Emerging Markets

Executive Summary Rising TIPS Yields = Equity Multiples Compression Equity sector and style rotations could prevent the broad equity indexes from plunging, but these rotations will not be sufficient to propel the overall stock indexes to new highs. Rising US bond yields remain the key risk to US growth stocks in both absolute and relative terms. As US growth stocks drift lower in absolute terms, the S&P 500 will stay in a trading range but is unlikely to make new highs. Equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or major corrections in global share prices. Hence, a major selloff in global stocks is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks move toward a period of secular outperformance (i.e., a multi-year bull market in absolute and relative terms). Recommendation   Inception Date Return Underweight EM Relative To DM Stocks (In Common Currency) 2021-03-25 15.8% Bottom Line: Continue underweighting EM in a global equity portfolio. Cyclically, continue favoring value versus growth stocks. Feature We expect US bond yields to continue to rise, and global growth stocks to continue to underperform global value stocks in the months ahead. This prompts the question: What does this scenario mean for overall global share prices, EM markets, and EM relative equity performance? Equity Rotation And Overall Market Performance Can the S&P 500 or global equity index advance in absolute terms when US and global growth stocks sell off in absolute terms? Our hunch is as follows: As US growth stocks drift lower, the S&P 500 will stay in a trading range, but is unlikely to make new highs. A review of past episodes of sector and style rotation is in order. We recall two episodes of major rotation: 1. The closest historical comparison is in the year 2000. The top panel of Chart 1 illustrates US value stocks were resilient even after the Nasdaq bubble started bursting in March 2000. Besides, the S&P 500 index held up well in the first half of that year even though Nasdaq stocks were plummeting (Chart 1, bottom panel). Nevertheless, despite the rotation, value/old economy stocks failed to break out of their previous highs (Chart 1, top panel). We would expect a similar pattern to emerge in the current cycle as the Nasdaq index wobbles. Despite the Nasdaq selloff, oil prices continued to rise until October 2000, and the US median stock had a bumpy ride but made a new high in early 2002 (Chart 2). Chart 1US Equity Rotation In 2000 Chart 2Rotation In 2000: The Nasdaq, Oil And The Median Stock   Overall, as rising US interest rates weigh on growth stocks, the rest of the market can stay in a trading range. Segments with very good fundamentals and cheap valuations could even make new marginal highs. Nevertheless, given the sheer weight of growth stocks in the broad US equity index, it will be hard for the S&P 500 to make new highs when growth stocks wobble. However, a key difference between now and the 2000-2002 market is that back then, US bond yields were falling. Thus, the bear market in the US equity market in general and Nasdaq stocks in particular, occurred alongside falling US bond yields (Chart 3). Currently, the Fed is in a tightening mode and US bond yields are climbing. A rising discount factor is negative for all stocks (Chart 4): It is more negative for high-multiples stocks and less negative for low multiples companies. Chart 3The Nasdaq Bubble Burst Despite Falling Interest Rates Chart 4Rising TIPS Yields = Equity Multiples Compression   Another interesting observation about the 2000-2002 bear market is that it occurred despite resilient US consumer spending, and a very robust housing market and credit growth (Chart 5, top two panels). Remarkably, corporate profits collapsed by about 60% even though real GDP barely contracted at all (Chart 5, bottom two panel). We do not predict a similar equity bust this time around. Instead, we are highlighting that US equity valuations and corporate profits can shrink even if US consumer spending does not contract. What happens to costs, profit margins, inflation and interest rates are as important as the consumer spending outlook. To sum up, when the Nasdaq’s bubble began bursting in March of 2000, investors rotated into old economy stocks and the S&P 500 held up well until July of that year. From July onward, the selloff broadened, and the overall US equity indexes entered a bear market. The latter lasted until March 2003. 2. Another episode of extended market rotation occurred in the lead up to and during the 2008 bear market. The US financial/credit crisis in 2007-08 commenced with the selloff in sub-prime securities in March 2007. Corporate spreads began widening, and bank share prices rolled over in June 2007. Next, the S&P 500 and EM stocks peaked in October 2007 (Chart 6). Despite these developments, commodity prices and EM currencies continued to rally until the summer of 2008 when they finally collapsed in the second half of that year (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5US Profits Recession In 2001 Occurred Despite No Economic Recession Chart 6Domino Effect In 2007-08 Clearly, what was initially a rotation out of US cyclicals and financials into commodities and EM eventually proved to be nothing more than part of a domino effect. Again, we are not making the case that the US economy and financial markets are headed into a financial crisis. Our point here is that rotations do occur and can last for a while. Yet, a sustainable bull market in aggregate equity indexes does not emerge until there is a broad-based selloff during which the majority of sectors and bourses drop in absolute terms. Bottom Line: Rotation episodes can last several months. Equity sector and style rotations could prevent the broad equity indexes from plunging but these rotations will not be sufficient to propel the overall stock indexes to new highs. Equity Leadership Changes Occur Around Major Selloffs Having examined these rotation episodes, we can now take a step back and see the big picture: equity leadership rotations typically occur during or after bear markets and/or major corrections in global share prices. Chart 7 illustrates EM relative stock prices versus DM along with the global equity index. Over the past 25 years, there have been several major leadership changes between EM and DM, and all of them coincided with, or were preceded by, either a bear market or a substantial drawdown in global share prices. Chart 7EM Versus DM: Equity Rotations Similarly, the relative performance of global growth versus value stocks often experiences trend reversals during or after selloffs (Chart 8). Chart 8Global Growth Versus Value: Leadership Rotations Finally, secular trend changes in the relative performance of the global tech sector, energy stocks and materials have also occurred during or after drawdowns in global share prices (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Technology, Energy And Materials: Leadership Rotations A word on commodity prices is warranted. We are surprised that industrial metal prices have so far held up well and oil prices have been surging despite China’s slowdown. The culprits behind the rally in resource prices are strong DM demand for commodities and investor purchases of commodities as an inflation hedge. Therefore, it might take investor concerns about US demand and/or a slowdown in global manufacturing to trigger a relapse in commodity prices. Rising US interest rates and a continued US dollar rally will eventually lead to a meaningful drawdown in commodity prices. Yet, the precise timing of this shift is uncertain. Critically, among financial markets, oil prices are often the last to fall and/or rally. Hence, investors should not use oil as a leading indicator for other markets. As to share prices of commodity producers, global materials have rolled over at their previous high (Chart 10, top panel), while energy stocks have surged through multiple technical resistances. However, they now face another technical hurdle (Chart 10, bottom panel). If oil share prices decisively break above this long-term moving average, it would likely signal that they have entered a multi-year bull market. Chart 10Global Energy