Emerging Markets

Highlights Venezuela’s oil production likely fell ~ 500k b/d last week in the wake of nationwide power outages, reducing total output to ~ 500k b/d. However, neither OPEC 2.0 nor U.S. President Donald Trump drew much attention to it. During an industry gathering in Houston last week, an administration official conceded events in Venezuela could affect whether U.S. waivers on its Iranian oil-export sanctions are extended beyond May 4, but that was pretty much it.1 This is consistent with the thesis we laid out last month, which reflects our view OPEC 2.0 is evolving a more flexible production strategy that allows it to adjust production quickly in response to exogenous events over which it has little control; chiefly, U.S. foreign, trade and monetary policy.2 This will result in higher prices, satisfying the sometimes-conflicting goals of OPEC 2.0’s leadership – i.e., KSA’s budgetary need for prices closer to $80/bbl, and Russian producers’ need to increase revenue through higher volumes. Given this backdrop, our updated balances and price forecasts remain largely unchanged, with minor adjustments to the overall supply side and no change on the demand side. We continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year. For 2020, we continue to expect Brent to average $80/bbl – higher U.S. shale output will be offset by delays in building out deepwater export facilities in the U.S. Gulf for most of the year. We expect WTI to trade $7 and $5/bbl lower in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The balance of price risk remains to the upside, as policy risk – i.e., a miscalculation on all sides – is elevated. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We are closing our 2020 long WTI vs. short Brent position at tonight’s close, given delays in the buildout of deepwater-harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf caused by additional environmental assessments. This likely will push the spread out to $5/bbl+, vs. our target of $3.25/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper got another endorsement from Fitch Solutions, which is predicting LME prices will average $6,900 and $7,100/MT this year and next, on the back of lower inventories and improving supply-demand fundamentals. We remain long copper, which is up 2.7% since we recommended it on March 7. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our colleagues at BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy expect the USD to weaken in 2H19, which, all else equal, will support gold and precious metals.3 Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 6.3% since inception on May 4, 2017. Agriculture: Underweight. Grain markets likely will trade sideways ahead of the USDA’s Prospective Plantings survey of farmer intentions next Friday.   Feature The sudden loss of Venezuelan output – and exports – was barely noticed in price action over the past week.  U.S. foreign and trade policy will continue to keep oil supply and demand uncertainty elevated, particularly as sanctions against Venezuela play out against the backdrop of a collapsing infrastructure. Last week’s nationwide power outage likely caused crude oil production to drop 500k b/d from ~ 1mm b/d previously.4 The sudden loss of Venezuelan output – and exports – was barely noticed in price action over the past week. Global inventories remain swollen (Chart 1), and OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity is increasing as it cuts production (Chart 2). This allows Venezuelan production losses to be covered with little or no disruption to supply or demand, and little or no increase in the level of agita in oil markets. Chart of the WeekOECD Inventories Still High, But Continue to Drain OECD Inventories Still High, But Continue to Drain OECD Inventories Still High, But Continue to Drain Chart 2 That cushion allows the U.S. to continue to prosecute its sanctions strategy against Venezuela and Iran. But it does not give the U.S. carte blanche to pursue regime change in both countries at the same time. As we noted in our New Political Economy of Oil report last month, OPEC 2.0 possibly could cover the loss of 500k b/d of Venezuelan exports and maybe up to 1.5mm b/d of Iranian exports.5 We continue to expect waivers on the Iran sanctions to be extended, although Trump administration officials remain guarded in terms of providing markets any forward guidance. However, it would tighten the heavy-sour market even more than it is now.6 And, full-on sanctions campaigns conducted simultaneously on Venezuela and Iran following the expiration of U.S. waivers on export sanctions against the latter would leave spare capacity dangerously thin, and push the risk premium in oil prices up sharply, given the volumes Iran already is supplying (Chart 3, Table 1). Chart 3 Table 1Iran Exports By Country 2018 (‘000 b/d) OPEC 2.0: Oil's Price Fulcrum OPEC 2.0: Oil's Price Fulcrum We continue to expect waivers on the Iran sanctions to be extended, although Trump administration officials remain guarded in terms of providing markets any forward guidance. The most that’s been offered came last week in Houston at an industry convention, where Brian Hook, special representative for Iran at the U.S. State Department, indicated the U.S. administration is aware of the supply-side pressure associated with its campaigns against Venezuela and Iran. However, he offered nothing definitive one way or another, so markets will continue to assign a non-zero probability that waivers will not be extended.7 Oil Supply Expectations Remain Stable For our part, we believe waivers on the U.S. Iranian export sanctions will be extended out of necessity. While more than 2mm b/d of Venezuelan and Iranian production can be offset by increased OPEC 2.0 spare capacity – now running ~ 2.1mm b/d based on U.S. EIA estimates – it is not sufficient to cover any additional losses due to unplanned outage of the sort seen in May 2016, when 1mm b/d of Canadian oil production was lost to wildfires. These are real risks, not abstractions meant to illustrate a point.8 For 2H19, our base case now assumes OPEC 2.0’s production rises by ~ 0.5mm b/d vs. 1H19 production of 44.5mm b/d. This will smooth out the loss of Venezuelan output as it falls to 500k b/d by the end of this year, vs. the 650k b/d we expected last month. We also expect Iranian production to remain close to the 3mm b/d it will average in 1H19, likely increasing as global storage levels fall and waivers are exercised (much like a call option). News reports suggest KSA continues to advocate the extension of production cuts by OPEC 2.0 to year end. However, if the coalition’s goal is to keep Brent prices close to $75/bbl this year, and closer to $80/bbl next year – the assumptions we’re working with – OPEC 2.0 likely will have to raise production by 0.5mm b/d in 2H19 and 0.72mm b/d next year. Maintaining production cuts into 2H19 risks sending prices significantly higher, in our estimation. Globally, the big driver of growth on the supply side continues to be U.S. shales, which we now expect to increase 1.2mm b/d in 2019 and 0.9mm b/d next year, a small increase of ~ 60k b/d versus our estimates last month.9 While it is true the Permian bottleneck will be cleared by the end of this year – adding some 2mm b/d of new takeaway capacity – export capacity will remain challenged by new delays to the build-out of deepwater-harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf well into 2020, following requests of Carlyle Group and Trafigura AG to provide additional information in environmental filings to regulators before work begins.10 This will push the Permian bottleneck from the basin to the U.S. Gulf refining market. On the back of this development, we are closing our 2020 long WTI vs. short Brent recommendation at tonight’s close, given these delays likely push the deep-water expansion in the Gulf to 4Q20 or later. Oil Demand Also Remains Stable Oil demand will continue to be supported by the easing of monetary policy in DM and EM economies to offset a slowdown in global growth. In addition, we expect China’s credit cycle to bottom in 1Q19, which will be supportive of oil demand there and in EMs generally (Chart 4). We continue to expect the Sino – U.S. trade war to be resolved in 1H19, as both presidents Trump and Xi need to get a deal done to satisfy domestic audiences – i.e., U.S. elections next year and the upcoming 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021, respectively. Chart 4EM Growth Will Lift In 2H19 EM Growth Will Lift In 2H19 EM Growth Will Lift In 2H19 During the second half of this year, we expect a more significant pick-up in China’s credit cycle, which will set the stage for a year-end rally in commodities generally – oil and base metals in particular. We also expect global demand to get a lift from a weaker USD beginning in 2H19 and extending to the end of 2020.11 We expect demand growth of 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year, slightly more than the EIA and IEA. We expect EM to account for 53.7mm b/d of growth this year and 55mm b/d next year. Total global demand will average 101.8mm b/d and 103.4mm b/d in 2019 and 2020. U.S. policy is keeping the supply- and demand-side uncertainty elevated, but OPEC 2.0’s hand has been strengthened by the fact that it is, more than ever, the fulcrum of the oil market. OPEC 2.0’s Balancing Strategy U.S. policy is keeping the supply- and demand-side uncertainty elevated, but OPEC 2.0’s hand has been strengthened by the fact that it is, more than ever, the fulcrum of the oil market: It can balance shortfalls out of spare capacity – boosted some by its production cuts – and it can reduce unintended inventory accumulation via its demonstrated ability to cut output rapidly. Our 2019 and 2020 Brent price forecasts remain at $75 and $80/bbl (Chart 5). Delays in building out U.S. Gulf deepwater-harbor capacity next year will keep exports constrained. This will back production up behind the pipe in the Permian Basin next year, and keep inventories fuller than they otherwise would be. And it means Brent markets will remain tighter than we previously expected in 2020, as WTI won’t be exported in the volumes needed to tighten the Brent - WTI spread as much as we previously expected. For 2019, we expect WTI to trade $7/bbl under Brent, and $5/bbl under in 2020 (vs. our earlier expectation of $3.25/bbl), on the back of these delays. This compels us to liquidate our long WTI vs. Brent recommendation in 2020 at tonight’s close. