MSCI EM even before the war in Ukraine broke out (Chart 7). Brazil is another EM which falls into this category, while China’s attempts to run tighter budgets have failed in the face of slowing growth. Policy Choice #2: Foreign Policy Aggression EMs may also adopt an aggressive foreign policy stance. Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, Turkey’s interventions in several countries, and China’s increasing assertiveness in its neighboring seas and the Taiwan Strait provide examples. Wars by EMs are known to dampen returns as the experience of the Russian stock market shows. Russian stocks fell by 14% during its invasion of Georgia in 2008 and are down 40% from 24 February 2022 until March 9, 2022, i.e. when MSCI halted trading. If politicians fail to pursue either of these policies, then they run the risk of social unrest erupting due to tight fiscal policy or domestic political disputes. In fact, early signs of social discontent are already evident from large protests seen in major EMs over the last year (see Table 1). Table 1Social Unrest In Major EMs Is Already Ascendant Bottom Line: The last decade has seen major EMs go on a relatively unnoticed public debt binge. This is problematic because this debt surge has come at a time when economic prospects of the median EM citizen have deteriorated. Politicians will be keen to quell the resultant discontent. This raises the specter of excessive fiscal expansion, aggressive foreign policy, and/or social unrest. All three outcomes are negative from an EM volatility perspective. Trend #2: The Rise And Rise Of EM Defense Spends Great Power Rivalry is an outgrowth of the multipolar structure of international relations. This theme will drive higher defense spending globally. In this report we highlight that even after accounting for a historic rearmament in developed countries following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a decade from now EMs will play a key role in driving global military spends. The defense bill of the six richest developed countries of the world (the US, Japan, Germany, UK, France and Italy) will increasingly be rivaled by that of the top eight EMs (China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey). While key developed markets like Japan and Germany in specific (and Europe more broadly) are now embarking on increasing defense spends, the unstable global backdrop will force EMs to increase their military budgets as well. The combination of these forces could mean that the top eight EM’s defense spends could be comparable to that of the top six developed markets in a decade from now i.e., by 2032 (Chart 8). This is true even though the six DMs have a larger GDP. The assumptions made while arriving at the 2032 defense spend projections include: Substantially Higher Pace Of Defense Spends For Developed Countries: To reflect the fact that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will trigger a historical wave of armament in developed markets we assume that: (a) NATO members France, Germany and Italy (who spent about 1.5% of GDP on an average on defense spends in 2019) will ramp up defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2032, (b) US and UK i.e. NATO members who already spend substantially more than 2% of GDP on defense spends will still ‘increase’ defense spends by another 0.4% of GDP each by 2032 and finally (c) Japan which spends less than 1% of GDP on defense spends today, in a structural break from the past will increase its spending which will rise to 1.5% of GDP by 2032. China And Hence Taiwan As Well As India Will Boost Spends: To capture China’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance and the fact that India as well as Taiwan will be forced to respond to the Chinese threat; we assume that China increases its stated defense spends from 1.7% of GDP in 2019 to 3% by 2032. Taiwan follows in lockstep and increases its defense spends from 1.8% of GDP in 2019 to 3% by 2032. India which is experiencing a pincer movement from China to its east and Pakistan to its west will have no choice but to respond to the high and rising geopolitical risks in South Asia. The coming decade is in fact likely to see India’s focus on its naval firepower increase meaningfully as it feels the need to fend off threats in the Indo-Pacific. India currently maintains high defense spends at 2.5% of GDP and will boost this by at least 100bps to 3.5% of GDP by 2032. Defense Spending Trends For Five EMs: For the rest of the EMs (namely Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Brazil), the pace of growth in defense spending seen over 2009-19 is extrapolated to 2032. For Turkey, we assume that defense spends as a share of GDP increases to 3% of GDP by 2032. Extrapolation Of Past GDP Growth For All Countries: For all 14 countries, we extrapolate the nominal GDP growth calculated by the IMF for 2022-26 as per its last full data update, to 2032. This tectonic change in defense spending patterns has important historical roots. Back in 1900, UK and Japan i.e., the two seafaring powers were top defense spenders (Chart 9). Developed countries of the world continued to lead defense spending league tables through the twentieth century as they fought expensive world wars. Chart 8Major EM’s Defense Spends Will Be Comparable To That Of Developed Countries​​​​​​ Chart 9Back In 1900, Developed Countries Like UK And Japan Were Top Military Spenders​​​​​​ Chart 10By 2000, EMs Had Begun Spending Generously On Armament But things began changing after WWII. Jaded by the world wars, developed countries began lowering their defense spending. By the early 2000s EMs had now begun spending generously on armament (Chart 10). The turn of the century saw growth in developed markets fade while EMs like China and India’s geopolitical power began rising (Chart 11). Then a commodities boom ensued, resulting in petro-states like Saudi Arabia establishing their position as a high military spender. The confluence of these factors meant that by 2020 EMs had becomes major defense spenders in both relative and absolute terms too (Chart 12). Going forward, we expect the coming renaissance in DM defense spending in the face of Russian aggression, alongside rising geopolitical aspirations of China, to exacerbate this trend of rising EM militarization. Chart 11The 21st Century Saw Developed Countries’ Geopolitical Power Ebb Chart 12EMs Today Are Top Military Spenders, Even In Absolute Terms Why Does EM Weaponizing Matter? History suggests that wars are often preceded by an increase in defense spends: Well before WWI, a perceptible increase in defense spending could be seen in Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy (Chart 13). These three countries would go on to be known as the Triple Alliance in WWI. Correspondingly France, Britain and Russia (i.e., countries that would constitute the Triple Entente) also ramped up military spending before WWI (Chart 14). Chart 13Well Before WWI; Austria-Hungary, Germany, And Italy Had Begun Ramping Up Defense Spends​​​​​​ Chart 14The ‘Triple Entente’ Too Had Increased Defense Spends In The Run Up To WWI​​​​​​ History tragically repeated itself a few decades later. Besides Japan (which invaded China in 1937); Germany and Italy too ramped up defense spending well before WWII broke out (Chart 15). These three countries would come to be known as the Axis Powers and initiated WWII. Notably, Britain and Russia (who would go on to counter the Axis Powers) had also been weaponizing since the mid-1930s (Chart 16). Chart 15Axis Powers Had Been Increasing Defense Spends Well Before WWII​​​​​ Chart 16Allied Powers Too Had Been Increasing Defense Spends In The Run Up To WWII​​​​​ Chart 17Militarily Active States Have Been Ramping Up Defense Spends Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Gulf Arab states like Iraq have been involved in wars in the recent past and noticeably increased their defense budgets in the lead-up to military activity (Chart 17). Given that a rise in military spending is often a leading indicator of war and given that EMs are set to spend more on defense, it appears that significant wars are becoming more rather than less likely, which Russia’s invasion of Ukraine obviously implies. A large number of “Black Swan Risks” are clustered in the spheres of influence of Russia, China, and Iran, which are the key powers attempting to revise the US-led global order today (Map 1). Map 1Black Swan Risks Are Clustered Around China, Russia & Iran Distinct from major EMs, eight small countries pose meaningful risks of being involved in wars over the next. These countries are small (in terms of their nominal GDPs) but spend large sums on defense both in absolute terms (>$4 billion) and in relative terms (>4% of GDP). Incidentally all these countries are located around the Eurasian rimland and include Israel, Pakistan, Algeria, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Ukraine and Morocco (Map 2). In fact, the combined sum of spending undertaken by these countries is so meaningful that it exceeds the defense budgets of countries like Russia and UK (Chart 18). Map 2Eight Small Countries That Spend Generously On Defense Chart 188 Countries Located Near The Eurasian Rimland, Spend Large Sums On Defense​​​​ Bottom Line: As EM geopolitical power and aspirations rise, the defense bill of top developed countries will be challenged by the defense spending undertaken by major EMs. On one hand this change will mean that certain EMs may be at the epicenter of wars and concomitant market volatility. On the other hand, this change could spawn a new generation of winners amongst defense suppliers. Investment Conclusions In this section we highlight strategic trades that can be launched to play the two trends highlighted above. Trend #1: Beware The Wrath Of EMs On A Debt Binge Investors must prepare for EMs to witness sudden fiscal expansions, unusually aggressive