Stocks And Materials: A Long-Term Profile Bottom Line: Major equity leadership rotations normally occur around bear markets or major corrections. Hence, a major selloff in global stocks is likely before EM, commodities, global cyclicals and value stocks move toward a period of secular outperformance (i.e., a multi-year bull market in absolute and relative terms). Investment Considerations Chart 11EM And US Stocks Relative To The Global Benchmark: No Change In Trend We will contemplate upgrading EM if a broad selloff transpires. In such an equity drawdown, there is a 50% chance that EM may outperform the S&P 500 if the selloff is led by growth stocks, as occurred during the carnage in global stocks in January this year or in the fourth quarter of 2018 (Chart 11, top panel). Yet, the EM overall equity index will underperform Europe and Japan in such a broad-based drawdown. A weaker dollar is essential for EM outperformance. For now, we remain positive on the dollar for the next several months and are hence underweight EM stocks and credit markets versus their DM peers. As to US stocks, the jury is still out on whether their secular outperformance is over. Notably, US share prices relative to the global equity index have rebounded from their 200-day moving average (Chart 11, bottom panel). When such a technical pattern occurs, odds are high that US stocks will make new highs in relative terms. US equities outperforming the rest of the world is not consistent with growth stocks underperforming value ones. Hence, a potential US outperformance represents a risk to our core view that growth stocks will continue underperforming value stocks. How do we reconcile these inconsistencies? It might be that US growth stocks’ recent rebound persists for the next several weeks and they outperform value stocks during this window. In such a case, our equity leadership rotation theme will be delayed. Yet, in this scenario EM stocks will continue underperforming DM ones. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Executive Summary Chinese Onshore Stock Prices And Earnings Are Set To Deteriorate Macro fundamentals indicate that for the time being there is no basis to overweight Chinese onshore stocks (in both absolute terms and relative to global stocks) given the outlook for profit growth contraction in 1H22. We are reluctant to shift our stance on Chinese domestic stocks to overweight in the next 6 to 12 months due to the following non-trivial risks: a subdued recovery in China’s economic activity, a deceleration in fiscal impulse in 2H22, a re-focus on reducing carbon emissions, as well as higher US bond yields and tighter global liquidity conditions.  Despite a sharp drop in January, valuations in Chinese onshore stocks are still neutral in absolute terms, and only slightly cheaper than global stocks. As such, Chinese onshore stocks offer little valuation buffer in the wake of any negative surprises. Bottom Line: We maintain our underweight stance on Chinese onshore stocks (in both absolute terms and relative to global equities) due to non-trivial risks in the coming year. Feature China’s stock markets was very weak in the first month of 2022. The domestic equity market tumbled by 8% in January, while the offshore market dropped by 3%. We discussed our view on Chinese investable stocks in last week’s report and recommended that investors go long on investable value stocks versus growth stocks. This week’s report focuses on the onshore market. While we expect the economy to stabilize by mid-year on the back of increased policy support, we are reluctant to move to a cyclical overweight in the next 6 to 12 months, in both absolute terms and relative to their global peers. Near-term challenges in economic fundamentals will continue to weigh on Chinese domestic stocks. Over a cyclical time frame, the main risks to a bullish view on Chinese stocks are fourfold: a potentially subdued economic recovery; a sharp deceleration in fiscal impulse in the second half of the year; a re-acceleration in de-carbonization efforts; as well as higher bonds yields in the US and tighter global financial conditions. Chinese onshore stocks are not as deeply discounted as their offshore peers and, therefore, are less able to counter any negative surprises. Macroeconomics Matter Chart 1Weak Economic Fundamentals Undermine Stock Performance China’s economic fundamentals still drive corporate earnings and the country’s domestic stock performance, despite an escalation in monetary policy easing (Chart 1). Current macro fundamentals do not provide a legitimate support for investors to overweight Chinese stocks. The domestic stock market’s rocky start to 2022 underscores extremely fragile sentiment and heightened anxiety among investors. Credit growth bottomed in October last year but has not shown any signs of a strong rebound. Corporate demand for credit remains in the doldrums while turmoil in the housing market has disincentivized households from taking mortgages (Chart 2). The real economy, which in previous business cycles lagged credit growth by about six to nine months, has not responded to policy easing measures. Housing market indicators in January deteriorated further (Chart 3). Moreover, the nation’s counter-COVID measures have disrupted a recovery in the service sector and private consumption. Chart 2Demand For Loans Remains Weak Chart 3Housing Sales Weakened Further In January Chart 4Chinese Onshore Stock EPS Is Set To Deteriorate The financial market is forward looking and macro policies have become more market friendly. However, Chart 4 suggests that China's onshore corporate profits are set to deteriorate in the coming six months or so, and investors will likely react negatively to any further weakness in China’s measures of economic activity. Bottom Line: At the moment, China’s domestic economic fundamentals do not support an overweight stance in Chinese stocks. Mindful Of Cyclical Risks Chinese authorities have prioritized stimulating growth through countercyclical measures in 2022. However, we are reluctant to move to a cyclical overweight stance because we see four significant risks to turning bullish towards Chinese stocks (in both absolute and relative terms) in the next 6 to 12 months. These scenarios not only threaten the performance of Chinese stocks relative to global equities but could also prevent Chinese stocks’ absolute performance from trending higher. A subdued recovery in China’s economic activity. When policymakers wait too long to decisively stimulate the economy, business and consumer sentiment as well as the economy can remain downbeat for a prolonged period. For example, in the 2014/15 business cycle, monetary policy started to ease in early 2015, but policymakers hesitated to back down from supply-side reforms. As a result, the economy did not bottom until Q1 2016. Business activity and the financial markets reached their lows only after the authorities opened the “flood irrigation” to the economy by massively stimulating the housing sector (Chart 5). Arguably China’s economy is in a better shape now than in 2014/15 and the ongoing economic slowdown is not the result of a four-year downtrend in industrial activity as was the case prior to 2015’s economic slump (Chart 6). The drop in the A-share market in January was nothing compared with the turmoil in the financial markets seven years ago. Chart 5Economic Activity Picked Up In Q1 2016 Following A Massive Stimulus Chart 6China's Economy In General Is In A Better Shape Now Than In 2014/15... ​​​​​​​ On the other hand, the housing market, which is estimated to account for about 29% of China’s economy, is currently decelerating at the same pace as in 2014/15. Growth in home sales and new projects dropped to their 2015 lows, while real estate inventories are comparable to the 2015 highs (Chart 7). Furthermore, property developers and consumers are even more indebted than during the 2014/15 cycle (Chart 8). Chart 7...But Downward Momentum In Property Market Comparable To 2015​​​​​​ Chart 8Chinese Real Estate Developers And Households Are More Leveraged Now Than In 2015 Chart 9Policymakers Will Have To Allow Significant Re-leveraging To Revive The Housing Market As noted in a