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Output Hike Needed To Keep Market Balanced in 2H19 OPEC 2.0 Output Hike Needed To Keep Market Balanced in 2H19 OPEC 2.0 Output Hike Needed To Keep Market Balanced in 2H19 OPEC 2.0’s position as the fulcrum effectively means it can balance the market to achieve its price goals (Chart 6, Table 2). This does not drive our forecast, but it does line up with what we would expect an economically rational agent to do. Chart 6Our Ensemble Forecasts Remain Fairly Stable Our Ensemble Forecasts Remain Fairly Stable Our Ensemble Forecasts Remain Fairly Stable Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) OPEC 2.0: Oil's Price Fulcrum OPEC 2.0: Oil's Price Fulcrum We believe OPEC 2.0 is succeeding in evolving a strategy that allows it sufficient flexibility to respond to exogenous forces affecting oil prices, which are, for the most part, out of its control. Bottom Line: Policy uncertainty is elevated, but we believe OPEC 2.0 is succeeding in evolving a strategy that allows it sufficient flexibility to respond to exogenous forces affecting oil prices, which are, for the most part, out of its control – i.e., U.S. foreign, trade and monetary policy.12 As such, we believe it will adjust output to achieve price targets, which, despite the sometimes-public disagreements between KSA and Russia, are closer to our forecast levels of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not.     Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  U.S. waivers were granted by the Trump administration just before the sanctions against Iranian oil exports went into effect November 4; these waivers expire May 4, 2019. 2      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “What’s Next For The Dollar,” published by BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy published March 15, 2019.  It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4     In its March 2019 Oil Market Report, the IEA notes, “The electricity crisis in Venezuela has paralysed most of the country for significant periods of time. Although there are signs that the situation is improving, the degradation of the power system is such that we cannot be sure if the fixes are durable. Until recently, Venezuela’s oil production had stabilised at around 1.2 mb/d. During the past week, industry operations were seriously disrupted and ongoing losses on a significant scale could present a challenge to the market.”  We await better data to assess the full extent of the production lost in Venezuela. 5      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see “Oil Price Diffs: Global Convergence,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy March 7, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7      Please see “CERAWeek: US waivers for Iran oil imports may hinge on Venezuela sanctions impact: State official,” published by S&P Global Platts March 13, 2019. 8      We treat these waivers as quasi call options on Iranian crude oil in our analysis.  As inventories draw, importers holding waivers can be expected to exercise their option and lift more crude from Iran without running afoul of U.S. sanctions. 9      We approximate our shale production based on the big 5 basins (Anadarko, Bakken, Permian, Eagle Ford and Niobrara). 10     Please see “US Suspends Review On Trafigura Oil-Port Project” published by Hart Energy March 18, 2019.  See also “Exclusive: Environmental review could delay Carlyle deepwater oil export project up to 18 months,” published by reuters.com March 14, 2019. 11     See footnote 3 above. 12     A perfect example of this can be seen OPEC 2.0’s decision to move its ministerial meeting to June: A decision from the U.S. on whether to extend waivers on the Iranian sanctions will come May 4, right around the time OPEC 2.0 member states are deciding on export schedules.  If waivers are extended, member states can maintain production discipline or add volumes to the market as needed; if sanctions are re-imposed in full, they can increase production as needed. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights Analysis on Turkey is published below. The key reason why we believe the ongoing EM rally will falter is that EM corporate earnings have begun to contract. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices from selling off. The recent pick-up in China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse suggests the bottom in EM corporate profit growth will only occur toward the end of 2019. There are several key differences between the economic backdrops and financial markets signposts between now and 2016. The current profiles of both EM and DM share prices are a close match to those in 2011-2012 when the strong rally in the first quarter was followed by a major selloff in the second quarter. Feature The common narrative in the market is that the current policy backdrop – a pause by the Fed and policy stimulus from China – is a repeat of early 2016. As such, market participants expect moves in global risk assets to be analogous to those during that period. We too could easily adopt this simple narrative, and recommend investors to chase EM higher. Instead, we have chosen to take on the very difficult task of expounding why 2019 is not a repeat of 2016 in EM and China-related financial markets. Based on this, our view remains that investors should not be chasing the current EM rally. The essential pillar of our negative thesis on EM is that their corporate profits will contract this year. This will be bad news not only for EM share prices but also for EM credit markets and currencies. Chart I-1 illustrates that during the past 10 years, EM stock prices plunged every time profit contraction commenced. Having rallied meaningfully in the past three months, EM financial markets will sell off as EM corporate earnings begin to shrink. Chart I-1EM EPS Is Beginning To Contract EM EPS Is Beginning To Contract EM EPS Is Beginning To Contract The basis for EM profit contraction is the continued slowdown in China. Chart I-2 illustrates that China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads EM EPS growth by about 12 months. Hence, the recent pick-up in the former entails the bottom in the latter only toward the end of 2019. Chart I-2EM EPS Growth Will Bottom Only Toward The End Of 2019 EM EPS Growth Will Bottom Only Toward The End Of 2019 EM EPS Growth Will Bottom Only Toward The End Of 2019 In brief, even assuming China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse has bottomed and will improve going forward, EM EPS contraction will deepen for now. EM share prices are unlikely to embark on a cyclical bull market until EM EPS growth bottoms. Earnings Versus Interest Rates Lower interest rates are typically bullish for both equity and credit markets so long as corporate profits do not contract. However, when EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. In general, when discussing the effect of interest rates on equities, one should differentiate between economic and financial linkages. Given the cornerstone narrative of this EM rally has been declining U.S. interest rate expectations, we examine the nexus between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. The economic link refers to the impact of borrowing costs on aggregate spending, and hence corporate profits. The pertinent question is as follows: Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Chart I-3 illustrates that as of the end of February, while Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Singaporean exports to the U.S. expanded by 10% from a year ago, their shipments to China contracted by 10%. Chart I-3Global Trade Slowed Due To China Not The U.S Global Trade Slowed Due To China Not The U.S Global Trade Slowed Due To China Not The U.S Hence, the slowdown in EM corporate profits has not been caused by Fed policy. U.S. domestic demand in general and imports in particular have so far been expanding at a healthy pace and they have not been instrumental to EM corporate earnings cycles (Chart I-4). This signifies that lower U.S. interest rates should not have a material impact on EM growth, and thereby corporate profits. Chart I-4EM EPS Growth Has Not Been Driven By Sales To U.S. EM EPS Growth Has Not Been Driven By Sales To U.S. EM EPS Growth Has Not Been Driven By Sales To U.S. Notably, one can argue that the economic and financial market dynamics that prevailed in 2018 worked in the opposite direction: It was China’s slowdown that ultimately imperiled U.S. manufacturing growth, causing U.S. equity and credit markets to sell off, thereby forcing a reversal in the Fed’s stance. The financial link refers to a declining discount rate for EM risk assets as U.S. interest rates drop. A drop in the discount rate lifts the present value of future cash flows and boosts risk asset prices. However, EM equity multiples have not been historically negatively correlated with U.S. bond yields, as shown on the top panel of Chart I-5. Besides, EM credit spreads do not always positively correlate with U.S. borrowing costs, as widely expected (Chart I-5, middle panel). Chart I-5U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Relationship U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Relationship U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Relationship Further, EM currencies have not been negatively correlated with either U.S. bond yields or with the interest rate differential between the U.S. and EM (Chart I-5, bottom panel). As to EM local bond yields, especially in high-yielding markets, it is EM exchange rates that drive EM domestic bond yields and their differential over U.S. Treasurys. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. Finally, Chart I-6 illustrates the relationship between the returns on EM assets on one hand and U.S. bond yields on the other. This chart corroborates the evidence from Chart I-5 – that the relationship between U.S. interest rates and EM asset markets is not stable. Chart I-6U.S. Bond Yields And EM Risk Assets: No Stable Relationship U.S. Bond Yields And EM Risk Assets: No Stable Relationship U.S. Bond Yields And EM Risk Assets: No Stable Relationship Even though in the short term financial markets in developing countries seem to react to changes in U.S. interest rates, in the medium and long run there is no stable relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. Treasury yields. In short, lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. How do we explain the absence of a strong relationship between these financial and economic variables? Our take is as follows: When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices and credit markets from selling off. That is why there is no clear and strong relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Corporate earnings are the key to sustaining this EM rally. What is needed for EM corporate profits to recover is a revival in Chinese demand. The latter is not yet imminent, implying that EM assets will likely hit an air pocket before a more durable bottom occurs. Are lower interest rates in China a justification for the latest EM equity rebound? Chart I-7 demonstrates that both EM and Chinese investable stock indexes positively correlate with interest rates in China. The reason is because all of them are driven by Chinese growth: When growth accelerates, these share prices and Chinese local bond yields rise, and vice versa. Chart I-7Chinese Interest Rates And EM / China Share Prices: Positive Correlation Chinese Interest Rates And EM / China Share Prices: Positive Correlation Chinese Interest Rates And EM / China Share Prices: Positive Correlation Bottom Line: Lower interest rates in the U.S. or in China in and of themselves do not constitute sufficient conditions for a cyclical rally in EM share prices. The primary driver of EM share prices in the past 10 years has been Chinese growth, because the latter has a considerable bearing on EM corporate profits. For now, there have been no substantive signs of a growth revival in China. How 2019 Is Different From 2016 We elaborated in detail on how the current round of policy stimulus in China differs from the one in 2015-‘16 in our report titled, Dissecting China’s Stimulus, and will not discuss it here. Instead, we offer several economic and financial signposts illustrating how the EM/China outlook and financial market dynamics in 2019 will differ from those of 2016: Presently, there is no meaningful policy stimulus for the real estate market in China, and property sales will continue to shrink (Chart I-8). This is the opposite of what occurred in 2015-‘16 when the Chinese central bank literally monetized excessive housing inventories by financing residential real estate via its Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) facility. The ensuing surge in property demand substantially contributed to the business cycle recovery on the mainland in 2016-‘17. Chart I-8A Downbeat Outlook For Chinese Housing A Downbeat Outlook For Chinese Housing A Downbeat Outlook For Chinese Housing EM share prices have been underperforming the DM equity index since late December. In contrast, EM began outperforming DM in January 2016 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM Ones Since Late December EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM Ones Since Late December EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM Ones Since Late December In early 2016, the pace of EM profit contraction stabilized after 18 months of deepening shrinkage (Chart I-1 on page 1). What’s more, investor sentiment on EM was very downbeat in early 2016. Presently, the EM profit contraction is just commencing, and its rate of change will bottom only in late 2019, as per Chart I-2 on page 2. In the meantime, investors are ill prepared for bad news, as their sentiment on EM is extremely buoyant. Finally, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar began selling off in early 2016, corroborating the EM rally. This year the broad measure of the trade-weighted dollar has not sold off. Hence, the dollar has not yet confirmed the EM rebound (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The U.S. Dollar And EM Share Prices The U.S. Dollar And EM Share Prices The U.S. Dollar And EM Share Prices Is 2019 Akin To 2012? In terms of share-price patterns, the current profiles of both EM and DM are a close match to those in 2011-2012 (Chart I-11). Following a major plunge in the second half of 2011, share prices bottomed in December 2011 and rallied sharply in the following three months. Not only is the duration similar to what transpired with share prices in 2011-’12, but also the magnitude (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Is 2018-19 Akin To 2011-12? Is 2018-19 Akin To 2011-12? Is 2018-19 Akin To 2011-12? As to the economic backdrop in 2011-‘12, the euro area was in the midst of a credit crisis and China/EM growth was slowing due to the preceding Chinese policy tightening. After the strong rally in January-March 2012, both EM and DM bourses sold off sharply in the second quarter of 2012, re-testing their late 2011 lows. Critically, like the present and unlike early 2016, EM stocks were underperforming DM ones during the early 2012 rally. Lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. On the surface, it appears that the magic words of the European Central Bank President Mario Draghi that “…the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro” that halted the global selloff. Yet, in reality, Draghi’s speech was the trigger for – not the cause of – the markets’ reversal. In retrospect, the primary reason for a major bottom in global risk assets in June 2012 was the bottom in the global business cycle in the second half of 2012 (Chart I-12, top panel). Chart I-12Global Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed Global Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed Global Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed As can be seen on this panel, global equity prices are often coincident with “soft” economic data like global manufacturing PMI. Global stocks typically lead “hard” economic data and corporate profits but do not always lead “soft” data. Presently, the bottom in global manufacturing and trade is not yet in sight. The bottom panel of Chart I-12 shows that Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. These electronics parts are inputs into final goods; when producers of these goods plan to increase production they first order these parts. As a result, trade in these electronics parts lead the broader trade/manufacturing cycle. Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. On the whole, odds are that China’s business cycle as well as global trade and manufacturing have not yet hit a durable bottom and are not about to recover. Countries/industries leveraged to China will experience a meaningful profit contraction. Hence, there is a significant probability that EM stocks re-test their recent lows akin to what transpired in 2012. Investment Considerations There is no meaningful evidence indicating that China’s business cycle and global trade and manufacturing have bottomed. Global cyclical equity sectors have rebounded but have not yet decisively broken above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-13). Crucially, their relative performance to the overall global index has been rather sluggish (Chart I-14). This corroborates the lack of global growth tailwinds behind this global equity rally. Chart I-13Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Absolute Performance Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Absolute Performance Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Absolute Performance Chart I-14Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Relative Performance Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Relative Performance Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Relative Performance Asset allocators should continue to underweight EM stocks and credit markets within their global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Without an improvement in the global business cycle, the rebound in EM currencies is not durable. As China’s growth disappoints, EM currencies will depreciate versus the dollar, the euro and the yen. Renewed currency depreciation will erode returns on EM local currency bonds for international investors. For dedicated EM local bond portfolios, our recommended overweights are Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Thailand and Korea (Chart I-15). Our underweights are South Africa, Indonesia, India and today we are downgrading Turkish local bonds to underweight (please refer to section on Turkey starting on the next page). Chart I-15Favor These Local Currency Bond Markets Favor These Local Currency Bond Markets Favor These Local Currency Bond Markets Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Brewing Policy Reversal? The odds of a policy reversal in Turkey are rising. The government’s patience with tight monetary policy may be running thin. The nation’s GDP contracted by 3% in the final quarter of 2018 from a year ago. Further contraction is in the cards. Chart II-1 signifies that monetary policy is indeed tight: Lira-denominated bank loan growth is at zero, and in real (inflation-adjusted) terms bank lending has shrunk by about 18% from a year ago. Chart II-1 The ongoing painful economic retrenchment (Chart II-2) and rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing – something the Turkish central bank has done often over the current decade. Chart II-2 Specifically, the central bank’s liquidity provisions to the banking system will likely begin to rise (Chart II-3). The severe liquidity tightening, underway since October 2018 via reduced lending to banks, has been partially responsible for the stability in the exchange rate. As the central bank augments