foreign policy stances, and/or bouts of social unrest over the next few years. The only way to dodge these volatility-inducing events in EMs is to leverage geopolitics to foresee socio-political shocks. Using a simple method called the “Tinderbox Framework” (Table 2), we highlight that: Table 2Tinderbox Framework: Identifying Countries Most Exposed To Socio-Political Risks Within the eight major EMs; China, Brazil, Russia and Saudi Arabia face elevated socio-political risks. Amongst the smaller ten EMs, these risks appear most elevated for Egypt, South Africa and Argentina. It is worth noting that Brazil, South Africa and Turkey appeared most vulnerable as per our Covid-19 Social Unrest Index that we launched in 2020. We used the tinderbox framework in the current context to fade out effects of Covid-19 and to add weight to the debt problem that is brewing in EMs. Client portfolios that are overweight on most countries that fare poorly on our “Tinderbox Framework” should consider actively hedging for volatility at the stock-specific level. To profit from ascendant geopolitical risks in China, we reiterate shorting TWD-USD and the CNY against an equal-weighted basket of Euro and USD. China’s public debt ratio is high and social pressures may be building with limited valves in place to release these pressures (Table 2). The renminbi has performed well amid the Russian war, which has weighed down the euro, but China faces a confluence of domestic and international risks that will ultimately drag on the currency, while the euro will benefit from the European Union’s awakening as a geopolitical entity in the face of the Russian military threat. Trend #2: EM’s Will Drive Wars In The 21st Century Wars are detrimental to market returns.1 Furthermore, as the history of world wars proves, even the aftermath of a war often yields poor investment outcomes as wars can be followed by recessions. It is in this context that investors must prepare for the rise of EMs as protagonists in the defense market, by leveraging geopolitics to identify EMs that are most likely to be engaged in wars. While we are not arguing that WWIII will erupt, investors must brace for proxy wars as an added source of volatility that could affect EMs as an asset class. To profit from these structural changes underway we highlight two strategic trades namely: 1.  Long Global Aerospace & Defense / Broad Market Thanks to the higher spending on defense being undertaken by major EMs, global defense spends will grow at a faster rate over the next decade as compared to the last. We hence reiterate our Buy on Global Aerospace & Defense relative to the broader market. 2.  Long European Aerospace & Defense / European Tech Up until Russia invaded Ukraine and was hit with economic sanctions, Russia was the second largest exporter of arms globally accounting for 20% global arms exports. With Russia’s ability to sell goods in the global market now impaired, the two other major suppliers of defense goods that appear best placed to tap into EM’s demand for defense goods are the US (37% share in the global defense exports market) and Europe (+25% share in the global defense exports market). Chart 19American Defense Stocks Have Outperformed, European Defense Stocks Have Underperformed​​​​​​ Chart 20Defense Market: Russia’s Loss Could Be Europe’s Gain​​​​​ But given that (a) American aerospace & defense stocks have rallied (Chart 19) and given that (b) France, Germany, and Italy are major suppliers of defense equipment to countries that Russia used to supply defense goods to (Chart 20), we suggest a Buy on European Aerospace & Defense relative to European Tech stocks to extract more from this theme. In fact, this trade also stands to benefit from the pursuance of rearmament by major European democracies which so far have maintained lower defense spends as compared to America and UK. This view from a geopolitical perspective is echoed by our European Investment Strategy (EIS) team too who also recommend a Long on European defense stocks and a short on European tech stocks. Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see: Andrew Leigh et al, “What do financial markets think of war in Iraq?”, NBER Working Paper No. 9587, March 2003, nber.org.  David Le Bris, “Wars, Inflation and Stock Market Returns in France, 1870-1945”, Financial History Review 19.3 pp. 337-361, December 2012, ssrn.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary Higher Prices Expected Global oil supply will move lower for a few months, until shipping can be re-routed and re-priced in response to sanctions against Russian oil producers and refiners.  In the wake of another outbreak of COVID-19 in China, oil demand will likely move marginally lower in the near term.  Chinese fiscal stimulus to support demand and Chinese equity markets will be bullish for oil, natgas and metals. Work-arounds by China and India to circumvent Western sanctions likely will keep the hit to Russian oil production contained to March and April.  However, longer term – 2024 and beyond – sanctions will put Russia's oil output on a downward trajectory. Saudi Arabia will launch an experiment this year to be paid in yuan for oil exports to China.  As a risk-management strategy, KSA needs USD alternatives for storing wealth and retaining access to its foreign reserves, given the success of sanctions in restricting Russia's access to its foreign reserves following its invasion of Ukraine. Our Brent forecast is higher, averaging $93/bbl for this year and in 2023. Bottom Line: We recommend buying the dip in any oil-and-gas equity sell-off.  We remain long the XOP ETF.  We also remain long the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – long commodity-index based vehicles that benefit from higher commodity prices and increasing backwardation in these markets, particularly oil. Feature Shipping delays in the wake of sanctions – official and self-imposed – against Russian oil and gas exports will stretch out global hydrocarbon supply chains in 1H22. This will have the effect of reducing actual supply, as these vessels are re-routed, and work-arounds are found to get oil to ports accepting Russian material.1 Related Report  Commodity & Energy Strategy2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities So far, China and India appear to be moving quickly to develop sanctions work-arounds. Both have long-term trading relationships with Russia, and, in the case of India, the capacity to revive a treaty covering rupee-invoicing of trade in commodities and arms. Estimates of the total hit to Russian oil production resulting from export sanctions imposed by the West following its invasion of Ukraine last month range as high as 5mm b/d in output losses, but we do not share that view.2 There is a strong desire for discounted oil in China and India, and to find alternatives to USD-denominated trade. This has been catalyzed by the sanctions on Russia's central bank and the shutdown of access to its foreign reserves. Payment-messaging systems competitive with the Brussels-based SWIFT network have been stood up already. These will be refined in the wake of the Ukraine war by states with a long-standing desire to diversify payment systems away from the world's reserve currency (i.e., the USD). Among these states, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is reported to be exploring alternatives for diversifying away from USD-based payment systems, and foreign-reserves custodial relationships dependent on Western central-bank oversight – particularly the US Fed.3 In addition, as ties between China and GCC states have strengthened, the Kingdom might also be looking to diversify its defense partnerships, particularly given the open hostility between the Biden administration in the US and KSA's leadership. Monitoring Chinese state media coverage of this will provide a good indication of the extent of such cooperation. Assessing Highly Uncertain Supply In our base case, Russian output likely falls by ~ 1mm b/d over the March-April period because of shipping delays that force production to be throttled back at the margin due to storage constraints. In its magnitude, this is a similar assumption to the reference case considered by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) but is extended for two months (Table 1).4 We expect shipping delays and payment work-arounds to be sorted out in a couple of months, which, given the incentives of all involved, does not seem unreasonable. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 In our base case modeling, supply changes by core-OPEC 2.0 in 2022 are required to meet physical deficits brought about by less-than-expected volumes returned to the market by the entire coalition from August 2021 to now. This amounts to ~ 1.2mm b/d by our reckoning. For all of 2022, we assume core-OPEC 2.0 will lift supply by 1.3mm b/d, with most of this being provided to markets beginning in May 2022. In 2023, supplies from KSA, UAE and Kuwait are assumed to increase by roughly 0.2mm b/d, led by KSA (Chart 1). This is higher relative to our previous estimates, given our expectation, this core group will have to lift output to compensate not only for reduced Russian output and supply-chain delays this year and next, but falling output within the producer coalition's other non-core states. Outside OPEC 2.0, stronger WTI futures prices in spot markets and along the entire forward curve drive our estimate of US shale output (L48 ex-GoM) to 9.89mm b/d in 2022 (0.86mm b/d above 2021 levels) and 10.58mm b/d in 2023 (0.69mm above our 2022 levels). Supply-chain disruptions and cost inflation showing up in US shale producers' operations likely will dampen output increases.5 For the US, we expect 2022 average US production of 12.1mm b/d, or 900k b/d higher than 2021 output, and 12.8mm b/d in 2023, which is 700k b/d higher than 2022 levels (Chart 2). Chart 1Still Expecting Core-OPEC 2.0 Production Increases Chart 2US Oil Output Slightly Higher   Higher Brent prices will encourage short-term production increases from North Sea producers and others. However, it is not clear whether this will incentivize the years-long projects that will be needed to offset the lack of capex in the sector over the past decade or so. One of our high-conviction views resulting from the dearth of capex in oil and gas production is increasingly tighter markets by mid-decade – likely apparent by 2024 – which will require higher prices to reverse the lack of investment in new production. In line with our House view, we are not restoring the return of up to 1.3mm b/d of Iranian production to markets, given the guidance from this source proved unreliable earlier this month when it suspended talks with the US on its nuclear deal. We also are not assuming ceasefire talks between Ukraine and Russia will end to the Ukraine war, given the unreliability of the source (Russia) in these reports. Softer Demand Near Term Over the next few months, we expect the recent upsurge in COVID-19 cases in China to reduce Asian demand, but not tank it relative to our existing assumptions.6 Even though this was expected in our balances estimates, we are reducing our 2Q22 demand estimate by an additional 250k b/d, which is split evenly between DM and EM economies. This reflects the direct short-term hit to EM demand from China's lockdowns and a stronger USD, which raises the local-currency costs of oil, as well as the knock-on effects of additional supply-chain disruptions. Global consumption for 2022 is expected to be 4.4mm b/d higher on average vs 2021 levels, coming in at 101.54mm b/d, and 1.7mm b/d higher in 2023 vs. 2022 levels. We expect the Russian sanctions work-arounds being pursued by China and India – together accounting for a bit more than 20% of global oil demand – will be effective and will put overall EM demand back on trend in 2H22, assuming China's COVID-19 outbreak is brought under control (Chart 3).   Chart 3COVID-19 Hits China Demand, But Does Not Tank EM Overall While markets remain highly fluid – subject to sharp changes in perceptions of fundaments and their trajectories – these supply-demand estimates continue to point to relatively a balanced market this year and next (Chart 4). That said, the supply-demand fundamentals still leave inventories extremely tight, which means they will  provide limited buffering against sudden shifts in supply, demand or both (Chart 5). This will, in our estimation, keep forward curves backwardated, which will support our long-term positions in long commodity-index exposure (i.e., the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF).  Chart 4Markets Remain Balanced... Chart 5...And Inventories Remain Tight Our base-case balances estimates translate into a 2022 Brent price forecast that averages $93/bbl, and a 2023 average estimate of $93/bbl, which are lower than our previous forecasts of $94/bbl and $98/bbl, respectively. For 1Q22, we now expect prices to average $98/bbl; 2Q22 to average $98.25/bbl; 3Q22 $88.45/bbl; and 4Q22 $87.30/bbl. Risks To Our View The supply side of our modeling remains exposed to exogenous political risks, chiefly: A failure on the part of core-OPEC 2.0 to increase production to offset lower-than-expected output outside the coalition's core; Lower-than-expected US oil output, given stronger-than-expected production discipline; and A return of up to 1.3mm b/d of Iranian barrels, which we no longer are assuming in our balances. We continue to believe core-OPEC 2.0 will increase production because it is in their interest not to allow inventory depletion to accelerate and for prices to move higher faster. The local-currency cost of oil in EM economies – the growth engine for oil demand – is high and going higher. In real terms – i.e., inflation-adjusted terms – it is even higher, as the real effective USD trade-weighted FX rate exceeds that of the nominal rate (Chart 6). This can be seen in the local-currency costs of oil in the world's largest consumers (Chart 7). We expect an announcement from core-OPEC 2.0 by the end of this month regarding a production increase. Chart 6High Real USD FX Rates Increase Local Oil Costs Chart 7Local-Currency Oil Costs In Large Consuming States   Of course, KSA's diversification to USD alternatives as a risk-management strategy makes it less certain it will lead an output increase in exchange for an increased US commitment to its defense. Regarding US shale output, producers remain disciplined in their capital allocation. Even though we expect higher prices across the WTI forward curve will incentivize additional production, we could be over-estimating the extent of this increase in our modeling. Lastly, as noted above, Iran and Russia are indicating their trade concerns have been addressed by the US, which presumably will presumably will be followed by the return up to 1.3mm b/d of production to export markets. However, forward guidance from these producers has not been particularly reliable, and we could be wrong here as well. This would be a bearish fundamental on the supply side, which would pressure prices lower. Investment Implications Given the breakdown in talks between the US and Iran – presumably under pressure from Russia for guarantees the US would not sanction its trade with Iran – our Brent price forecast remains above $90/bbl (Chart 8). We expect the near-term price increase will dissipate as the sanctions work-arounds – particularly by China and India – re-route oil flows. Core OPEC 2.0 producers – KSA, the UAE and Kuwait – have sufficient surplus capacity to increase production to allow refiners to re-build inventories. This big question for markets now is will they bring it to market in the near term? KSA's interest in exploring yuan-linked oil trade with China adds an element of uncertainty to whether production will be increased. Perhaps that is a goal of this exercise: The US is being shown there are alternatives available to large oil exporters re terms of trade and providers of defense services. Chart 8Higher Prices Expected There is sufficient spare capacity available at present to address the current physical deficits in global markets. Our analysis indicates markets are balanced but still tight, as can be seen in current and expected inventory levels. We remain long the XOP ETF and the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF. The latter ETFs provide long commodity-index based exposure that benefits from higher commodity prices and increasing backwardation in commodity markets generally, particularly oil.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Precious Metals: Bullish Markets expected the Federal Reserve's rate hike of 25 basis points in the March and was not disappointed. Further rate hikes this year will occur against the backdrop of high geopolitical uncertainty and inflation, both of which are bullish for gold. The Russia-Ukraine crisis has added a new layer of complexity, and the Fed will need to proceed with caution to curb inflation but not over-tighten the economy.       Footnotes 1     Please see All at sea: Russian-linked oil tanker seeks a port, published by straitstimes.com on March 10, 2022 for examples of shipping delays. 2     Please see Could Russia Look to China to Export More Oil and Natural Gas? published by naturalgasintell.com on March 9, and India says it’s in talks with Russia about increasing oil imports., published on March 15, for additional reporting. See also Besides China, Putin Has Another Potential De-dollarization Partner in Asia published by cfr.org, which discusses India-Russia trade agreements between 1953-92 with the signing of the 1953 Indo-Soviet Trade Agreement. 3    Please see Saudi considering China’s yuan for oil purchases published by al-monitor.com on March 16. 4    Please see the OIES Oil Monthly published on March 14. 5    Oil producers in a ‘dire situation’ and unable to ramp up output, says Oxy CEO published on March 8 by cnbc.com. 6    A resurgence of COVID-19 in China was not unexpected. It was one of our key views going into 2022. Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities, which we published on December 16, 2021. In that report, we noted, "… China still is operating under a zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, and has relied on less efficacious vaccines that appear to offer no protection against the omicron variant of the coronavirus. This also is a risk for EM economies that rely on these vaccines. However, the roll-out of mRNA vaccines globally via joint ventures will be gathering steam in 2H22, which is bullish for commodity demand." We continue to expect Chinese authorities to deploy mRNA vaccines or antivirals to combat this outbreak.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