previous report, unless regulators are willing to initiate more aggressive policy boosts as in 2015/16, the ongoing easing measures will not be sufficient to revive sentiment in the property market. Thus, the property market downtrend will likely extend through 2022 (Chart 9). The IMF recently revised its 2022 growth projection for China from 5.6% to 4.8%. It attributed the sharp downgrade to China’s protracted financial stress in the housing sector and pandemic-induced disruptions related to a zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy. A sub-5% economic expansion in 2022, although still an improvement from the 4.5% average annual rate in 2H21, is subdued and below China’s potential growth. Such a weak economic recovery will weigh on investor sentiment towards Chinese stocks in the coming year. A deceleration in fiscal impulse in 2H22. The impulse in fiscal stimulus - without any intervention - will fall sharply in the second half of the year. The Ministry Of Finance has approved a quota of RMB1.46 trillion in local government special purpose bonds (SPBs), which accounts for more than one-third of the yearly SPB quota, to be issued in Q1 this year. Chart 10Large Amount Of Local Government Debts Due In 2H22 However, the frontloading of SPBs also means that the fiscal impulse will slow significantly in 2H22. Our geopolitical strategists have noted that a total of RMB2.7 trillion worth of local government bonds (LGB) will reach maturity this year, with RMB2.2 trillion coming due after June 2022 (Chart 10). The number of maturing LGBs in 2H22 will be only slightly smaller than those in all of 2021; in 2021 42% of LGBs issued were re-financing bonds to pay off existing local government debts, undermining real fiscal support for the economy. Furthermore, authorities have not loosened their grip on implicit local government debts (Chart 11). These so-called shadow banking debts through local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) are an important source of funding for investments in infrastructure projects. If the central government does not reverse its efforts to curb hidden debts while explicit fiscal stimulus also wanes, then we will likely see a sharp deceleration in fiscal support in 2H22. Lastly, we think Chinese policymakers are still serious about preventing “flood irrigation” type of stimulus, and will not opt for it unless the economic slowdown is much sharper. In Q1 2019 stock prices jumped sharply, boosted by an above-expectation pace of local government SPB issuance and credit expansion. However, following the public spat between Premier Li Keqiang and the PBoC over whether the January 2019 credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus, policymakers quickly scaled back credit expansion in Q2 and onshore stock prices ended the year 5% lower than in Q1 (Chart 12).  Chart 11Authorities Have Kept Tight Grip On Shadow Banking Activity Chart 12Policymakers Scaled Back Stimulus And Took The Wind Out Of Onshore Stocks In 2019 Carbon emission reduction targets are still viable. In the current 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025), the cumulative targets reduction in energy consumption intensity is 13.5%.1 Last year’s energy crisis slowed the de-carbonization process and energy consumption intensity fell by 2.7% in 2021, missing the official annual target of 3%. To meet the de-carbonization target by 2025, energy consumption intensity will have to be lowered by at least 2.7% per year in the next four years. If energy- and carbon-intensive infrastructure activity picks up sharply in 1H22, then policymakers will have to renew their vigilance to constrain carbon-intensive activities later this year. The de-carbonization target has become a key parameter for assessing the performance of local governments, and meeting de-carbonization targets is particularly important given the rotation of local officials will be completed in late 2022. Furthermore, the initiative to reduce energy intensity reflects China’s commitment to move to a green economy. Given the important political events in both China and the US in the fall of 2022, meeting the annual de-carbonization target will be an important projection of China’s international image and will likely play a role in US-China negotiations. Chart 13Prior To The Pandemic, Chinese Stocks Had Little Correlation With US Treasury Yields Higher bond yields in the US and tighter global liquidity conditions. Historically, Chinese onshore stocks have exhibited a loose cyclical correlation with US government bond yields (Chart 13). Nonetheless, if US bond yields rise more than global investors expect and to a level that is economically restrictive, then capital expenditures and household consumption in the US will weaken. This, in turn, will weigh down global trade and Chinese exports of manufactured goods.   Against the backdrop of escalating US bond yields, Chinese onshore stocks may passively outperform their US counterparts because China’s A-share market is heavily weighted in value stocks. However, A-share prices in absolute terms will not be immune to heightened volatility in the global financial markets.   The risk-off sentiment across global bourses will discourage portfolio flows into emerging economies including China. On a monthly basis, foreign portfolio net inflows account for less than 1% of the onshore equity market trading volume, but in recent years foreign portfolio inflows have increasingly influenced China’s onshore market sentiment and prices (Chart 14). China’s domestic household savings will not provide much support to stock prices this year. Chinese households have increasingly invested in the domestic equity market in the past few years, given that the authorities have been vigilant in containing price inflation in the property market.2 While we think Chinese consumers will continue rotating investment from property to financial market, household savings growth has fallen sharply since mid-2021, which means there have been less available funds to invest in the stock market (Chart 15). ​​​​​​​ Chart 15Chinese Households' Quickly Diminishing Dry Powder Chart 14Foreign Investors Have Become More Influential In The Chinese Onshore Market   Bottom Line: For the time being, the significant risks described above make us reluctant to turn bullish on Chinese stocks in both absolute and relative terms. Investment Conclusions There are few upsides related to Chinese onshore stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. However, there are two risks to our underweight stance on Chinese onshore stocks: First, we cannot rule out the possibility that Chinese policymakers will go “all in” for economic stability and allow a significant credit overshoot. In this scenario, a strong pickup in credit growth will produce a rebound in profit growth and support share prices in absolute terms and relative to global equities. Secondly, recent gyrations in global financial markets, coupled with China’s sluggish domestic economy, have triggered shakeouts in the onshore equity markets. The pullback in stock prices has helped to shed some excesses in Chinese stock valuations. Chart 16In Very Optimistic Scenario Chinese Stocks Would Have Some Upside Potential Vs. Global If the stimulus in the next 6 to 12 months returns Chinese corporate profit growth to their 2021 peaks, then Chinese stock prices (in absolute terms) will also approach or go back to their early-2021 highs. Chart 16 highlights that reverting to these levels would imply a return of about 10-15% for domestic stocks in both absolute and relative price terms. We think China’s potential to command a higher multiple than global stocks is capped, barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth. However, Chart 16 (bottom panel) shows that Chinese onshore stocks at their height early last year were still cheaper than their global counterparts. Therefore, in a scenario where Beijing does “whatever it takes” to stimulate its economy, we will have no strong reasons to argue against a return of domestic forward multiples and a strong earnings growth back to levels seen in early-2021. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Energy consumption intensity refers to energy consumption per unit of GDP. 2     There was a sharp jump in demand in 2020 for investment products from households; mutual funds in China raised money at a record pace, bringing in over 2 trillion yuan ($308 billion), which is more than the total amount in the previous four years. Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Highlights Chart 1Most Sectors Have Fully Recovered Last week’s January employment report shocked markets by showing much greater job gains than had been anticipated. More important than the headline number, however, were the revisions to prior months that reveal a much different picture of the post-COVID labor market. In overall terms, the revised data show that employment is still significantly below where it was prior to the pandemic. Specifically, the economy is still missing about 2.9 million jobs. However, the data now reveal that more than 60% of the missing jobs come from the Leisure & Hospitality sector and that the Health Care and State & Local Government sectors account for the rest. In other words, except for the few sectors that have been most impacted by the pandemic, the US labor market has made a full recovery (Chart 1). The new data justify the Fed’s recent push toward tightening. This is because there is no longer any evidence of labor market slack beyond what we see in the select few close-contact service industries that have been most impacted by COVID. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration as the Fed moves toward rate hikes. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 115 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread widened 14 bps on the month to reach 108 bps, and our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread moved up to its 15th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). This indicates that, despite the recent selloff, corporate bonds remain expensive. We discussed the intermediate-term outlook for corporate bonds in a recent report.1  Specifically, we analyzed the performance of both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds during previous Fed tightening cycles. Our conclusion is that it will soon be appropriate to reduce our cyclical exposure to corporate credit. For investment grade corporates, this will mean reducing our recommended allocation from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). Our analysis of past cycles suggests that the slope of the yield curve is a critical indicator of corporate bond performance. Excess corporate bond returns are generally strong when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps but take a step down when the slope shifts into a range of 0 – 50 bps. The 3/10 slope has just recently dipped below 50 bps (bottom panel). Though our fair value estimates can’t rule out a near-term bounce back above 50 bps, this will become less and less likely as Fed rate hikes approach. We maintain our current recommended allocation for now but expect to downgrade within the next few weeks. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 158 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread widened 59 bps in January to reach 342 bps. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – also moved up to 4% (Chart 3). The odds are good that defaults will come in below 4% during the next 12 months, which should coincide with the outperformance of high-yield bonds versus Treasuries. For context, the high-yield default rate came in at 1.24% in 2021 and we showed in a recent report that corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape.2 Specifically, we noted that the ratio of total debt to net worth for the nonfinancial corporate sector has fallen to 41%, the lowest ratio since 2010 (bottom panel). While high-yield valuations are more favorable than for investment grade, the bonds will still have to contend with a more challenging monetary environment this year as the Fed lifts rates and the yield curve flattens. For this reason, we expect to reduce our recommended allocation to high-yield corporates in the coming weeks – from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5) – though we will retain our preference for high-yield over investment grade. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in January. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS tightened 7 bps on the month, split between a 17 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 10 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) (Chart 4). We wrote in a recent report that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 was attributable to an option cost that was too low relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings, noting that the MBA Refinance Index was slow to fall in 2021 despite the back-up in yields.3 This valuation picture is starting to change. The option cost is now up to 36 bps, its highest level since March 2020, and refi activity is slowing as the Fed moves toward rate hikes. At 23 bps, the index OAS remains unattractive. However, the elevated option cost raises the possibility that the OAS may be over-estimating the pace of mortgage refinancings for the first time in a while. If these trends continue, it may soon make sense to increase exposure to agency MBS. We continue to recommend an up-in-coupon bias within an overall underweight allocation to MBS. Higher coupon MBS exhibit more attractive option-adjusted spreads and higher convexity than lower coupon MBS. This makes high-coupon MBS (4%, 4.5%) more likely to outperform low-coupon MBS (2%, 2.5%, 3%) in an environment where bond yields are flat or rising (bottom panel). Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Overweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview This week we officially initiate coverage of USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) bonds. To start, we will focus on investment grade rated Sovereigns, Corporates and Quasi-Sovereigns. We plan to expand our coverage to include high-yield in the coming months. This EM section replaces the previous Government-Related section in our monthly summary. We will continue to cover Government-Related securities from time to time, but that sub-index will no longer be regularly included in our recommended portfolio allocation. Emerging Market bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 88 basis points in January. EM Sovereigns underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 134 bps on the month and the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 58 bps. After strong relative performance in the back-half of 2021, the EM Sovereign index eked out just 4 bps of outperformance versus the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index in January (Chart 5). Meanwhile, the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index outperformed the duration-matched US corporate index by 24 bps on the month. Yield differentials for EM sovereigns and corporates remain attractive relative to US corporates (panel 4). Additionally, EM currencies are hanging in there versus the dollar even as the Fed moves toward tightening (bottom panel). We recommend an overweight allocation to USD-denominated EM bonds in US bond portfolios, and we maintain our preference for EM sovereign and corporate bonds relative to US corporates with the same credit rating and duration. Municipal Bonds: Maximum  Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 121 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and 2021’s federal spending splurge will support state & local government coffers for some time. A recent report showed that the average duration of municipal bond indexes has fallen significantly during the past few decades, a trend that has implications for how we should perceive municipal bond valuations.4 Specifically, the trend makes municipal bonds more attractive relative to both Treasury securities and investment grade corporates. Long-maturity bonds are especially compelling. We calculate that 12-17 year maturity Revenue munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 14% relative to credit rating and duration matched US corporate bonds. 