liquidity provisions to the banking system, the lira will again come under renewed selling pressure. Rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing. The goal of liquidity provisioning would be to bring down interbank rates and, ultimately, lending rates. Presently, the spread between commercial banks’ lending rates and the interbank rate is negative (Chart II-4, top panel). This is unsustainable. The authorities have forced banks to bring down their lending rates in recent months. As a result, the gap between banks’ lending and deposit rates has also narrowed considerably (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This will weigh on the banks’ profitability. Consequently, we are closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. Chart II-3 Chart II-4 The government cannot force banks to reduce their lending rates further without reducing their cost of funding. Hence, the central bank might opt to inject excess reserves into the system to bring down interbank rates. Thereafter, the authorities could “guide” banks to further lower their lending rates. Policy easing might not be in the form of outright policy rate cuts to avoid a negative reaction from financial markets. Instead, the central bank could push down inter-bank rates by way of obscure liquidity injections into the banking system. To be sure, the odds of the currency reacting poorly to such loosening of liquidity are non-trivial. This, along with the ongoing recession, the shrinking bank net interest margins and the slow pace of bank loan restructuring, are leading us to downgrade the Turkish bourse that is heavy in bank stocks. Investment Recommendations Downgrade Turkish stocks and local currency bonds back to underweight. We closed our short/underweight positions in the Turkish currency, bonds and equities on August 15, 2018. For details, please see the report Turkey: Booking Profits On Shorts. This has proved to be a timely move as Turkish markets have rebounded notably and outperformed their EM peers (Chart II-5). In our opinion, it is now time to downgrade it again. Chart II-5 ​​​​​​​ We are also closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. This position has netted a modest 2.3% gain since its initiation on November 29, 2018. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights This report presents our framework for estimating Chinese capital outflows on a monthly basis, which investors can use as a real-time indicator to monitor the risk of another serious episode of capital flight. We also provide a monthly estimate of illicit capital outflow, which we find is negatively correlated with “on balance sheet” capital flows. This implies that Chinese residents alternate their use of the two channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. Our monitoring framework suggests that outflow pressure is more likely to ease than intensify if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks or months, especially given the rise in CNY-USD since early-November. However, we have identified a low-odds but high-impact scenario in which a shaky trade deal with the U.S. generates an unstable equilibrium that could ultimately escalate into a major Chinese capital outflow event. This could prove to be a highly destabilizing event for investors, and thus bears close monitoring. Feature Fears of a new round of capital outflow from China re-emerged in the second half of 2018 as USD-CNY approached 7, a psychologically important level for many investors (Chart 1). The last episode of significant capital outflows from China occurred in late-2015 following the PBOC’s devaluation of the RMB, and the sharp spike in volatility that resulted had a contagious effect for global financial markets. Chart 1A Near Miss Late Last Year A Near Miss Late Last Year A Near Miss Late Last Year In the very near term, the risk of a similar event appears to be low given the material trade talk-driven decline in USD-CNY that has occurred over the past five months. However, several news reports over the past year concerning the possible risk of another episode of capital flight underscore that China’s cross-border capital flow statistics are misunderstood by financial market participants. This raises the risk that investors either fail to anticipate a capital outflow event in the future or exaggerate the odds of one occurring. In this report we present our framework for estimating Chinese capital outflows on a monthly basis, which investors can use as a real-time indicator to monitor the risk of another serious episode of capital flight. We also adjust the typical measure of short-term capital flow derived from the quarterly balance of payments to account for cross-border RMB settlement, and present an estimate of illicit capital outflow that suggests Chinese residents alternate their use of legal and illegal channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. We then combine these three direct measures of capital flow with two indicators of expected RMB depreciation to further augment our monitoring efforts. We conclude by noting that while outflow pressure is more likely to ease than intensify if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks or months, we have identified a low-odds but high-impact scenario in which a shaky trade deal with the U.S. generates an unstable equilibrium that could ultimately escalate into a major Chinese capital outflow event. This scenario is not part of our base case outlook, but could prove to be a highly destabilizing event for investors and thus bears close monitoring. Defining Short-Term Capital Flow From The Balance Of Payments Table 1 presents China’s balance of payments (BOP) for the four quarters ending in Q3 2018, with all items shown on a net basis. The table is organized in a way that provides a helpful refresher on the formulation of the balance of payments, namely that the current account (“CA”, made up of the trade balance and primary & secondary income) plus the sum of the capital account (“KA”), the financial account (“FA”), and a balancing item (referred to as net errors & omissions, “NEO”) is equal to 0, when capital and financial outflows are recorded with a minus sign. Current account surpluses necessarily involve net financial outflows (i.e., investment); whereas current account deficits must be funded by financial inflows (i.e., borrowing). Table 1 highlights that what financial market participants typically refer to as “capital” flows are actually recorded in the financial account of the balance of payments. While derivatives are included in the table for the sake of completion, in practice they are usually quite small (as is the case for the actual “capital” account). Table 1China’s Balance Of Payments Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows The bottom panel of Table 1 indicates that the balance of payments formula can be rearranged so that it represents how many market participants tend to define total and short-term capital outflows from a balance of payments perspective. As we will show in the next section of the report, this re-arrangement of the balance of payments formula is an essential element in building a more frequent proxy of short-term capital flow. We define short-term capital flow from the balance of payments as the combination of portfolio investment, other investment, and net errors & omissions. The bottom panel shows that by adding reserve assets (“RA”) to the current account (“CA”), the right hand side of the BOP equation becomes the sum of direct investment (“DI”), portfolio investment (“PI”), other investment “OI”, and net errors & omissions (“NEO”). Since direct investment tends not to be driven by short-term economic behavior and is normally not influenced by foreign exchange expectations or fluctuations, the formula can be further arranged to isolate short-term capital outflows on the right-hand side: Current Account + Changes in Reserve Assets + Direct Investment ≈ (Portfolio Investment + Other Investment + Net Errors & Omissions)*-1 Or using our line item notation, CA + RA + DI ≈ -PI - OI - NEO The formula above is expressed as an approximation rather than an identity simply because it excludes the capital account (“KA”) and financial derivatives (“FD”). As can be seen in Table 1, the net value of adding the four quarter rolling total of CA + RA + DI to PI + OI + NEO is US$ 3.3 billion; adding KA + FD (-0.35 and -2.95 billion US$, respectively) would result in a value of 0. Chart 2 shows this relationship visually; and highlights that both series are nearly identical. Chart 2Short-Term Capital Flow As Defined By The BOP Short-Term Capital Flow As Defined By The BOP Short-Term Capital Flow As Defined By The BOP Building A Better Proxy Of Short-Term Capital Flow The balance of payments approach is a useful starting point for measuring short-term capital flow, but it has two important drawbacks: Timeliness: Balance of payments data are reported in quarterly frequency, and often with a lag. This is inadequate for most investors, particularly when market participants are concerned that a crisis or crisis-like conditions may be emerging. This is the primary disadvantage of the BOP approach. Failure to account for cross-border RMB settlement: The balance of payments approach implicitly assumes that a current account surplus in China will automatically result in the importation of foreign exchange, but this assumption is no longer fully valid. Cross-border RMB settlement now accounts for part of China’s foreign trade settlement, reaching more than 30% during the 2015/2016 period. Compared with its peak level, RMB settlement as a share of total foreign trade has fallen over the past two years, but still accounts for 19% today (Chart 3). To more precisely gauge China’s capital outflows, cross-border RMB settlement should be removed from the current account surplus, because trade payments settled in RMB would not involve the receipt of foreign currency. This offsetting current account discrepancy would still show up in the balance of payments under net errors & omissions, but that would have the effect of distorting our definition of short-term