Dear Client, Next week, in lieu of our regular weekly report, I will be hosting two webcasts where I will discuss our view on China’s economy and financial markets. In particular, I will share our view on the announced economic growth target and stimulus measures for this year, as well as our takes on the recent developments in China’s onshore and offshore equity markets. The webcasts will be held on Wednesday, March 23 at 9:00 AM HKT (Mandarin) and Wednesday, March 23 at 9:00 AM EDT (English). I look forward to discussing with you during the webcast. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Wednesday, March 30. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist   Executive Summary Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Chinese policymakers set an ambitious goal for this year’s economic expansion. While the growth target is above market consensus and a positive surprise, the path will be full of obstacles. Policy restrictions will be the biggest hurdle. While the authorities will continue to ease some industry policies, it is unlikely that all regulations will be rolled back at once. Therefore, it is questionable whether the announced growth-supporting measures will be enough to offset the housing slump and a slow recovery in consumption. We remain cautious on Chinese stocks. In the near term, equities will face headwinds from risk-off sentiment among global investors and a prolonged downturn in domestic demand. Policymakers will eventually allow more aggressive easing in the next 6 to 12 months. We will look for signs of more reflationary efforts and a better price entry point to upgrade Chinese stocks. We are closing our tactical trade of Long MSCI Hong Kong Index/Short MSCI ACW, due to spillover effects from Chinese offshore tech stock selloff on the Hong Kong equity market. ASSET INITIATION DATE RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (%) COMMENT LONG MSCI HONG KONG INDEX / SHORT MSCI ALL COUNTRY WORLD 1/19/2022 -0.08 Closed Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers are aiming for above-expectation economic growth this year. However, we recommend that investors lie low given the substantial challenges that China faces in expanding its economy. Feature Beijing set the 2022 economic growth target during last week’s National People’s Congress (NPC) at “around 5.5%”, which exceeds the market consensus. The topline growth target is encouraging. However, the announced stimulus measures are less than meets the eye. Fiscal support will increase, but not massively. Monetary policy may ease further. However, the easing efforts since July last year have failed to boost sentiment among private-sector corporates and households. Importantly, policy restrictions in the past several years, such as reducing local governments’ shadow bank borrowing and property developers’ leverage, and stringent counter-COVID measures, are having a lasting effect on the economy. As such, China’s domestic demand will likely remain sluggish until more aggressive policy easing is introduced. Meanwhile, Chinese stock prices in absolute terms have been falling due to global equity market selloffs and concerns about China’s domestic economy, although Chinese onshore stocks have fared better than their offshore peers. We expect that China will eventually allow more substantive easing to shore up growth and meet the target. Meanwhile, investors should remain cautious. We recommend that global shareholders with exposure to Chinese onshore stocks maintain a neutral position in their portfolios for now. We continue to look for signs of more reflationary efforts and the right opportunity to upgrade Chinese onshore stocks, especially if prices decline further in the near term.  We maintain our underweight stance on Chinese offshore stocks, in both absolute terms and relative to global equities. De-listing from the US stock exchange is a real risk for some of the big-name Chinese tech companies. We will provide more insights on this topic in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we are closing our tactical trade: Long MSCI Hong Kong Index/Short MSCI All Country World with a minor 0.08% loss. While the recent steep falls in the MSCI Hong Kong Index prices may provide some buying opportunities in the next 6 to 12 months, near-term downside risks are substantial due to geopolitical tensions as well as a new round of lockdowns in the mainland. An Ambitious Growth Target … The 5.5% growth goal set for 2022 is the lowest in more than three decades, but it is above the consensus forecast of close to 5% and the IMF’s projection of 4.8% (Chart 1). The target also marks a significant departure from the past couple of years and reinforces our view that the authorities are determined to ensure a stable domestic economy amid rising geopolitical turmoil (Table 1). Chart 1China Set An Above-Expectation Growth Target For 2022 Table 12022 Economic And Policy Targets The stimulus measures unveiled at last week’s NPC imply that Beijing will mainly use fiscal levers to support the economy. Some key takeaways from the published Government Work Report include: Chart 2A Significant Jump In Available SPBs In 2022 A bigger fiscal push. The fiscal budget is set at 2.8% of GDP this year, or 3.37 trillion yuan, and is a modest decrease from the 3.2% deficit in 2021. The quota for local government special purpose bonds (SPBs) remains unchanged at RMB3.65 trillion yuan. However, local governments will be allowed to carry over SPB proceeds from last year, which will add about RMB1.1 trillion yuan to fund this year’s spending. This translates to about RMB4.7 trillion yuan in SPB in 2022, an 80% jump from the actual usage of 2.57 trillion yuan in 2021 (Chart 2). Furthermore, tax and fee cuts will total RMB2.5 trillion yuan, more than double the 2021 amount. Small and medium enterprises will receive value-added tax credits and refunds. Tax cuts will favor the service sectors most affected by the pandemic, along with manufacturing, and science and technology research. The fiscal budget also includes a record-high transfer from the central to local governments. Adding central government fund transfers and off-budgetary fiscal expenditures, we estimate that the augmented fiscal deficit this year will be around 7.8% of GDP, implying a fiscal thrust of more than 2% of GDP. The estimated thrust will be a reversal from the negative impulse of 2.1% of GDP in 2021 (Chart 3).   Further easing in monetary policy. The government reiterated that money supply and total social financing (TSF) growth should be consistent with nominal GDP growth. We expect another cut next month in the reserve requirement ratio and/or the policy rate. We also maintain our view that the credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in adjusted TSF as a percentage of GDP – will climb to 29% of GDP (assuming an 8% nominal GDP for 2022), 2 percentage points higher than the 27% of GDP in 2021 (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Reach More Than 2% Of GDP ​​Chart 4China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Chart 5"Green Investment" Will Get A Big Boost This Year A more relaxed carbon reduction policy. The government did not announce an annual numeric target related to de-carbonization or energy consumption intensity reduction. Nonetheless, a more relaxed policy setting will allow flexibility, especially in the first half of the year when infrastructure projects will be accelerated. In the second half, however, there is still a risk that de-carbonization efforts will step up to align the country’s carbon and energy intensity reduction with the 14th Five-Year Plan target. Still, the negative impact from de-carbonization seen last year will be much smaller this year, while green energy development will make an increased contribution to this year’s growth (Chart 5). Bottom Line: China set an ambitious economic growth target of 5.5% for the year, relying on fiscal stimulus to shore up topline economic growth. … But A Challenging Path Ahead Achieving growth of “around 5.5%” will not be easy. As noted in previous reports, the regulations put in place in a wide range of industries since 2017 significantly constrain growth in both credit creation and the economy. Furthermore, aggressive regulatory crackdowns on the property sector and internet-related industries last year, coupled with rising domestic COVID cases and a new round of lockdowns, will likely have enduring ramifications on private-sector sentiment and weaken the effectiveness of policy easing. The following risks are notable: Constraints on infrastructure investment. We expect infrastructure investment to pick up from last year’s meager 0.5% growth. Even so, a larger fiscal impulse for 2022 would not necessarily lead to an outsized increase in infrastructure spending by local governments. In 2019, the fiscal deficit widened to 5% of GDP from 3.5% in 2018 and the quota for local government SPBs increased by 60% from a year earlier. However, infrastructure investment only grew by 3.3% in 2019, 1.5 percentage points higher than that in 2018 (Chart 6). The key factor is that the rebound in shadow banking activities, which highly correlate with infrastructure spending by local governments, was subdued in 2019. The stock of shadow banking continues to shrink in February, indicating that local governments remain extremely cautious in expanding their off-balance sheet leverage (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6Shadow Bank Lending Continues To Shrink In February Chart 7Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Demand for housing is still in the doldrums. February’s credit data paints a bleak picture of demand for housing, which is also reflected in recent hard data on home sales (Chart 7). It is questionable whether policymakers will allow a significant re-leverage, i.e. a 2016/17-style widespread easing in the property sector to stimulate demand for housing. So far, the government has stated that the housing policy should be city specific. Some cities have already lowered mortgage rates and down payment thresholds. Pledged supplementary lending, a tool that the government utilized to monetize massively excess inventories in the market in 2015/16, has also ticked up (Chart 8). Nevertheless, we do not expect the authorities to allow a sharp upturn in home prices or leverage by households and/or property developers (Chart 9). The government reiterated its stance at last week’s NPC that “housing is for living in and not for speculation.” Chart 8PSL Injections Ticked Up This Year Chart 9Policymakers Are Trying To Avoid Further Inflating The Housing Price Bubble Chart 10Aggregate Demand For Housing Will Dwindle Along With Shrinking Labor Force Furthermore, demands for housing and property-sector investment in China are set to structurally shift lower due to the country’s slumping birthrate and shrinking working-age population (Chart 10). China’s total population will start to shrink within the next five years and the United Nations estimates that China’s marriageable population will be less than 350 million by 2030 – a drop of nearly 100 million people from 2010. Slowing urbanization rates are also a constraint for housing demand. China’s urban population growth is on a sharp downtrend; only 12 million people moved to cities last year, less than half the number who migrated in 2016. Weak consumption. The NPC reported that the government will provide support in rural areas for the consumption of new-energy vehicles (NEVs) and home appliances. There also was a mention of services for elder care and tax credits for having babies. However, there was no indication of a fiscal transfer to low-income households or a cash payout/consumption voucher to boost the marginal propensity to spend.   