12-17 year General Obligation Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 19% versus corporates (panel 2). High-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive compared to high-yield corporates (panel 4), but we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates. The deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk as bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened dramatically in January, and yields continued their sharp rise through the first week of February – though in a more parallel fashion. All in all, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has flattened 17 bps since the end of December, bringing it to 62 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope has flattened 19 bps since the end of December, bringing it to 45 bps. The aggressive flattening of the curve has occurred alongside the Fed’s increased near-term hawkishness. Our 12-month discounter has risen from 77 bps at the end of last year to 149 bps today (Chart 7). In other words, the market has gone from anticipating just over three 25 basis point rate hikes during the next 12 months to nearly six! Last week’s report argued that the most recent move to discount more than four 25 basis point rate hikes in 2022 is overdone.5  We contend that tightening financial conditions and falling inflation expectations will cause the Fed to moderate its pace of rate hikes in the second half of this year. We still see the Fed lifting rates three or four times in 2022, but this is now significantly below what’s priced in the market. Given our view, we recommend a position long the 2-year Treasury note versus a barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. This trade will profit as a more moderate expected pace of near-term rate hikes limits the upward pressure on the 2-year yield. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 23 basis points in January. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has declined by 16 bps since the end of December while the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has fallen by 1 bp. The 10-year and 2-year rates currently sit at 2.43% and 3.21%, respectively. The Fed’s preferred 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is down 22 bps since the end of December. It currently sits at 2.05%, below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range. Our valuation indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are slightly expensive compared to 10-year nominal Treasuries (Chart 8), and we retain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the long-end of the curve. We acknowledge the risk that a prolonged period of high inflation could lead to a break-out in long-dated TIPS breakevens, but this now looks less likely given how the market has reacted to the Fed’s increasing hawkishness. We see better trading opportunities at the front-end of the TIPS curve where the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains well above the Fed’s target range (panel 4). Short-maturity breakevens are more sensitive to swings in CPI than those at the long end. Therefore, the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has considerable downside during the next 6-12 months, assuming inflation moderates as we expect. We recommend an underweight allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the front-end of the curve. Given our view that CPI inflation will be lower in 6-12 months, we recommend shorting 2-year TIPS outright, positioning in 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve steepeners (bottom panel) and 2/10 TIPS (real) yield curve flatteners. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in January. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 19 bps on the month and non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 20 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes has caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. During this period, many households have used their windfalls to pay down consumer debt and credit card debt levels have fallen to well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). Though consumer credit growth has rebounded, debt levels are still low. This indicates that the collateral quality backing consumer ABS remains exceptionally strong. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones.       Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in January. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 3 bps in January, but non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 2 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain relatively wide, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in January. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 36 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.     Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of January 31, 2022) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of January 31, 2022) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -53 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 53 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 31, 2022) Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com    Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Corporate Bond Market”, dated January 25, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best Laid Plans”, dated February 1, 2022.

Special Report

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary China’s Property Bust To Dwarf Japan’s China’s confluence of internal and external risks will continue to weigh on markets in 2022. Internally China’s property sector turmoil is one important indication of a challenging economic transition. The Xi administration will clinch another term but sociopolitical risks are underrated. Externally China faces economic and strategic pressure from the US and its allies. The US is distracted with other issues in 2022 but US-China confrontation will revive beyond that. China will strengthen relations with Russia and Iran, though it will not encourage belligerence. It needs their help to execute its Eurasian strategy to bypass US naval dominance and improve its supply security over the long run. China will ease monetary and fiscal policies in 2022 but it has no interest in a massive stimulus. Policy easing will be frontloaded in the first half of the year. Featured Trade: Strategically stay short the renminbi versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and the euro. Stay short TWD-USD as well. Recommendation INCEPTION Date Return SHORT TWD / USD 2020-06-11 0.5% SHORT CNY / EQUAL-WEIGHTED BASKET OF EURO AND USD 2021-06-21 -3.9% Bottom Line: Beijing is easing policy to secure the post-pandemic recovery, which is positive for global growth and cyclical financial assets. But structural headwinds will still weigh on Chinese assets in 2022. China’s Historic Confluence Of Risks Global investors continue to clash over China’s outlook. Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, recently praised China’s “Common Prosperity” plan and argued that the US and “a lot of other countries” need to launch similar campaigns of wealth redistribution. He warned about the US’s 2024 elections and dismissed accusations of human rights abuses by saying that China’s government is a “strict parent.”1 By contrast George Soros, founder of the Open Society Foundations, recently warned against investing in China’s autocratic government and troubled property market. He predicted that General Secretary Xi Jinping would fail to secure another ten years in power in the Communist Party’s upcoming political reshuffle.2 Geopolitics can bring perspective to the debate: China is experiencing a historic confluence of internal (political) and external (geopolitical) risk, unlike anything since its reform era began in 1979. At home it is struggling with the Covid-19 pandemic and a difficult economic transition that began with the Great Recession of 2008-09. Abroad it faces rising supply insecurity and an increase in strategic pressure from the United States and its allies. The implication is that the 2020s will be an even rockier decade than the 2010s. In the face of these risks the Chinese Communist Party is using the power of the state to increase support for the economy and then repress