capital flow. Chart 3Analysts Need To Adjust The Current Account For Cross-Border RMB Settlement Analysts Need To Adjust The Current Account For Cross-Border RMB Settlement Analysts Need To Adjust The Current Account For Cross-Border RMB Settlement Chart 4 illustrates the difference between our quarterly definition of short-term capital flow and the series adjusted for cross-border RMB settlement. The chart shows that the two series are quite similar for most of the past decade, with the notable exception of the 2015/2016 period. The adjusted series suggests that the intensity of China’s episode of capital flight did not peak in 2015, but rather late in 2016. This is consistent with domestic commentary at the time,1 and implies that the PBOC faced headwinds in their attempt to stem capital outflows that were even worse than has been generally acknowledged. Chart 4After Adjusting For Cross-Border Settlement, Outflow Intensity Only Peaked In Late-2016 After Adjusting For Cross-Border Settlement, Outflow Intensity Only Peaked In Late-2016 After Adjusting For Cross-Border Settlement, Outflow Intensity Only Peaked In Late-2016 Unfortunately for investors, dealing with the lack of timeliness in the release of China’s balance of payments statistics is a more challenging endeavor. This problem cannot be resolved with simple adjustments to the quarterly data, and instead requires the building of a proxy for short-term capital flow based on the BOP equation but using monthly statistics. Investors can proxy our adjusted quarterly balance of payments-based measure of short-term capital flow on a monthly basis. As we referenced above, the key to constructing a monthly capital flow estimate lies with the re-arrangement of the balance of payments equation such that short-term capital flow is expressed as being approximately equal to the sum of the current account, direct investment, and the change in reserve assets (when outflows of the latter two series are recorded as negative values). Table 2 highlights that high quality monthly series are available to act as proxies for these three balance of payments components, after accounting for cross-border RMB settlement and the following two additional adjustments: Table 2Components Of BCA’s Monthly China Capital Outflow Indicator Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows Services Balance: The trade balance accounts for the vast majority of the current account of most countries, and this is also true in the case of China. An underappreciated fact about China’s trade balance is that it has shrunk considerably over the past several years, due to what is now a sizeable services deficit. Some market commentators who are aware of the services deficit point to it as evidence that China’s net importation of services is laying the groundwork for its “new economy” (via eventual import substitution), but the reality is that travel (i.e. net tourism spending) accounts for over 80% of it (Chart 5). For the purposes of our monthly capital flow proxy, a sizeable services deficit is a complication that must be accounted for, given that China’s monthly trade statistics (and most monthly trade data globally) represent the trade in goods, not the trade in services. Since most of the fluctuations in the trade balance occur due to net trade in goods, we include the history of the quarterly services balance in our monthly indicator as a structural variable, and extend the most recent quarterly value into the current quarter as a simplifying assumption. Currency Valuation Effect on Official Reserves: Foreign exchange reserves in the balance of payments are calculated by the historical cost method, whereas the highly followed monthly official foreign exchange reserve data released by the PBOC is measured using market value. Changes in its balance, in addition to genuine changes in foreign exchange reserve assets, also reflect revaluation effects caused by fluctuations in the foreign exchange market. To dampen these effects, we include foreign exchange reserves in our monthly capital flow proxy in SDR terms rather than in U.S. dollars, rebased to the value of the underlying U.S. dollar series as of December 2018. Chart 5Travel (i.e. Tourism) Accounts For The Majority Of China's Services Deficit Travel (i.e. Tourism) Accounts For The Majority Of China's Services Deficit Travel (i.e. Tourism) Accounts For The Majority Of China's Services Deficit Chart 6 presents our quarterly balance of payments-based capital flow measure (adjusted for cross-border capital flow) with our monthly proxy, based on the series shown in Table 2 and the adjustments noted above. Divergences between the series exist in level terms, but panel 2 shows that our monthly proxy does a good job capturing the trend in the quarterly series. The only major exception to this occurred at the beginning of 2016, when our monthly proxy fell sharply relative to the adjusted quarterly BOP version. Chart 6Our Monthly Proxy Captures The Trend In Quarterly Capital Flows Our Monthly Proxy Captures The Trend In Quarterly Capital Flows Our Monthly Proxy Captures The Trend In Quarterly Capital Flows This sharp decline is a bit of a mystery; it can be traced to the official reserves series, and either suggests that capital outflow was materially worse in Q4 2015 and Q1 2016 than officially recognized, or that China suffered outsized losses from the risky asset portion of its reserve portfolio during that period. However, the first explanation is at odds with the evidence noted earlier that the intensity of capital flight seems to have peaked in late-2016, and the second explanation is inconsistent with the history of financial market returns over the past decade. We noted in a February 2018 Special Report that risky U.S. assets (almost entirely stocks) accounted for as much as 9.5% of China’s foreign reserve assets in the summer of 2015,2 and it is true that U.S. equity returns were quite negative from December 2015 to February 2016. But this was certainly not the first and only period of extreme U.S. equity market volatility to occur since 2010, raising the question of why this sharp decline in official reserves only occurred in 2015/2016. Future research on the topic of Chinese capital flows will aim to reconcile the difference between our monthly proxy and our adjusted quarterly balance of payments series during this period, but for now we are confident that the former contributes meaningfully to our understanding of the latter, particularly on a rate of change basis. Import Over-Invoicing: A Third Measure Of Short-Term Capital Outflow Investors need to track both legal and illicit capital flows. Our first two measures of short-term capital flow were based on an attempt to track the legally allowable movement of funds out of China. However, illicit capital outflow is an acknowledged problem in China, which tends to occur through the practice of import over-invoicing.3 Chart 7 presents our estimate of import over-invoicing for China, based on a methodology articulated by Global Financial Integrity, a U.S. non-profit organization that provides analysis of illicit financial flows globally (see Appendix A). The chart highlights two important points: Chart 7Illicit Capital Outflows: Another Way That Money Leaves China Illicit Capital Outflows: Another Way That Money Leaves China Illicit Capital Outflows: Another Way That Money Leaves China Illicit outflows have increased significantly over the past 2 years following China’s capital control crackdown, particularly in Q3 2018 following the announcement of the second round of U.S. import tariffs against China. Panel 2 of Chart 7 illustrates that there is a negative correlation between “on balance sheet” capital flows and illicit capital outflows, implying that Chinese residents alternate their use of the two channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. This underscores the importance of monitoring both channels on an ongoing basis. Investment Conclusions Table 3 brings together the three measures of short-term capital flow that we have laid out above, as well as two indicators of expected RMB depreciation (Chart 8): net settlement of foreign exchange by Chinese banks (see Appendix B), and the 3-month moving average of the percent deviation of CNH-USD (offshore RMB) from CNY-USD (onshore RMB). Altogether, the series shown in Table 3 form the basis of our capital outflow monitoring efforts, and we plan on updating these series regularly to gauge whether outflow pressure is increasing. Table 3Dashboard For Monitoring Short-Term Capital Flows Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows Chart 8Two Indicators Capturing Expectations Of Severe RMB Depreciation Two Indicators Capturing Expectations Of Severe RMB Depreciation Two Indicators Capturing Expectations Of Severe RMB Depreciation For now, only our measure of illicit capital outflow is flashing a warning sign, and the timing of the recent spike in the measure appears to be closely connected with the trade war with the U.S. This implies that outflow pressure is more likely to ease if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks, as we expect will occur. However, we noted in a March 6 joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy service that a deal with only slight concessions from China may stand on shaky ground and that tariff rollbacks will be limited or non-existent.4 This would ensure elevated policy uncertainty in the aftermath of the agreement and would raise the probability of a relapse into another trade war ahead of the 2020 U.S. election. In this scenario we would be watching the indicators shown in Table 3 closely for signs that increasing pessimism about the long-term state of sino-U.S. relations is causing the capital outflow “dam” built by policymakers following the 2015/2016 episode to buckle. Our monitoring framework suggests that the odds of a major capital flight event are currently low. But a shaky trade deal with the U.S. could change that. It is not part of our base case outlook, but onshore concerns of a renewed trade war with the U.S. next year could theoretically become self-fulfilling, if another major episode of capital flight were to weaken the RMB in a way that could even remotely be construed as a violation of the yuan stability pact that will reportedly be part of any agreement between the U.S. and China. While this would in no way entail a purposeful devaluation by Chinese policymakers to boost trade competitiveness, it could nonetheless provide an excellent excuse for President Trump to reinstate damaging economic pressure on China in the midst of what is likely to be a highly competitive re-election campaign. This could, in turn, produce a feedback effect that magnifies the original desire to move capital out of China, and would likely prove to be a highly destabilizing event for global financial markets. Stay tuned!   