Chart 11Sharply Rising New Cases In China And Its Zero-COVID Policy Will Constraint Domestic Consumption Ultimately, it will be difficult for Chinese policymakers to bolster consumption without relaxing COVID containment measures (Chart 11). The government has made it clear that relaxing COVID policy will not be possible in the near term, given the ongoing outbreaks in China. Therefore, any improvement in household consumption, which accounts for about 40% of China’s GDP, will remain modest.  Bottom Line: China’s economic progress this year will hinge on whether a rebound in infrastructure investment can offset the negative effects from slumping demand for real estate and weak consumption. Investment Implications China will eventually ease policies more aggressively to ensure a stable domestic economic, financial and political environment against highly uncertain global and domestic backdrops. More easing and stimulus could be forthcoming by mid-2022, especially when the mainland's COVID situation is rapidly worsening and front-loaded fiscal supports will start to lose momentum. Meanwhile, Chinese stocks face substantial downside risks derived from the turmoil in global equity markets and a downturn in domestic profit growth. As witnessed in China’s onshore and offshore risk assets in the past two weeks, a slightly more positive signal from the NPC was not enough to offset the jitters from heightened geopolitical tensions and rising domestic COVID cases (Chart 12A and 12B). Chart 12AChinese Onshore Stocks Are Not Immune To Geopolitical Risks...​​​​ Chart 12B...But Have Fared Better Than Their Offshore Peers We maintain our neutral stance on Chinese onshore stocks in a global portfolio, but do not yet recommend that investors buy in the onshore market in absolute terms. We also continue to recommend overweight Chinese government bonds versus stocks in the onshore market, and an underweight stance on Chinese offshore equities in both absolute and relative terms.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Special Report

Executive Summary Is Factor Investing Dead? After decades of outperformance, in the past few years equity factors have started to underperform the broad indexes. But this may just be because US-centric factor research and US-dominated global factor indexes have masked an underlying divergence in the behavior of factor premiums in major countries/regions. In this report, we identify differences in smart beta strategies in the US, euro area (EMU), UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, and emerging markets (EM). Quality and Minimum Volatility factors are the most consistent across all markets. However, the magnitude of the factor premiums varies significantly among certain countries/regions. These variations can be attributed to a factor’s differing exposure to the same sector in specific countries, as well as the diverse performance of the same sector in specific countries. Value/Growth is an inferior framework to sector positioning. Quality remains a better factor than Growth.   Bottom Line: Factor investing is still a viable investing approach, but investors should consider that factor premiums have diverged among major countries/regions. Factor strategies may be less profitable in the US, Japan, and Australia. We suggest that global investors implement smart beta strategies on an individual country basis to better capture the factor premium in each country/region. Feature Chart 1Diverging Factor Performance Late last year, quant hedge fund AQR announced it would cut back resources because poor performance had induced significant investor outflows.1 Based on MSCI’s diversified multi-factor (DMF) index, which is a bottom-up 4-factor-index (value, momentum, quality and size) optimized using Barra equity models,2 the global DMF index underperformed the MSCI ACWI by 21% between March 2018 (when the relative performance peaked) and the end of January 2022, even though it had outperformed by 373% over the previous 20 years (Chart 1, top panel). Many clients have asked: Is factor investing dead? As shown in Chart 1, however, MSCI Global DMF’s recent poor relative performance was driven largely by a 23.6% underperformance from the developed markets (DM), especially the US (33% underperformance) and Japan (23.6% underperformance), while the DMF index in the emerging markets (EM) lagged its benchmark by only about 1% in the same period. We have advocated a simple approach to factor allocation to smooth out the cyclicality of individual factors by equally weighting five time-tested factors: Quality, Momentum, Minimum Volatility (Min Vol), Value and Equal Weight. Our equally-weighted-5-factor aggregate (EW5) index is less volatile than the more sophisticatedly optimized DMF; it therefore suffered less underperformance in the same period. However, even with this approach, the regional divergence is still notable, with the EW5 factor index in the developing markets underperforming its benchmark by 9%, while the EM EW5 factor index outperformed its benchmark by about 5.5% (Chart 1, panels 2 and 3). Interestingly, the EW5 index for Japan looks more like that for the US than it looks like the Japanese DMF (Chart 1, panels 4 and 5). This highlights the importance of factor allocation methodology. Table 1US Dominance In Global Markets US equities dominate the global equity index by market capitalization. Momentum and Quality, the two best performing factors globally, have even higher weightings in US companies than the broad benchmark, as shown in Table 1. An academic paper published in 2019 based on studies of the US and 38 international stock markets indicates that the US is the only country with a statistically significant, economically meaningful and robust post-publication decline of long-short equity factor returns.3 This is because the US is the most researched market and large mispriced anomalies are arbitraged away quickly after they are identified in academic publications, which results in lower strategy returns. Most quant funds are US-focused, which may explain the ill fortunes of some quant funds. Smart beta strategies are long-only factor strategies, instead of long-short strategies. At the aggregate level, the MSCI factor indexes in developed markets and emerging markets performed much better than in the US, in line with the academic findings (Chart 1, panels 2, 3, and 4). Yet, the Japanese DMF index’s relative performance peaked in October 2012 and has been in a consistent down trend since that time (Chart 1, panel 5). Our research shows that Japan is not an anomaly. Factor divergence among countries exists not only at the aggregate level, but also at the individual factor level. Factor Performances Diverge Among Countries/Regions Factor returns in the US, UK, EMU, Japan, Canada, Australia, and EM, both in absolute and relative terms, have had notable divergences in the past 20 years, as shown in Table 2.4 Several observations from Table 2: Quality and Min Vol are two factors with positive premiums in all countries. In terms of magnitude, however, Min Vol premiums in the US, Japan and Australia are the closest to zero, while the EM scores the highest. Quality premium in Australia is also close to zero while the UK stands out. Momentum is the best performing factor in all countries/regions except in Japan where it has a slightly negative premium. The ineffectiveness of Momentum in Japan may be due to its cultural biases. Momentum tends to fare better in countries that promote individuality (unlike Japan) and where self-attribution and overconfidence are more pervasive. EM is the only market where our five preferred factors (Momentum, Quality, Min Vol, Value and Equal Weight) have had positive premiums, even though the Value premium is not statistically different from zero, while the Growth premium is negative. Despite the well-telegraphed underperformance of Value versus Growth in the US and global markets, this has not been the case in Japan, Canada, and the EM. Momentum, Quality, Min Vol and Value in the EM and Canada have much higher absolute returns than in the US. This aspect cannot be fully explained by the overall index performance difference between these countries and the US. Even though Momentum, Quality, Min Vol and Value in the UK and euro area have returned much less than their US counterparts, the magnitude of the underperformance of each factor is much smaller than what the overall index performance divergence would imply. Table 2Factor Performance Divergence* The widely quoted explanation for the impressive factor performance in the EM, especially in the Chinese A-share market, is that emerging markets have higher trading costs such that it’s harder to arbitrage away the mispriced anomalies. It’s true that trading cost is higher in the EM than in the US, which explains why there are fewer EM-dedicated quant funds than US-focused quant funds. Trading cost alone, however, cannot fully explain the exceptionally large premiums in EM Momentum, Quality and Min Vol compared with the US. In fact, the market with the best factor relative performance since