any other sources of instability. Strict “zero Covid” policies will be maintained for political reasons as much as public health reasons. Arbitrary punitive measures will put pressure on the business elite and foreigners. The geopolitical outlook is negative over the long run but it will not worsen dramatically in 2022 given America’s preoccupation with Russia, Iran, and midterm elections. Bottom Line: Global investor sentiment toward China will remain pessimistic for most of the year – but it will turn more optimistic toward foreign markets, especially emerging markets, that sell into China. China’s Internal Risks Chart 1China's Demographic Cliff By the end of 2021, China accounted for 17.7% of global economic output and 12.1% of global imports. However, the secular slowdown in economic growth threatens to generate opposition to the single-party regime, forcing the Communist Party to seek a new base of political legitimacy. Most countries saw a drop in fertility rates in the third quarter of the twentieth century but China’s “one child policy” created a demographic cliff (Chart 1). At first this generated savings needed for national development. But now it leaves China with excess capacity and insufficient household demand. Across the region, falling fertility rates have led to falling potential growth and falling rates of inflation. Excess savings increased production relative to consumption and drove down the rate of interest. The shift toward debt monetization in the US and Japan, in the post-pandemic context, is now threatening this trend with a spike in inflation. China is also monetizing debt after a decade of deflationary fears. But it remains to be seen whether inflation is sustainable when fertility remains below the replacement rate over the long run, as is projected for China as well as its neighbors (Chart 2). China’s domestic situation is fundamentally deflationary as a result of chronic over-investment over the past 40 years. China’s gross fixed capital formation stands at 43% of GDP, well above the historic trend of other major countries for the past 30 years (Chart 3). Chart 2Will Inflation Decouple From Falling Fertility?​​​​​​ Chart 3Over-Investment Is Deflationary, Not Inflationary Like other countries, China financed this buildup of fixed capital by means of debt, especially state-owned corporate debt. While building a vast infrastructure network and property sector, it also built a vast speculative bubble as investors lacked investment options outside of real estate. The growth in property prices has tracked the growth in private non-financial sector debt. The downside is that if property prices fall, debt holders will begin a long and painful process of deleveraging, just like Japan in the 1990s and 2000s. Japan only managed to reverse the drop in corporate investment in the 2010s via debt monetization (Chart 4). Chart 4Japan’s Property Bust Coincided With Debt Deleveraging ​​​​​​ Chart 5China's Debt Growth Halts Looking at the different measures of Chinese debt, it is likely that deleveraging has begun. Total debt, public and private, peaked and rolled over in 2020 at 290% of GDP. Corporate debt has peaked twice, in 2015 and again in 2020 at around 160% of GDP. Even households are taking on less debt, having gone on a binge over the past decade (Chart 5). In short China is following the Japanese and East Asian growth model: the stark drop in fertility and rise in savings created a huge manufacturing workshop and a highly valued property sector, albeit at the cost of enormous private and considerable public debt. If the private sector’s psychology continues to shift in favor of deleveraging, then the government will be forced to take on greater expenses and fund them through public borrowing to sustain aggregate demand, maximum employment, and social stability. The central bank will be forced to keep rates low to prevent interest rates from rising and stunting growth. China’s policymakers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. New regulations aimed at controlling the property bubble (the “three red lines”) precipitated distress across the sector, emblematized by the failure of the world’s most indebted property developer, Evergrande. Other property developers are looking to raise cash and stay solvent. Property prices peaked in 2015-16 and are now dropping, with third-tier cities on the verge of deflation (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Property Crisis Weighs On Construction As the property bubble tops out, Chinese policymakers are looking for new sources of productivity and growth. Chart 7Productivity In Decline​​​​​​ Productivity growth is subsiding after the export and property boom earlier in the decade, in keeping with that of other Asian economies. And sporadic initiatives to improve governance, market pricing, science, and technology have not succeeded in lifting total factor productivity (Chart 7). The initial goal of the Xi administration’s reforms, to rebalance the economy away from manufacturing toward services, has stumbled and will continue to face headwinds from the financial and real estate sectors that powered much of the recent growth in services (Chart 8). Chart 8China’s Structural Transition Falters Indeed the Communist Party is rediscovering the value of export-manufacturing in the wake of the pandemic, which led to a surge in durable goods orders as global consumers cut back on services and businesses initiated a new cycle of capital expenditures (Chart 9). The party encouraged the workforce to shift out of manufacturing over the past decade but is now rethinking that strategy in the face of the politically disruptive consequences of deindustrialization in the US and UK – such that the state can be expected to recommit to supporting manufacturing going forward (Chart 10). Policymakers are emphasizing economic self-sufficiency and “dual circulation” (import substitution) as solutions to the latent socioeconomic and political threat posed by disillusioned former manufacturing workers. Chart 9China Turns Back To Exports​​​​​​ Chart 10De-Industrialization Will Be Halted Even beyond ex-manufacturing workers, the country’s economic transition risks generating social instability. The middle class, defined as those who consume from $10 to $50 per day in purchasing power parity terms, now stands at 55% of total population, comparable to where it stood when populist and anti-populist political transformations occurred in Turkey, Thailand, and Brazil (Chart 11). China’s middle class may not be willing or able to intervene into the political process, but the government is still concerned about the long-term potential for discontent. Otherwise it would not have launched anti-corruption, anti-pollution, and anti-industrial measures in recent years. These measures vary in effectiveness but they all share the intention to boost the government’s legitimacy through social improvements and thus fall in line with the new mantra of “common prosperity.” For decades the ruling party claimed that the “principle contradiction” in society arose from a failure to meet the people’s “material needs,” but beginning in 2021 it emphasized that the principle contradiction is the people’s need for a “better life.” Real wages continue to grow but the pace of growth has downshifted from previous decades. The bigger problem is the stark rise in inequality, here proxied by skyrocketing housing prices. Hong Kong’s inequality erupted into social unrest in recent years even though it has a much higher level of GDP per capita than mainland China (Chart 12). In major cities on the mainland, housing prices have outpaced disposable income over the past two decades. Youth unemployment also concerns the authorities. Chart 11Social Instability A Genuine Risk Bottom Line: The Chinese regime faces historic social and political challenges as a result of a difficult structural economic transition. The ongoing emphasis on “common prosperity” reveals the regime’s fear of social instability. The underlying tendency is deflationary, though Beijing’s use of debt monetization introduces a long-term inflationary risk that should be monitored. Chart 12Causes Of Hong Kong Unrest Also Present In