Qingyun Xu, CFA, Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Appendix A Measuring Import Over-Invoicing In this report we use one of the two methodologies employed by Global Financial Integrity to measure import over-invoicing in China, which compares a country’s reported trade statistics with that of its global trade partners.5 Using the IMF’s Direction of Trade Statistics data, we deflate Chinese import data measured on a C.I.F. (cost insurance and freight) basis to an F.O.B. (free on board) basis using an assumed freight and insurance factor of 10%. Then, we use Hong Kong re-export data to adjust global exports to China for re-exported trade through Hong Kong. The formula is listed below: Chinese Import Over-invoicing = [(Chinese Imports From The World)/1.1] - Adjusted Global Exports To China   Appendix B The Onshore Market For Foreign Exchange A poorly understood fact about China’s capital/financial account regime is that a material amount of foreign exchange reserves are now held by enterprises and individuals. Most investors are familiar with China’s old foreign exchange settlement policy (established formally in 1993), which prohibited enterprises from retaining foreign currency. Exporters receiving foreign currency as payment for goods and services had to sell all foreign exchange receipts to designed banks, and purchase foreign exchange from these banks when needed to make payments to offshore suppliers. Thus, while this policy was in effect, the PBOC held all China’s foreign exchange reserves and official reserves equaled total reserves. However, since the early-2000s, this policy has been gradually withdrawn. Since its complete abolishment in 2012, foreign exchange retained by enterprises and residents has increased materially. Chart B1 shows the impact of these changes on the bank foreign exchange settlement and sale rates. The settlement rate represents enterprises’ sale of foreign exchange to banks as a share of their total foreign exchange receipts in a given month, while the sale rate represents banks’ sale of foreign exchange to enterprises as a share of enterprises’ total foreign exchange payments. The chart shows that the settlement rate has dramatically dropped since 2012 (from 70% to less than 50%). We can also see there were spikes in the settlement rate and sale rate in August 2015 (in contrary directions) when the PBOC devalued the RMB, implying that the demand for forex and presumably the expectation of further RMB depreciation was severe. Chart B1The Evolution Of China’s Domestic Foreign Exchange Market The Evolution Of China's Domestic Foreign Exchange Market The Evolution Of China's Domestic Foreign Exchange Market ​​​​​​​   Given this, we view net FX settlement (enterprises’ sale of foreign exchange to banks minus banks’ sale of foreign exchange to enterprises) as a reasonable proxy of expected RMB depreciation, and have included it as part of our capital flow monitoring framework.         1 “China’s capital outflow is still intensifying”, Reuters China Finance and Economics Column, December 19, 2016. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Demystifying China’s Foreign Assets”, dated February 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Import over-invoicing occurs when an importer (in country A) attempts to evade capital controls by colluding with an exporting entity (in country B) to falsify the reported value of goods imported into country A from country B. The importer “overpays” for the goods in question and, usually through an intermediary, moves the surplus funds into the importer’s offshore account. Please see https://www.gfintegrity.org/issue/trade-misinvoicing/ for more information about the mechanics of and motivations behind trade misinvoicing. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal?”, dated March 6, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 “Illicit Financial Flows to and from 148 Developing Countries: 2006-2015”, Global Financial Integrity, January 2019. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global equities will remain rangebound for the next month or so, but should move decisively higher as economic green shoots emerge in the spring. A revival in global growth will cause the recent rally in the U.S. dollar to stall out and reverse direction, setting the stage for a period of dollar weakness that could last until the second half of next year. Rising inflation will force the Fed to turn considerably more hawkish in late-2020 or early-2021. This will cause the dollar to surge once more. The combination of a stronger dollar and higher interest rates will trigger a recession in the U.S. in 2021, which will spread to the rest of the world. Investors should maintain a bullish stance towards global equities for the next 12 months, but look to reduce exposure at some point next year. Feature Stocks Temporarily Stuck In The Choppy Trading Range We argued at the end of February that global equities and other risk assets would likely enter a choppy trading range in March as investors nervously awaited the economic data to improve.1 Recent market action has been consistent with this thesis, with the MSCI All-Country World Index falling nearly 3% at the start of the month, only to recoup its losses over the past few days. We expect stocks to remain in a holding pattern over the coming weeks, as investors look for more evidence that global growth is bottoming out. The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of global growth (Chart 1). This countercyclicality stems from the fact that the U.S. economy is more geared towards services than manufacturing compared with the rest of the world. This makes the U.S. a low-beta play on global growth (Chart 2). As such, when global growth accelerates, capital tends to flow from the U.S. to the rest of the world, translating into more demand for foreign currency and less demand for dollars. Chart 1The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 2The U.S. Is A Low-Beta Play On Global Growth The U.S. Is A Low-Beta Play On Global Growth The U.S. Is A Low-Beta Play On Global Growth Given the dollar’s countercyclical nature, it is not surprising that the slowdown in global growth over the past 12 months has given the greenback a lift. The broad trade-weighted dollar has strengthened by almost 8% since February 2018, putting it near the top of its post 2015-range (Chart 3). Chart 3The Dollar Has Gotten A Lift From Global Growth Disappointments The Dollar Has Gotten A Lift From Global Growth Disappointments The Dollar Has Gotten A Lift From Global Growth Disappointments Stocks Will Rally And The Dollar Will Weaken Starting In The Spring We expect the U.S. dollar to strengthen over the coming weeks as global economic data continues to underwhelm. However, an improvement in leading economic indicators in the spring will set the stage for a reacceleration in global growth and a decline in the dollar in the second half of this year. The combination of stronger growth and a weaker dollar later this year should be highly supportive of global equities. Equity investors with a 12-month horizon should overlook any near-term weakness and maintain a bullish bias towards stocks. We do not have a strong view on U.S. versus international equities at the moment, but expect to upgrade the latter once we see more confirmatory evidence that global growth is bottoming out. Equity investors with a 12-month horizon should overlook any near-term weakness and maintain a bullish bias towards stocks.   A Stronger China Will Lead To A Weaker Dollar Our expectation that the dollar will weaken in the second half of this year hinges on what happens to China. The deceleration in global growth in 2018 was largely the consequence of China’s deleveraging campaign. China’s slowdown led to a falloff in capital spending throughout the world. Weaker Chinese growth also put downward pressure on the yuan, pulling other EM currencies lower with it (Chart 4). All this occurred alongside an escalation in trade tensions, further dampening business sentiment. Chart 4EM Currencies Are Off Their Early 2018 Highs EM Currencies Are Off Their Early 2018 Highs EM Currencies Are Off Their Early 2018 Highs While it is too early to signal the all-clear on the trade front, the news of late has been encouraging. A recent Bloomberg story described how Trump watched approvingly as Asian stocks rose and U.S. futures rallied following his decision to delay the scheduled increase in tariffs on Chinese goods.2 As a self-professed master negotiator, Trump needs to secure a deal with China before next year‘s presidential election, while also convincing American voters that the deal was concluded on favorable terms for the United States. Reaching a deal with China early on in his term would have been risky if the agreement had failed to bring down the bilateral trade deficit — an entirely likely outcome given how pro-cyclical U.S. fiscal policy currently is.  