the end of 2001 has been the UK (Chart 2) where trading costs are comparable to the US. The EM is the second in terms of relative returns even though it is more volatile than the euro area. Canada has also performed better than the US, while Australia has been the least favorable market to harvest any factor premium. Japan behaves more like the US, yet with higher volatility. The risk-adjusted active return, defined as the average of the return difference (between EW5 and benchmark) divided by the volatility of the return difference, on an annualized basis using monthly returns, is illustrated in Chart 3. The chart shows both the full-period (from December 2001 to January 2022) risk-adjusted active return (RAAR) and four-year moving RAAR to demonstrate how factors have evolved in each market. Several observations can be made from Chart 3: In the past 20 years, factor premiums (aka active factor returns) in the US have gone through three stages: High premium, low positive premium and then sharply declining premium to negative territory. The last stage started about four years ago. The US factor premium is at its lowest level in the past 20 years and is also the lowest among the seven countries/regions (Chart 3, panel 5). This supports the argument that too many quant funds trade with each other in the US equity market, resulting in lower and lower factor returns. Japan shares a similar pattern with the US, but on a much smaller scale (Chart 3, panel 4). Canada and Australia are similar because their indexes are dominated by financials and commodities. The four-year RAAR trends oscillate in a similar fashion in both countries, but the Canadian cycle seems to lead the Australian cycle by about 2-1/2 years. Canada has a meaningfully positive average factor premium and its four-year RAAR is near a historical low. In contrast, Australia’s average premium is close to zero and its four-year RAAR is still above previous lows (Chart 3, panels 6 and 7). The EMU is the only market with a positive four-year moving RAAR, currently at the well-established lower bound (Chart 3, panel 2). The UK has the highest average premium. It is the only market in which the four-year RAAR has had large cyclical swings and only two brief periods in negative territory (Chart 3, panel 1). EM is the only market where the four-year RAAR has improved since the Covid-19 pandemic started in March 2020 (Chart 3, panel 3). Chart 2Factor Relative Return Performance* Chart 3Risk-Adjusted Active Performance Bottom Line: US-centric factor research and the US-dominated global factor indexes have masked different behaviors of factors in various countries/regions. Thus, it is important to analyze each market instead of drawing investment conclusions from US-based research. What Drives The Divergence In Quality Premium? The Quality factor has been consistently rewarded, but the magnitude of the Quality premium varies significantly among countries/regions, and non-US countries have low correlations with the US, as shown in Table 2 (on page 4) and Charts 4 and 5. Chart 4Quality Performance Divergence* Chart 5Quality Premium* Country Correlation MSCI Quality is defined by three accounting measures: Return on equity (ROE), debt-to-equity and five-year volatility of EPS YoY growth. Earnings may be affected by accounting standards. Countries have different accounting standards, which may explain part of the country divergence in Quality. Our research focuses on an important aspect of Quality, which is persistence, i.e., a Quality stock today will be a Quality stock in the future. The implication is that the Quality factor index has a low turnover and its sector composition does not change much over time. As such, we can take a snapshot and see the relationship between Quality and sector exposure. The sector weights of the broad benchmark in each market are shown in Table 3. Notably, the US and EM have the highest exposure to the Tech sector while both the UK and Australia have little. Although Australia and Canada are both regarded as commodity-driven markets, they have dissimilar exposures to non-Financials: Australia is concentrated in Materials and Healthcare, while Canada has a more even exposure in Energy, Industrial, Materials and Tech. Table 3Broad Market Sector Compositions Given that Quality is measured on profitability, capital structure and earnings stability, does Quality show universal sector preference? The answer is both Yes and No. Yes, because Quality is universally underweight Financials, Energy and Utilities (Table 4). It is also overweight Tech and underweight Real Estate in all markets, except Australia. Tech has outperformed Financials, Utilities and Energy in general (except for Canada), therefore, these three sector tilts may explain the universal existence of Quality premium (Chart 6). Table 4Quality Index Sector Deviations Chart 6What Drives Quality Premium? However, the commonality ends here. Canadian Tech has underperformed Financials by a very large margin (Chart 6, panel 3), which would have caused a huge underperformance in Quality; Quality indexes in the UK and EMU have benchmark exposures to Tech. So what else have contributed to Quality’s outperformance in these three countries/regions? A look at their exposures to other sectors reveals the answers. In the UK, EMU and Canada, Quality indexes have also overweight tilts in Industrials, Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples (Table 4). These three sectors have all outperformed their respective benchmarks in the past 20 years, as shown in Table 5. The table also shows that Consumer Staples is the only sector that has outperformed in all markets, yet both US and Australian Quality indexes underweight this sector. Table 5Sector Performance* In addition, in both the UK and Canada, Quality overweights Materials, which is a top outperforming sector in the UK, but an underperforming sector in Canada. Materials also outperforms in the EMU, yet EMU Quality underweights it. Despite the impressive overall outperformance since 2001, the Quality factor in DM has suffered in the past few years, especially since the Covid 19-induced selloff in March 2020. Quality relative performance in EM peaked long before DM but has stood out as the only significant outperformer since March 2020. This is because profitability in Quality has improved in EM but deteriorated in the US and other DM countries as shown in Charts 7 and 8. Chart 7Quality Premium Driver: ROE* Chart 8Quality Premium Driver: EPS* Chart 9Quality Premium Driver: Valuation* Valuation-wise, Quality indexes in the UK and Canada are at their cheapest levels since 2013, while Japan has become more expensive. Meanwhile, Quality valuation in the US, EMU and Australia is in line with their respective historical average5 (Chart 9). Bottom Line: Quality premium is driven by profitability and has strong sector preferences. The divergence of Quality premium among countries indicates that the same sector in different countries does not necessarily share the same behavior relative to its own benchmark. Sector behaviors in each market have not been as consistent as globalization would have implied, even though “global sectors” have become a well-accepted concept. What Drives The Min Vol Premium Divergence? Beside Quality, Min Vol has consistently outperformed in all the countries/regions in the past 20 years, even though the premiums in the US and Japan are close to zero, as shown in Table 2 on page 4. Over time, however, Min Vol’s relative performance is very cyclical. At the global aggregate level, this cyclicality is determined by its defensive nature given its positive correlation with the relative equity return ratio of Defensives/Cyclicals and negative correlation with bond yields. It is no surprise that the strong recovery in global equities and the rise in bond yields have caused Min Vol to underperform the broad market since March 2020. What is surprising, however, is the magnitude of the underperformance, which cannot be explained by historical relationships (Chart 10). Chart 10What Drives Global Min Vol Premium? Looking at the global aggregate only, however, can provide misguided information, because Global Min Vol is dominated by the US (56.81%) and Japan (9.88%), where Min Vol has performed the worst. In the most recent cycle since March 2020, the US is the only country where Min Vol has deviated sharply from the historical relationship with the relative performance of defensives/cyclicals and with bond yields, incurring the largest relative performance drawdown ever, erasing all the relative gains achieved in the previous two decades (Chart 11A). Japanese Min Vol also suffered large drawdown, but was in line with the defensives/cyclicals, albeit undershooting what implied by the bond yield (Chart 11B). The relative performance of Min Vol in the UK, Canada, EM, and Australia all behaved in line with what is implied by the historical relationships with bond yields and defensives/cyclicals, while Min Vol in EMU does not have a close correlation with defensives/cyclicals (Charts 11 C-G). Chart 11AUS Min Vol Premium Chart 11BJapan Min Vol Premium Chart 11CUK Min Vol Premium Chart 11DEMU Min Vol Premium Chart 11ECanada Min Vol Premium Chart 11FAustralia Min Vol Premium   Chart 11GEM Min Vol Premium Min Vol has become the worst performing factor since March 2020, led by the US, Japan, and EMU, while the UK has been almost flat, as shown in Table 6. This is in stark contrast to its historical track record (Table 2 on page 4) but can be explained by its defensive tilt in a strong equity market. Currently, Min Vol’s general defensive nature is reflected by its overweight in Consumer Staples and underweight in Consumer Discretionary, overweight in Communication Services and underweight in Energy in all markets. In interest-rate-sensitive sectors, Min Vol overweighs Utilities in all markets except Japan and underweights