China​​​​​​ China’s External Risks Geopolitically speaking, China’s greatest challenge throughout history has been maintaining domestic stability. Because China is hemmed in by islands that superior foreign powers have often used as naval bases, it is isolated as if it is a landlocked state. A stark north-south division within its internal geography and society creates inherent political tension, while buffer regions are difficult to control. Hence foreign powers can meddle with internal affairs, undermine unity and territorial integrity, and exploit China’s large labor force and market. However, in the twenty-first century China has the potential to project power outward – as long as it can maintain internal stability. Power projection is increasingly necessary because China’s economy increasingly depends on imports of energy, leaving it vulnerable to western maritime powers (Chart 13). Beijing’s conversion of economic into military might has also created frictions with neighbors and aroused the antagonism of the United States, which increasingly seeks to maintain the strategic anchor in the western Pacific that it won in World War II. Chart 13Import Dependency A Strategic Security Threat As China’s influence expands into East Asia and the rest of Asia, conflicts with the US and its allies are increasingly likely, especially over critical sea lines of communication, including the Taiwan Strait. China’s reinforcement of its manufacturing prowess will also provoke the United States, while the US’s erratic attempts to retain its strategic position in Asia Pacific will threaten to contain China. Yet the US cannot concentrate exclusively on countering China – it is distracted by internal politics and confrontations with Russia and Iran, especially in 2022. China will strengthen relations with Russia and Iran. As an energy importer, China would prefer that neither Russia nor Iran take belligerent actions that cause a global energy shock. But both Moscow and Tehran are essential to China’s Eurasian strategy of bypassing American naval dominance to reduce its supply insecurity. And yet, in 2022 specifically, the US and China are both concerned about maintaining positive domestic political dynamics due to the midterm elections and twentieth national party congress. This includes a desire to reduce inflation. Hence both would prefer diplomacy over trade war, with regard to each other, and over real war, with regard to Ukraine and Iran. So there is a temporary overlap in interests that will discourage immediate confrontation. China might offer limited cooperation on Iranian or North Korean nuclear and missile talks. But the same domestic political dynamics prevent a significant improvement in US-China relations, as neither side will grant trade concessions in 2022, and the underlying strategic tensions will revive over the medium and long run. Bottom Line: China faces historic external risks stemming from import dependency and conflict with the United States. In the short run, the US conflicts with Russia and Iran might lead to energy shocks that harm China’s economy. Japan never recovered its rapid growth rates after the 1973 Arab oil embargo. In the long run, while Washington has little interest in fighting a war with China, its strategic competition will focus on galvanizing allies to penalize China’s economy and to substitute away from China, in favor of India and ASEAN. China’s Macro Policy In 2022: Going “All In” For Stability In last year’s China Geopolitical Outlook, we maintained our underweight position on Chinese equities and warned that Beijing’s policy tightening posed a significant risk to global cyclical assets – and yet we concluded that policymakers would avoid overtightening policy to the extent of spoiling the global recovery. This view prevailed over the course of 2021. Policymakers tightened monetary and fiscal policy in the first half of the year, then started loosening up in the summer. Chinese equities crashed but global equities powered through the year. In December 2020, at the Central Economic Work Conference, policymakers stated that China would “maintain necessary policy support for economic recovery and avoid sharp turns in policy” in 2021. In the event they did the minimal necessary, though they did avoid sharp turns. For 2022, the key word is “stability.” At the Central Economic Work Conference last month, the final communique mentioned “stability” or “stabilize” 25 times (Table 1). Hence the main objective of Chinese policymakers this year is to prioritize both economic and social stability ahead of the twentieth national party congress. Authorities will avoid last year’s tight policies. Table 1Key Chinese Policy Guidance 2021-22 China’s quarterly GDP growth slipped to just 4% in Q4 2021, from rapid recovery growth of 18.3% in Q1 2021. Considering the low base effect of 2020, the average growth of 2020 and 2021 ranged from 5-5.5% (Chart 14). This growth rate is in line with the pre-pandemic trajectory of 2015-2019. In Jan 2022, the IMF cut China’s 2022 growth forecast to 4.8%, while the World Bank lowered its forecasts to 5.1%. Considering the two-year average growth and government’s goal of “all in for stability,” we see an implicit GDP target of 5-5.5%. Chart 14Breakdown Of China’s GDP Growth Does this target matter? Although China stopped announcing explicit GDP growth targets, understanding the implicit target helps investors predict the turning point in macro policy. Due to robust global demand, net exports are now making a sizable contribution to GDP growth. However, due to the high base effect of 2021, there is limited room for exports to grow in 2022. Hence economic growth has to rely on final consumption expenditure and gross capital formation. Yet as a result of policy tightening, gross capital formation’s contribution to GDP has decreased significantly, from positive in H1 2021 to a rare negative contribution to GDP in the second half. At the same time, the contribution from final consumption expenditure also slipped over the course of 2021, due to worsening Covid conditions, one of the three pressures stated by the government. What does that mean? It means that loosening up macro policies is the pre-condition for stabilizing growth and the economy. Just like the officials said (see Table 1), the Chinese economy is “facing triple pressure from demand contraction, supply shocks, and weakening expectations,” so that “all sides need to take the initiative and launch policies conducive to economic stability.” Bottom Line: It is reasonable to expect accommodative fiscal and monetary policies in 2022, at least until the party congress ends. In fact, authorities have already started to make these adjustments since Q4 2021. China Avoids Monetary Overtightening Credit growth can be seen as an indicator for gross capital formation. In the second half of 2021, China’s total social financing (total private credit) growth plunged below 12% (Chart 15), the threshold we identified for determining whether authorities overtightened policy. Correspondingly, gross capital formation’s contribution to GDP dropped into the negative zone (see Chart 14 above). However, money growth did not dip below the threshold, and authorities are now trying to boost credit growth. Starting from December 2021, the market has seen marginally positive news out of the People’s Bank of China: December 15, 2021: The PBOC conducted its second reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut in 2021. The 50 bps cut was expected to release $188 billion in liquidity to support the real economy. December 20, 2021: The PBOC conducted its first interest rate cut since April 2020 by cutting 1-Year LPR by 5 bps on December 20 (Chart 16). Chart 15China's Money And Credit Growth Hits Pain Threshold​​​​​​ Chart 16China Monetary Policy Easing​​​​​​ January 17, 2022: The PBOC cut the interest rate on medium-term lending facility (MLF) loans and 7-day reverse repurchase (repos) rate both by 10 bps. January 20, 2022: The PBOC further lowered the 1-year LPR by 10 basis points and cut the 5-year LPR by 5 basis points, the first cut since April 2020. Chart 17China Policy Easing Will Boost Import Volumes The timing and size of the last two rate cuts came as a surprise to the market, signaling more comprehensive easing than was expected (confirming our expectations).3 The market saw a clear turning point: Chinese authorities are now fully aware of the need to loosen up monetary policy to counter intensifying downward pressure on the economy. Incidentally, the fine-tuning of the different lending facilities suggests the government aims to lower borrowing costs and stimulate the market without over-heating the property sector again. PBOC officials claim there is still some space for further cuts, though narrower now, when asked about if there is any room to further cut the RRR and interest rates in Q1. They added that the PBOC should “stay ahead of the market curve” and “not procrastinate.”4 Recent movements have validated this point. Going forward, M2 growth should stay above 8%. Total social financing growth should move up above our “too tight” threshold, although weak sentiment among private borrowers could force authorities to ease further to ensure that credit growth picks up. If the government is still committed to fighting housing speculation, as before, then we could see a smaller adjustment to the 5-Year LPR in the future. Otherwise the government is taking its foot off the brake for stability reasons, at least temporarily. Bottom Line: China will keep easing monetary policy in 2022, at least in the first half. This will result in an improvement in Chinese import volumes and ultimately emerging market corporate earnings, albeit with a six-to-12-month lag (Chart 17). China Avoids Fiscal Overtightening China will also avoid over-tightening fiscal policy in 2022. In December the government stressed the need to “maintain the intensity of fiscal spending, accelerate the pace, and moderately advance infrastructure investment.” In 2021, local government bond issuance did not pick up until the second half of the year. Considering the time lag of construction projects, it was too late for local government investment to stimulate the economy. By Q3 2021, local government bond issuance had just completed roughly 70% of the annual quota. By comparison, in 2018-2020, local governments all completed more than 95% of the annual quota by the end of September each year (Chart 18A). Chart 18AChina: No Pause In Local Bond Issuance In H1 2022​​​​​ Chart 18BChina: No Pause In Local Bond Issuance In H1 2022​​​​​​ There are several reasons behind the slow pace last year. The central government refused to pre-approve and pre-authorize the quota for bond issuance at the beginning of the year in 2021, in order to restore discipline after the massive 2020 stimulus measures. The quota was not released until after the Two Sessions in March, which means local government bond issuance did not pick up until April 2021, causing a 3-month vacuum in local government fiscal support (see Chart 18B). In contrast, for 2019 and 2020, the central government pre-authorized the bond issuance quota ahead of time to try to provide fiscal support evenly throughout the year. Starting from 2020, the central government strengthened supervision and evaluation of local government investment projects, again to instill discipline. Previously local governments could easily issue general-purpose bonds and the funds were theirs to spend. But now local governments are required to increase the transparency of their investment projects and mainly finance these projects via special-purpose bonds, i.e. targeted money for authorized projects (Table 2). In 2021 local governments were less willing to issue bonds. At the April 2021 Politburo meeting, the central government vowed to “establish a disposal mechanism that will hold local government officials accountable for fiscal and financial risks.” This triggered risk-aversion. Beijing wanted to prevent a growth “splurge” in the wake of its emergency stimulus, like what happened in 2008-11. The fiscal turning point came in the second half of the year. The central government called for accelerating local government bond issuance several times from July to October. The pace significantly picked up in the second half of 2021 and Q4 accounted for a significant portion of annual issuance (Chart 18). As a result, fixed asset investment and fiscal impulse should pick up in Q1 2022. Thus, unlike last year, authorities are trying to avoid a sharp drop in the fiscal impulse. The Ministry of Finance has already frontloaded 1.46 trillion yuan ($229 billion) from the 2022 special purpose bonds quota. This amount is part of the 2022 annual local government bond issuance quota, with the rest to be released at the Two Sessions in March. Pulling these funds forward indicates the rising pressure to stabilize economic growth in Q1 this year. That being said, investors should differentiate easing up fiscal policy and “flood-like” stimulus in the past. The government still claims it will “contain increases in implicit local government debts.” In fact, pilot programs to clean up implicit debts have already started in Shanghai and Guangdong. This means, China will not reverse past efforts on curbing hidden debts. Hence fiscal support will be more tightly controlled in future, like water taps in the hands of the central government. The risk of fiscal tightening is backloaded in 2022. The tremendous amount of local government bonds issued in Q4 2021 will start to kick in early 2022. These will combine with the frontloaded special purposed bonds. Fiscal impulse should tick up in Q1. However, fiscal impulse might decelerate in the second half. A total of $2.7 trillion yuan worth of local government bonds will reach maturity this year, with $2.2 trillion yuan reaching maturity after June 2022 (Table 3). This means that in the second half, local governments will need to issue more re-financing bonds to prevent insolvency risk, thus undermining fiscal support for the economy. And this last point underscores the threat of economic and financial instability that China faces over the long run. Table 2Breakdown Of China Local Government Bond Issuance Bottom Line: Stability is the top priority in 2022. China will continue to easy up monetary and fiscal policy in H1, to combat the economic downward pressure ahead of the twentieth national party congress (Chart 19). Policy tightening risk is backloaded. Structural reforms will likely subside for now until the Xi administration re-consolidates power for the next ten years. Table 3China: Local Government Debt Maturity Schedule​​​​​​ Chart 19Policy Support Expected For 20th Party Congress Note: An error in an earlier version of this report has been corrected. Chinese fixed asset investment in Chart 19 is growing at 0.1%, not 57.6% as originally shown. The chart has been adjusted. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Bei Hu and Bloomberg, “Ray Dalio thinks the U.S. needs more of China’s common prosperity drive to create a ‘fairer system,’” Fortune, January 10, 2022, fortune.com. 2     See George Soros, “China’s Challenges,” Project Syndicate, January 31, 2022, project-syndicate.org. 3     The 5-year LPR had remained unchanged after the December 2021 cut. At that time, only the 1-Year LPR was cut by 5bps. Furthermore, the different magnitudes of the January 20 LPR cut also have some implications. The 1-Year LPR mostly affects new and outstanding loans, short-term liquidity loans of firms, and consumer loans of households. In comparison, the 5-Year LPR has a larger impact, affecting the borrowing costs of total social financing, including mortgage loans, medium- to long-term investment loans, etc. The MLF rate was cut by 10 basis points on January 17; in theory the LPR should also be cut by the same size. However, the 5-Year LPR adjustments was very cautious and was only cut by 5 bps, smaller than the MLF cut and the 1-Year LPR cut. The 5-year LPR serves as the benchmark lending rate for mortgage loans. 4     To combat the negative shock caused by the initial outburst of COVID-19, altogether China lowered the MLF and 1-year LPR by 30 bps and 5-year LPR by 15 bps in H1 2020. This also suggests that there is still room for future interest rate cuts or RRR cuts in the coming months. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)