At this point, however, Trump can crow about making a great deal with China while reassuring voters that the product of his brilliance will be realized after he has been re-elected. This means that we are entering a window over the next 12 months where Trump will want to strike a deal. For their part, the Chinese want as much negotiating leverage with the Trump administration as they can muster. This means being able to convincingly demonstrate that their economy is strong enough to handle the repercussions from turning down a trade deal that fails to serve their interests. Since the credit cycle is the dominant driver of Chinese growth, this requires putting the deleveraging campaign on the backburner. Admittedly, credit growth surprised on the downside in February. However, this followed January’s strong showing. Averaging out the two months, credit growth appears to be stabilizing on a year-over-year basis. Conceptually, it is the change in credit growth that correlates with GDP growth.3 Thus, merely going from last year’s pattern of falling credit growth to stable credit growth would still imply a positive credit impulse and hence, an uptick in GDP growth. In practice, we suspect that the Chinese authorities will prefer that credit growth not only stabilize but increase modestly. In the past, this outcome has transpired whenever credit growth has fallen towards nominal GDP growth (Chart 5). The prospect of a rebound in credit growth in March was hinted at by the PBOC, which spun the weak February data as being caused by “seasonal factors.” Chart 5Historically, China Has Scaled Back On Deleveraging When Credit Growth Has Fallen Close To Nominal GDP Growth Historically, China Has Scaled Back On Deleveraging When Credit Growth Has Fallen Close To Nominal GDP Growth Historically, China Has Scaled Back On Deleveraging When Credit Growth Has Fallen Close To Nominal GDP Growth Europe: Down But Not Out Stronger growth in China will help European exporters. Euro area domestic demand will also benefit from a rebound in German automobile production, the winding down of the “yellow vest” protests in France, and incrementally easier fiscal policy. In addition, the ECB’s new TLTRO facility should support credit formation, particularly in Italy where the banks remain heavily reliant on ECB funding. Our expectation that the dollar will weaken in the second half of this year hinges on what happens to China. Euro area financial conditions have eased significantly over the past three months, which bodes well for growth in the remainder of the year. It is encouraging that the composite euro area PMI has rebounded to a three-month high. The expectations component of the euro area confidence index has also moved up relative to the current situation component, which suggests further upside for the PMI in the coming months (Chart 6). Chart 6Easing Financial Conditions Bode Well For Euro Area Growth Easing Financial Conditions Bode Well For Euro Area Growth Easing Financial Conditions Bode Well For Euro Area Growth The selloff in EUR/USD since last March has been largely driven by a decline in euro area interest rate expectations (Chart 7). If euro area growth accelerates in the back half of the year, the market will probably price back in a few rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. Chart 7EUR/USD Sell-Off Has Been Driven By Falling European Rate Expectations EUR/USD Sell-Off Has Been Driven By Falling European Rate Expectations EUR/USD Sell-Off Has Been Driven By Falling European Rate Expectations What Will The Fed Do? Of course, the degree to which a steeper Eonia curve benefits EUR/USD will depend on what the Fed does. The 24-month discounter has fallen from over +100 bps in March 2018 to -25 bps today, implying that investors now believe that U.S. short rates will fall over the next two years (Chart 8). Chart 8The Fed's Dovish Messaging Has Worked... Almost Too Well The Fed's Dovish Messaging Has Worked... Almost Too Well The Fed's Dovish Messaging Has Worked... Almost Too Well We expect the Fed to raise rates more than what is currently priced into the curve, thus justifying a short duration position in fixed-income portfolios. However, the Fed’s newfound “baby step” philosophy will probably translate into only two hikes over the next 12 months. Such a gradual pace of Fed rate hikes is unlikely to prevent the euro from appreciating against the dollar starting in the middle of this year, especially in the context of a resurgent global economy. We do not expect any major inflationary pressures to emerge in the near term. In contrast to the euro, the yen should depreciate against the dollar in the back half of this year. The yen is a “risk-off” currency and thus tends to weaken whenever global risk assets rally (Chart 9). The government is also about to raise the sales tax again in October, a completely unnecessary step that will only hurt domestic demand and force the Bank of Japan to prolong its yield curve control regime. We would go long EUR/JPY on any break below 123. Chart 9The Yen Is A Risk-Off Currency The Yen Is A Risk-Off Currency The Yen Is A Risk-Off Currency A Blow-Off Rally In The Dollar Starting In Late-2020 What could really light a fire under the dollar is if the Fed began raising rates aggressively while the global economy was slowing down. In what twisted parallel universe could that happen? The answer is this one, provided that inflation rose to a level that evoked panic at the Fed. We do not expect any major inflationary pressures to emerge in the near term. The growth in unit labor costs leads core inflation by about 12 months (Chart 10). Thanks to a cyclical pickup in productivity growth, unit labor cost inflation has been trending lower since mid-2018. However, as we enter late-2020, if the labor market has tightened further by then, wage growth will likely pull well ahead of productivity growth, causing inflation to accelerate. Chart 10Decelerating Unit Labor Costs Will Dampen Inflationary Pressures For The Time Being Decelerating Unit Labor Costs Will Dampen Inflationary Pressures For The Time Being Decelerating Unit Labor Costs Will Dampen Inflationary Pressures For The Time Being All things equal, higher inflation is bearish for a currency because it implies a loss in purchasing power relative to other monies. However, if higher inflation spurs a central bank to hike policy rates by more than inflation has risen – thus implying an increase in real rates – the currency will tend to strengthen. Chart 11 shows the “rational expectations” response of a currency to a scenario where inflation suddenly and unexpectedly rises by one percent relative to partner countries and stays at this higher level for five years while nominal rates rise by two percent. The currency initially appreciates by 5%, but then falls by 2% every year, eventually finishing down 5% from where it started.4 Chart 11 The yen should depreciate against the dollar in the back half of this year. The real world is much messier of course, but we suspect that the dollar will stage a final blow-off rally late next year or in early-2021 (Chart 12). Since the Fed will be hiking rates in a stagflationary environment at that time, global growth will weaken, further boosting the dollar. The resulting tightening in both U.S. and global financial conditions will likely trigger a global recession and a bear market in stocks. Investors should maintain a bullish stance towards global equities for the next 12 months, but look to reduce exposure at some point next year. Chart 12   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Gretzky’s Doctrine,” dated March 1, 2019. 2      Jennifer Jacobs and Saleha Mohsin, “Trump Pushes China Trade Deal to Boost Markets as 2020 Heats Up,” Bloomberg, March 6, 2019. 3      Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. 4      The 2% annual decline in the currency is necessary for the real interest parity condition to be satisfied. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Image Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

We continue to expect copper prices to increase in the near term, as China’s credit cycle bottoms and DM central banks soften their monetary-policy stance. Fiscal and monetary stimulus in China also will be supportive of base metals prices going forward. The evolution of the Sino - U.S. trade negotiations remains a risk to our view, given how important the outcome of these talks will be for investors’ expectations and sentiment. Markets appear to be discounting a positive outcome. Anything that scuppers these talks – or results in a no-deal outcome – will be a negative for base metals, copper in particular. Our tactical long copper position is up by 1.2% since we initiated it last week. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Russian oil companies are expected to keep production lower until July, when the current OPEC 2.0 production-cutting agreement now in place expires. We expect the deal will be extended to year-end.1 Separately, the risk of a complete shutdown in Venezuela’s oil industry rose significantly, as a power failure in most of the country all but eliminated potable water supplies and significantly reduced oil exports. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. High-grade iron-ore prices got a boost this week as Vale was ordered to temporarily suspend exports from its primary port at Guaiba Island terminal in Rio de Janeiro state, according to Metal Bulletin’s Fastmarkets.2 The price-reporting agency’s 62% Fe Iron Ore Index rose $1.46/MT at $85.25/MT Tuesday. Precious Metals: Neutral. Spot gold is back above $1,300/oz, on the back of monetary policy easing among important central banks. This also is supporting base metals globally (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain markets continue to drift sideways, awaiting definitive news re Sino - U.S. trade talks, specifically when presidents Xi and Trump will meet to finalize a deal (see below). Separately, wheat and corn inventories are expected to rise on the back of higher supplies and lower exports, the USDA forecast in its latest world supply-demand estimates. Feature Recent data releases confirm our view that global growth will remain weak in 1Q19 and early 2Q19. This will continue to put downward pressure on cyclical commodities – chiefly base metals and oil (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekGlobal Growth Slows In 1Q19 Global Growth Slows In 1Q19 Global Growth Slows In 1Q19 The persistence of the slowdown provoked major central banks to adopt a dovish stance in the short-term. This is easily seen in the recent actions by the U.S. Fed, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), all of which have communicated a pause in their rate normalization policies.3 At the moment, the frail global growth is partly balanced by expectations of a positive outcome re the ongoing Sino - U.S. trade negotiations (Chart 2). In the coming months, we expect the effect of accommodative DM monetary policy combined with an expansion in China’s credit (more on this below) and fiscal stimulus – i.e., tax cuts announced earlier this month amounting to almost $300 billion (~ 2 trillion RMB) meant to support policymakers’ GDP growth targets – will go a long way toward reversing the earlier contraction. The effect of these policy decisions will be apparent in 2H19. Chart 2China Growth To Hook Higher China Growth To Hook Higher China Growth To Hook Higher China’s Credit Cycle Bottomed In December 2018 The evolution of China’s credit cycle remains a central pillar to our view commodity demand growth in 2H19 will surpass consensus expectations. The massive growth reported in China’s January credit statistics revived investors’ expectations that China’s banks will re-open the credit valves as they did in 2016.4 In our view, this number does signal a bottom in China’s credit cycle, and implies Chinese – and indirectly EM – growth will bottom sometime this year. However, we still are not expecting a complete blowout credit expansion this year. We continue to believe Chinese policymakers will focus on stabilizing credit in 1H19 with moderate increases in supply, and start increasing stimulus in 2H19 or 2020 in order to maximize its effect later in 2020 ahead of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2021. The soft February credit number released this week supports this argument.5 China’s Credit Cycle Matters For Base Metals Demand The relationship between China’s credit cycles and base metal prices endures and remains robust. We measure China’s aggregate credit using bank and non-bank claims on non-financial enterprises, households, local and central governments, and non-bank financial institutions. This corresponds to adding outstanding central and local government bonds to China’s Total Social Financing (TSF).6 The annual change in aggregate credit – or its impulses – do not perfectly capture the cycles in global base metal demand. These variables provide interesting signals about the direction and magnitude of movements in credit, however, they do not track base metals’ price cycles accurately and consistently (Chart 3). Chart 3Metals Price Cycles Don't Track Changed In China's Credit Metals Price Cycles Don't Track Changed In China's Credit Metals Price Cycles Don't Track Changed In China's Credit To decompose this variable into its trend and cycle, we use a proxy of the credit cycle constructed using the Hodrick-Prescott and Hamilton filters, and the standardized 12-month credit impulse (Chart 4).7 Chart 4China's Credit Cycle Proxy China's Credit Cycle Proxy China's Credit Cycle Proxy We find that our credit cycle proxy Granger causes base metal prices, import volume and industrial activity (Table 1).8 On average, it leads these variables by 4-6 months (Chart 5). Hence, we believe our credit cycle proxy provides valuable information about future commodity demand in China. Table 1China Credit Cycle Correlations Bottoming Of China's Credit Cycle Bullish For Copper Over Near Term Bottoming Of China's Credit Cycle Bullish For Copper Over Near Term Chart 5 In fact, when regressing copper prices and the LMEX against it, we found that 60% and 58% of the variation in copper prices and the LMEX, can be explained by the linear relationship with our China credit cycle proxy, respectively (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Credit Cycle and Metals Prices China's Credit Cycle and Metals Prices China's Credit Cycle and Metals Prices Given the leading property of China’s credit cycles with respect to industrial activity and metal prices, we included this new proxy in our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index.9 This improves the correlation of our index with copper prices (Chart 7). Chart 7Credit Cycle Improves BCA's GIA Credit Cycle Improves BCA's GIA Credit Cycle Improves BCA's GIA Currently, our models suggest copper prices should increase in the coming months as China’s credit cycle bottoms and DM central banks soften their monetary policy stance. The evolution of the China-U.S. trade negotiations remains a risk to our view as the outcome will weigh on investors’ expectations and sentiment. China’s Vs. DMs’ Credit Cycles Between 2009 and 2014, China’s credit cycle lagged the U.S. and EU’s broad money cycles (Chart 8). This counter-cyclicality is partly explained by its elevated level of exports to the U.S. and of hard goods to Europe. When the global economic cycle works in China’s favor – i.e., when the Fed and ECB are accommodative or fiscal stimulus is deployed in either or both regions – China’s exports rise as U.S. and EU aggregate demand increases. This typically reduces the need for endogenous fiscal or monetary stimulus within China. Chart 8China's Credit Cycle Lags U.S., EU Money Cycles China's Credit Cycle Lags U.S., EU Money Cycles China's Credit Cycle Lags U.S., EU Money Cycles On the other hand, when the global economic cycle contracts and fiscal and monetary policy ex China becomes a headwind, Chinese policymakers typically need to deploy fiscal and monetary policy to keep growth going, or at least avoid a contraction in their economy. Between 2016 and 2017, DM and China credit cycles aligned and increased simultaneously. Taking into account the 4-to-6-month lag between the time credit supply is increased and commodity demand rises, this created bullish conditions for metals and oil from 2H16 to 1H18, pushing copper prices up by 60%. In 2018, both regions’ cycles rolled over. Base metals markets currently are experiencing the consequences of this contraction in credit availability and tightening of financial conditions generally. Going forward, we expect China will step in to raise domestic demand and offset the impact of the decline in credit availability elsewhere, which is affecting demand for its exports in the short-term. In the medium-term, the U.S. and EU, along with India, do not appear to be inclined to absorb Chinese exports to the extent they did in the past, which means the pivot to domestically generated growth through consumer- and services-led demand is the most viable alternative Chinese policymakers have to keep growth on target. Bottom Line: The dovish turn of major DM central banks combined with a bottoming of China’s credit cycle will support cyclical commodities at the margin in the coming months. During the second half of this year, we expect a more significant pick up in China’s credit, setting the stage for a year-end rally in base metal prices. As a consequence, the impact of China’s credit growth on base metals demand could diminish compared to previous stimulus targeting industrial demand.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see “Russia’s oil companies ready to cut output until July: TASS,” published by reuters.com March 12, 2019. 2      Please see Fastmarkets MB’s Daily Steel, March 12, 2019. 3      Please see “Pervasive Uncertainty, Persuasive Central Banks,” published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy March 12, 2019. It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see “China Macro And Market Review,” published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy March 13, 2019. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5      See footnote 4 above. 6      For more details please see “EM: A Sustainable Rally Or A False Start?” published by BCA Research’s Emerging Market Strategy March 7, 2019. It is available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7      Hamilton notes the HP filter can be problematic. In general, we agree with critics of the filter (i.e. it results in spurious dynamics that are unrelated with the true data-generating process, it has an end-point bias which affects its real-time properties, and it is highly dependent on the parameter selection). However, there are some arguments in support of using the HP filter to proxy the credit cycle. First, as long as there are no clear theoretical foundation for an accurate measurement of the credit cycle, empirical validation should remain the number one criteria by which one selects its proxy. Second, credit cycles vary in duration and this weakens the ability to construct a reliable proxy. The usual parameter used with the HP filter favors short-term cycles (i.e. ~ 2 years) while the Hamilton filter focuses on medium-term cycles (i.e. ~ 5 years). Therefore, both can convey useful information. Third, China’s aggregate credit variable in level has a quasi-linear trend and is roughly approximated by a trend-stationary process with breaks in the trend and constant. Such a process should converge in limit when decomposed using the HP filter. Please see James D. Hamilton (2018), “Why You Should Never Use the Hodrick-Prescott Filter,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol 100(5), pages 831-843. and Phillips, Peter C. B. and Jin, Sainan (2015), “Business Cycles, Trend Elimination, and the HP filter,” Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 2005. 8      Granger causality refers to a statistical technique developed by Clive Granger, the 2003 Nobel Laureate in Economics, which is used to determine whether one variable can be said to have caused (or predicted) another variable, given the past performance of each. Using standard econometric techniques, Granger showed one variable can be shown to have “caused” another, and that two-way causality also can be demonstrated (i.e., a feedback loop between the variables can exist based on the historical performance of each). 9      Please see “Oil, Copper Demand Worries Are Overdone,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 14, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Image ​​​​​​​

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