Financials in all markets, except EM (Table 7). Table 6Min Vol Was The Worst Performer Since The Covid-Induced Recovery* Table 7Min Vol Index Sector Deviations Communication Services in the UK and Australia bucked the trend, outperforming the broad market. UK Financial also opposed the trend but did not outperform. In addition, the UK is overweight in Real Estate, which did much better than the broad market (Table 8). Table 8Sector Performance Since March 2020 Chart 12Min Vol Premium Divergence: Valuation* Min Vol in EM has an overweight in Financials, which also outperformed. In addition, EM Consumer Discretionary resisted the general trend, coming in under its benchmark by 17% annualized; an underweight in this sector contributed to EM’s Min Vol’s performance. Why has US Min Vol performed so badly? According to a GAA Special Report published in January 2020, extreme overvaluation of Min Vol relative to the broad market could induce poor subsequent performance in near future. US Min Vol reached peak valuation relative to the market in 2019, and the subsequent underperformance was accompanied by sharp multiple contraction. Currently, Min Vol’s relative valuation is in line with historical average in the US, implying the turnaround since November 2021 may have further staying power (Chart 12). Bottom Line: Global Min Vol’s defensive tilts explain its underperformance since March 2020. However, divergences in the magnitude of underperformance among countries is explained by different sector exposures and the varying performance of some sectors in different countries, in addition to relative valuation. Chart 13Value Vs. Growth: Is This Time Different? Is It Time To Overweight Value Versus Growth? This is one of the most frequently asked questions over the past few years, especially after the turnaround in AQR last year hit the newswire. The impressive performance of AQR so far this year has prompted more heated debate on the sustainability of the “Revenge of Value” after Value's longest streak of underperformance).6 The recent rebound in the relative performance of Value versus Growth has been driven by extremely oversold conditions, very cheap valuation and faster EPS growth led by the rise in global bond yields. Even though sector exposures change over time for Value and Growth, sector exposures to Financials and Tech have been stable since 2010 at the global aggregate level (Chart 13). The large bets in Financial, Utilities and Tech are universal, as shown in Table 9. Other sector exposures in specific countries vary significantly. For example, the US Value/Growth split is basically between Tech, Communication Services and Consumer Discretionary versus the other eight sectors. These three sectors are dominated by a few mega-cap stocks. The other eight sectors are a mixed bag of cyclicals, defensives, and interest rate sensitives, which have different macro drivers. It does not make sense to overweight them together. It is important to note that Consumer Staples and Healthcare are overweight in Growth outside the US and EMU. Table 9Sector Tilts In Value And Growth In addition, Growth has similar sector preferences as Quality (Table 4 and Table 9), which explains the high correlation between the two factor premiums (Chart 14A), However, Quality has been a much better factor than Growth outside the US and Australia. In the US, Quality and Growth are almost the same with a stable correlation, but Quality has been inferior to Growth in Australia (Chart 14B). Chart 14AClose Correlation* Between Quality And Growth Chart 14BQuality Is Superior To Growth Outside US And Australia Finally, Value and Growth behave very differently in various market-cap segments, as shown in Table 10. Despite the well-telegraphed underperformance of Value versus Growth by the media, Value has consistently outperformed Growth in Canada, EM and Japan. Furthermore, mid-cap Value has also outperformed mid-cap Growth universally. Bottom Line: Value is extremely cheap and the rebound from an extremely oversold condition has been supported by the relative earnings trend and a rise in interest rates. Yet the mixed bag of sector exposure makes the Value/Growth allocation inferior to sector allocation. Investors who want to focus on Growth are advised to look for Quality outside of the US and Australia. Conclusions Related Report  Global Asset AllocationValue? Growth? It Really Depends! The US-centric factor research and media coverage have masked an underlying divergence of factor premiums in specific countries/regions. Factor premiums in the UK, EMU, Canada, and EM have been stronger than in the US, while Japan and Australia have been weaker. This divergence can be explained by different sector exposures of the same factor, along with varying behaviors of the same sector in specific countries/regions. While factor investing is not dead, it may be less profitable to utilize in the US, Japan, and Australia. We suggest that global investors implement smart beta strategies on an individual country basis to better capture the factor premium in each country. Even though Quality, Min Vol and Momentum have been outperformers in the past 20 years, all factors have embedded cyclicality. We do not advocate factor timing and reiterate our long-standing approach of equally weighting the five factors to smooth out the cyclicality of individual factors. Value/Growth is a popular style split; however, it is an inferior framework to sector positioning. In addition, Quality is a better factor than Growth, which is already included in our five-factor approach.   Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see "Quant Hedge Fund Icon AQR Cuts Back as Investors Exit," Chief Investment Officer, dated November 15, 2021. 2     Please see "MSCI Diversified Multiple-Factorindexes Methodology," MSCI.com, dated May 2018. 3     Please see "Anomalies across the globe: Once public, no longer existent?" Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 135, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 213-230. 4    Historical data for all MSCI factor indexes in major markets is available for this period 5    Since Jan 2013 based on MSCI data availability. 6     Jessica Hamlin, "AQR Posts Record Performance in January," Institutional Investor, dated February 9, 2022.

Special Report

Dear client, This week we are sending you a joint Special Report with my colleague Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist. The Special Report provides our outlook on the RMB. I trust that you will find the report very insightful. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Executive Summary The RMB And Real Interest Rates The RMB has overshot and will likely consolidate gains in the coming months. That said, the yuan remains underpinned by a current account surplus, positive real rates, and a valuation cushion. This will support modest appreciation over the next 12-18 months (Feature Chart). The dollar is likely to enter a period of weakness beyond the Russo-Ukrainian crisis, underpinning a firm RMB. Yield spreads between China and the US will narrow across the bond curve, slowing the pace of any RMB appreciation. In its quest to dominate Asian trade flows, China will also seek a stable yuan which can be an anchor for regional currencies. Low volatility in the Chinese bond and currency market will increasingly make it an attractive hedge for global portfolio managers. This will encourage RMB inflows. The financial sanctions on Russia from the ongoing Ukrainian conflict will accelerate Chinese diversification from US assets. It will also boost the use of RMB in global trade, lifting its share in global FX reserves. Bottom Line: In the near term, USD/CNY is due for a bounce and could retrace to 6.5. It is also the case that a lot of the gains in the Chinese RMB have been frontloaded, suggesting a flattish path ahead. Beyond the near term, we expect the DXY to hit 90 in the next 12-18 months, which will boost the RMB towards 6.0. Feature The RMB has been strong across the board versus most major currencies (Chart 1). Year-to-date, the DXY dollar index is up 2% while the CFETS basket is up 3%. This places the Chinese yuan as one of the best performing major currencies this year. Such a configuration where USD/CNY diverges from the broad dollar trend has been very rare in recent history (Chart 2). More importantly, this has occurred amidst very low volatility. Chart 1A Bull Market In Yuans Chart 2USD/CNY And The Dollar Diverge In this Special Report, we try to understand the driving forces behind a rising RMB, to gauge its likely path going forward. In our view, while the yuan is vulnerable tactically, it is underpinned by strong structural forces that support modest appreciation over the next 12-18 months. The Chinese Economy, Interest Rates, And The RMB An exchange rate is simply a mechanism to equalize rates of returns across countries. For most currencies, the key determinants of this arbitrage window are real interest rate differentials. In China, while nominal interest rates vis-à-vis the US have been collapsing, real interest rate differentials are near a record high. This has been the key driver of a rising RMB (Chart 3). Real interest rates tend to matter because high and rising inflation destroys the purchasing power of any currency. Our bias is that higher real rates in China versus the US will persist and keep the RMB firm. Five key reasons underpin this view: The Chinese economy is expected to accelerate this year relative to the US. The IMF expects 4.8% GDP growth in China, versus 4% in the US. Bloomberg consensus estimates corroborate this view – 5.2% growth is expected for China this year, versus 3.6% for the US. Even the Chinese government’s GDP growth target this year is 5.5%, much higher than street estimates. US interest rates are likely to rise over the medium term, but so will those in China. The Chinese credit impulse has bottomed, and it is usually a good precursor to both stronger economic activity and higher relative government bond yields (Chart 4). Chart 3The RMB And Real Versus Nominal Rates Chart 4Interest Rate Differentials And The Credit Impulse While Chinese productivity growth is slowing, it remains structurally higher compared to that in the US or Europe. Stronger productivity growth suggests the neutral rate of interest in China will remain higher than in Western economies for years to come. This will continue to attract further fixed-income inflows. The RMB is a procyclical currency and tends to benefit when flows into emerging market assets in general, and Chinese stocks in particular, are fervent. While the Chinese authorities have cracked down on the property and information technology/communication service sectors, they have done so without causing widespread capital flight and hurting the RMB (Chart 5). Going forward, odds are that the interest from foreign bargain hunters will rise as these sectors reset from lower and much cheaper levels. It is well known that the Chinese economy has excess capacity, which is inherently deflationary (and positive for real rates). Like Japan, China has excess savings and deficient demand (Chart 6). However, in an inflationary world, this excess capacity can easily be exported, especially to the US, which is on the verge of overheating. A healthy trade balance in China suggests there is little reason for the RMB to depreciate meaningfully. Chart 6Excess Savings In China And Low Inflation Chart 5The RMB And Chinese Equities It is remarkable that despite being the largest commodity importer in the world, terms of trade in China is picking up. Rising terms of trade is usually synonymous with a stronger currency. On the flip side, a stronger currency will also temper inflationary pressures in China (Chart 7). Chart 7The RMB, Terms Of Trade And Inflation The bottom line is that real interest rates will remain relatively high in China, even as the US begins to tighten monetary policy while China eases. The reason is that the US economy is much more inflationary, and Chinese bond yields tend to rise when the PBoC stimulates growth. Market Liberalization And Portfolio Flows With attractive real yields, Chinese bonds have been gaining widespread investor appeal. Their inclusion in the world’s three major bond indices has been a seminal milestone in the process of liberalizing the Chinese fixed-income market. Chinese bonds have also acted as perfect portfolio hedges, moving inversely to US and global equities (Chart 8). The result has been significant portfolio inflows into Chinese bonds. As a reminder, Chinese bonds were initially included in the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index (BBGA) in April 2019. Following that, they were added to the JP Morgan Government Bond - Emerging Market Index (GBI-EM) in February 2020. Finally, FTSE Russell announced their inclusion of in the FTSE World Government Bond Index (WGBI) as of October 2021. Since their inclusion, a net US$350 billion has flowed into Chinese bonds. We estimate that about 35% of that has been due to index inclusion. The amount of Chinese onshore bonds held by overseas investors has breached US$600 billion, a record high (Chart 9). Chart 9A Healthy Appetite From Foreign Investors Chart 8RMB Bonds As A Portfolio Hedge In a nutshell, the path of the RMB in the short term will follow relative growth dynamics between China and the rest of the world, but structural factors such the inclusion of RMB bonds in global portfolios will underpin strong inflows into the Chinese fixed-income market. The Dollar, Trade, And Lessons From The Ukrainian Conflict Chart 10China Is Destocking USDs Another factor to consider vis-à-vis the RMB is the dollar’s reserve status, and the overreach that it commands. Quite simply, transactions conducted in US dollars anywhere fall under US law. This means that if a company in any country buys energy from Iran and the transaction is done in US dollars, the Treasury has powers to sanction the parties involved. Russian holdings of US Treasurys peaked during the Georgian war and have since fallen to near 0% of total reserves. Even so, the world has witnessed how vulnerable the Russian economy has been to a cut-off from the Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) messaging system. China is the largest holder of US Treasurys and what it decides to do with this war chest of savings is of critical importance. At a minimum, a few trends that have been underway in recent years are likely to accelerate. China will continue to destock its holding of Treasurys into gold and other currencies (Chart 10). This will put downward pressure on the dollar and boost the RMB. In fact, ever since China started destocking Treasurys in earnest in 2015, the DXY has been unable to sustainably punch through the 100 level. Trade flows in Asia remain rather buoyant, even as globalization has peaked (Chart 11A and 11B). With most Asian countries having China as a large trading partner, the logical step will be more and more invoicing in RMB. Most global trade hubs in history (such as Hong Kong for example) have always sought a stable currency with low volatility to instill confidence in trade. China is likely to also favor a stable RMB. Chart 11AChina Could Dominate Asian Trade Chart 11BAsian Trade Is Booming As Asian trade continues to expand, the PBoC can step in as the regional central bank and lender of last resort. It is notable that China is already engaging in this role. Since the global financial crisis, the number of bilateral swap lines offered to foreign central banks by the PBoC has ballooned (Chart 12). According to the most recent data (from the PBoC), the Chinese central bank had bilateral local currency swap agreements with central banks or monetary authorities in 40 countries and regions, with a total amount of around 4 trillion yuan. The People’s Bank of China has massive foreign exchange reserves, worth about US$3.2 trillion. This means it can provide swap agreements that will almost cover the totality of EM foreign dollar debt. The Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) already allows the transfer and clearing of yuan-denominated payments. In 2021, the system processed US$12.7 trillion, a 75% increase in turnover from the previous year.1 While the system still largely relies on SWIFT messaging for most cross-border transactions, progress towards independence is moving fast. The key point is that as China continues to rise as an economic power and increases the share of RMB trade within its sphere of influence, the yuan will naturally become the de facto Asian currency. This will allow the RMB to continue to gain international appeal (Chart 13). Chart 12The People's Bank Of Asia? Chart 13The RMB And International Appeal Valuation Concerns Most of the discussion above has focused on the cyclical outlook for the Chinese economy and bond yields, as well as the geopolitical ramifications from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. While the macro environment is by far the most important driver of currencies, valuation and sentiment tend to matter as well. On this note: Our productivity model suggests the RMB is at fair value. Productivity in China remains higher than among its western trading partners, but the gap has been closing. This has flattened the slope of the fair-value model (Chart 14). That said, the US and Europe are generating much higher inflation than China, suggesting there is higher pressure for unit labor costs to rise in these countries. This will improve the competitive profile of the RMB. Our PPP model for the RMB, using an apples-to-apples consumer basket vis-à-vis the US suggests the RMB is undervalued by 11% (Chart 15). Historically, such levels of undervaluation have seen the RMB appreciate by 2% per year over the next 4 years (Chart 16). Chart 14The RMB Is At Fair Value Based On Productivity Trends Chart 15The RMB Is Cheap Based On Relative Prices   Chart 16Potential RMB Returns For Foreign Investors Valuation tends to be important because it is usually the trigger for imbalances to manifest themselves. Back in 2015-20162  when Chinese capital outflows (especially illicit flows) were rampant amongst global and Chinese concerns, the RMB also happened to be very overvalued. Today, such a risk is much limited. Concluding Thoughts The RMB and the dollar tend to move in harmony, and so a discussion of one entails talking about the other. We have characterized the dollar this year as caught in a tug of war. Specifically, aggressive rate hikes by the Federal Reserve will boost interest rate differentials in favor of the US but undermine the equity market via a derating in stocks. This will tighten financial conditions, nudging the Fed to pivot. On the other hand, less accommodation by the Fed will significantly unwind the rate-driven rally that has nudged the DXY close to 100.  On the other hand, the Chinese credit impulse has bottomed meaning bond investors will benefit from rising bond yields in China. Equity investors will also benefit from a cheaper market, as well as exposure to sectors that are primed to benefit as the global economy reopens. This combination could sustain the pace of foreign capital inflows. In the near term, USD/CNY is due for a bounce and could retrace to 6.5. It is also the case that a lot of the gains in the Chinese RMB have been front loaded, suggesting a flattish path ahead. Beyond the near term, we expect the DXY to hit 90 in the next 12-18 months, which will boost the RMB towards 6.0. Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/what-is-chinas-onshore-yuan-clearing-settlement-system-cips-2022-02-28/ 2 Please see Chinese Investment Strategy Special Report, titled “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows,” dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations