Emerging Markets

Highlights Recent estimates by ship trackers put the loss of Iranian exports at close to 1mm b/d as of mid-September vs April levels. This loss is higher (and sooner) than our previous baseline expectation, and prompts us to raise our estimate of lost Iranian oil exports to 1.25mm b/d by November, when U.S. sanctions kick in. Venezuela still is close to collapse, but may avoid a complete meltdown with Chinese companies stepping in to safeguard the $50 billion loaned to the country's oil industry.1 We expect production to fall below 1mm b/d next year - to less than half its end-2016 level. With Fed policy likely to continue tightening into 2019 as oil prices surge, the odds of an equity bear market and recession arriving in 2H19 - vs our 2H20 House view - also increase. Our dominant scenario now includes a supply shock and higher prices in 1Q19, which is followed by a U.S. SPR release and price-induced demand destruction (Chart of the Week). As a result, we are raising the odds of Brent prices reaching or exceeding $100/bbl by as early as 1Q19, and lifting our 2019 forecast to $95/bbl. Energy: Overweight. U.S. refining capacity utilization remains close to 19-year highs. At 97.1% of operable capacity, it is within a whisker of the four-week-moving-average highs of 97.3% recorded in August, driven by strong product demand ex U.S. Base Metals: Neutral. The U.S. Treasury granted permission to Rusal's existing customers to continue signing new contracts with the aluminum producer. The announcement stopped short of a full removal of sanctions, which are set to come into effect on October 23. Precious Metals: Neutral. The strong trade-weighted USD continues to hold gold prices on either side of $1,200/oz. We remain long as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's Crop Production report forecasts record yields for corn and soybeans - 181.3 and 52.8 bushels/acre, respectively - which continues to weigh on prices. The bean harvest is expected to be a record. Feature Chart of the WeekBCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens BCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens BCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens With the loss of Iranian exports occurring faster and sooner than expected, and Venezuela remaining on the brink of collapse, senior energy officials from the U.S., Russia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) are going to great lengths to reassure their domestic consumers everything - particularly on the supply side - is under control. We are inclined to believe their comfort level re global oil supply is inversely proportional to the amount of reassurance they provide their domestic audiences. The more they meet and talk - particularly to the media - the more concerned they are. And right now, they're pretty concerned. Rick Perry, the U.S. Energy Secretary, held a presser in Moscow following his meeting with Alexander Novak, Russia's Energy Minister, saying the U.S., KSA and Russia can lift output over the next 18 months to compensate for the loss of exports from Iran, Venezuela, and other unplanned outages.2 That might be true, but the market's already tightening far faster and far sooner than many analysts expected. Covering a supply shortfall in 18 months does nothing for the market over the next few months, particularly with demand remaining robust (Chart 2) and OECD inventories falling (Chart 3). Since 2017, our factor model shows Brent prices have been supported by two factors acting simultaneously together: Chart 2Fundamentals Support Strong Prices Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Chart 3Inventory Draws Will Accelerate Inventory Draws Will Accelerate Inventory Draws Will Accelerate Strong compliance of OPEC 2.0 members to the coalition's production-cutting agreement, which reduced the OPEC Supply-and-Inventory factor's role, and The pickup in global oil demand, particularly in EM economies, which pushed our Global Demand factor up. These effects were partly counterbalanced by the rise in our non-OPEC Supply factor - driven by strong growth in U.S. shale-oil output - which became the largest negative contributor to price movements. Global demand's been strengthening since the end of 1H17 on the back of stellar EM income growth. This remains the fundamental backdrop to global oil for now. While our base case remains relatively supportive for oil prices, we are raising the odds of a price spike resulting from a supply shock as early as 1Q19 on the back of larger- and faster-than-expected Iranian export losses, and continued declines in Venezuelan production. Should this occur, we believe it would trigger a U.S. SPR release, and produce demand destruction at a rate that could be faster than historical experience would suggest (Table 1). This further tightens balances, and leads us to raise our 2019 forecast for Brent crude oil to $95/bbl on average, up from $80/bbl last month, with WTI trading $6/bbl below that (Chart 4). This forecast is highly conditional, given our assumptions re supply-side variables, a U.S. SPR release, and demand destruction estimates. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Chart 4BCA's Oil Balances Tighter BCA's Oil Balances Tighter BCA's Oil Balances Tighter Oil Balances Tighten As Supply Contracts In our monthly balances update, we are incorporating a sharply accelerated loss of Iranian export barrels to the market, which already is evident. Bloomberg this week reported its tanker-tracking service registered a decline in Iranian exports of close to 1mm b/d between April, when sanctions were announced, and mid-September.3 At this rate, the assessment by Platts Analytics last week that as much as 1.4mm b/d of Iranian exports could be lost by the time U.S. sanctions kick in November 4 appears more likely.4 However, to be conservative, we are building in a loss of 1.25mm b/d in our balances, and have it developing over the July - November period in increments of 250k b/d, instead of the November - February interval we assumed in last month's balances. We will monitor this situation and revise our estimates as new information arrives. Also on the supply side, we are assuming the U.S. SPR releases 500k b/d starting a month after Brent prices go over $90/bbl in March 2019. This is in line with the SPR's enabling legislation, which limits drawdowns to 30mm b/d over a 60-day period, after the President authorizes such action to meet a severe energy supply interruption. Lastly, we continue to carry supply constraints arising from the lack of sufficient take-away capacity to get all of the crude produced in the Permian Basin to refining markets in our models. To wit: We continue to expect 1.2mm b/d of supply growth from the U.S. shales, driven largely by Permian production, vs an earlier expectation of 1.4mm b/d of growth. We expect the Permian to be de-bottlenecked by 4Q19. We expect the Big 3 producers Secretary Perry expects to fill supply gaps in 18 months - the U.S., Russia, and KSA - to produce 10.83mm, 11.4mm and 10.4mm b/d in 2H18, and 11.79mm, 11.43mm and 10.4mm b/d next year, respectively. They will get some help from OPEC's Gulf Arab producers - i.e., the core OPEC producers (Chart 5) - but, supply will continue to fall/stagnate in most of the rest of the world, particularly in offshore producers (Chart 6). Chart 5While Core OPEC Can Increase Supply... While Core OPEC Can Increase Supply... While Core OPEC Can Increase Supply... Chart 6... 'The Other Guys' Output Stagnates Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl We also note the EIA and IEA have lowered their supply-growth estimates this month. The EIA this month reduced expected U.S. crude production growth by 210k b/d in 2019, and the IEA lowered its estimate of offshore production growth in Brazil from 260k b/d to just 30k b/d this year. These are non-trivial adjustments in a market that was tight prior to the downgrade in supply growth. Still, there are significant marginal disagreements on the supply side among the major data supporters (the EIA, IEA and OPEC), which can be seen in Table 2. Table 2Comparison Of Major Balances Estimates Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Demand Destruction Likely As Prices Spike In 1Q19 We expect the rate of growth in EM incomes and trade - a proxy for income - to slow slightly this year vs 2017, on the back of a strengthening USD. This will reduce the rate of growth in EM imports and the rate of growth in EM commodity demand, at the margin. However, y/y growth in EM incomes is expected to remain positive over the next 12 months in our baseline scenario, which will keep the level of commodity demand - particularly for oil and industrial metals - robust. This will drive global demand growth of ~ 1.6mm b/d this year, roughly unchanged from last month. Higher prices risk slowing next year's growth. This is where it gets tricky. An oil-supply shock occurring when global demand is strong most likely will produce a price spike, as we've been arguing for the past several weeks.5 This price spike, coupled with continued monetary-policy tightening by the Fed, raises the likelihood of demand destruction globally. Higher oil prices and a stronger USD act as a double-whammy on EM oil demand. The problem we have now is gauging the elasticity of oil demand, particularly in EM. Oil markets are fundamentally different now than at any point in the modern era - roughly beginning in the early 1960s with the ascendance of OPEC - because many big oil-importing EM economies removed or relaxed subsidies following the prices collapse of 2014 - 2016. Prominent among these states are China and India. OPEC states also took advantage of the price collapse to relax or remove subsidies, e.g., KSA.6 The price shock we anticipate, therefore, will be the first in the modern era in which EM consumers - the principal driver of oil demand in the world, accounting for roughly 70% of the demand growth we expect - are exposed directly to higher prices. How quickly they will respond to higher prices is unknown. For this reason, we're introducing what we consider a reasonable first approximation of how EM demand might respond to higher prices and a stronger USD into the scenarios we include in our ensemble forecast (Chart 7). As a first approximation - subject to at least monthly adjustment, as more data become available - we are modeling a 100k b/d loss of demand for every $10/bbl increase in crude oil prices.7 We will continue to iterate on this as new information becomes available. Chart 7Ensemble Scenarios Reflect New Risks Ensemble Scenarios Reflect New Risks Ensemble Scenarios Reflect New Risks Bottom Line: We've raised the odds of a supply shock in the oil markets that takes Brent prices to or through $100/bbl by 1Q19. Should this occur, we expect it will be met by a U.S. SPR release of 500k b/d a month after prices breach $90/bbl. This price spike will set off a round of demand destruction, which we expect will be quicker than history would suggest, given many large EM oil-consuming states have relaxed or eliminated fuel subsidies, leaving their consumers exposed to the price shock. This will be exacerbated by a stronger USD going forward, as the Fed likely looks through the price spike and continues with its policy-rate normalization. In this scenario, a U.S. recession could arrive in 2H19 vs our House view of 2H20 or later. In addition, we would expect an equity bear market to ensue sooner than presently anticipated. We recommend using Brent call spreads to express the view consistent with our research. At tonight's close, we will go long April, May and June 2019 calls struck at $85/bbl and short $90/bbl calls. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Venezuela hands China more oil presence, but no mention of new funds," published by reuters.com September 14, 2018. 2 U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry made this claim at a press conference after meeting with Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak last Friday. Please see "Big Three oil states can offset fall in Iran supplies: Perry," published by reuters.com September 14, 2018. 3 Please see "Saudi Arabia Is Comfortable With Brent Oil Above $80," published by bloomberg.com September 18, 2018. 4 Please see "OPEC crude oil production rises to 32.89 mil b/d in Aug as cuts unwind: Platts survey" published by SP Platts Global September 6, 2018. 5 Please see "Oil-Supply Shock, Rising U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report on September 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. For a discussion of the effect of a stronger USD on global oil demand, please see "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk," published by the Commodity & Energy Strategy August 23, 2018. 6 Please see the Special Focus in the World Bank's January 2018 Global Economic Prospects entitled "With The Benefit of Hindsight: The Impact of the 2014 - 16 Oil Price Collapse," beginning on p. 49. 7 In this simulation, we employ an iterative one-step-ahead forecasting methodology that reduces demand by 100k b/d for every $10/bbl increase in prices. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018 Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl

Highlights The Trump administration's decision to effectively tariff the second round of imports at 25% materially raises the odds of another significant uptick in Chinese financial market volatility. Even if China ramps up its stimulus efforts in response, the lesson of the 2014-2016 episode is that investors are likely to wait for earnings clarity before buying stocks aggressively. Stay neutral China, at best, relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. We have a contrarian view about Chinese corporate bonds, and recommend holding a long but diversified position over the coming 6-12 months. Feature Chart 1The RMB Is Acting As A "Panic Barometer" ##br##For Domestic Stocks The RMB Is Acting As A "Panic Barometer" For Domestic Stocks The RMB Is Acting As A "Panic Barometer" For Domestic Stocks The Trump administration finally announced its decision this week on the second round of tariffs on Chinese imports, essentially applying a 25% rate. While the rate will initially start at 10%, it will rise to 25% by the end of the year, and the administration has threatened to immediately seek public consultation on tariffs on all remaining imports from China if the country retaliates against the second round (which was announced yesterday). With news reports having suggested that China would reject new trade talks merely if the second round moves forward, the prospect of a breakthrough in negotiations seems dim, at best. We have highlighted in past reports that the RMB has acted as a panic barometer for domestic equities (Chart 1), as evidenced by the recent spike in the correlation between the two. During this period, the percent decline in CNY-USD seems to have closely followed the magnitude of proposed tariffs as a percent of Chinese exports to the U.S., as would be implied in a simple open economy model with flexible exchange rates. Based on this framework, Chart 2 suggests that the RMB may come under considerable further market pressure, even if investors only assume a 10% rate on the third round of tariffs. A break above the psychologically-important level of 7 for USD-CNY appears likely barring a major intervention from the PBOC, suggesting that a meaningful uptick in Chinese financial market volatility is forthcoming. Chart 2USDCNY = 7 Is Likely To Be Breached Barring Strong Action From The PBOC USDCNY = 7 Is Likely To Be Breached Barring Strong Action From The PBOC USDCNY = 7 Is Likely To Be Breached Barring Strong Action From The PBOC Stimulus To The Rescue? Given that Chinese policymakers have signaled their willingness to stimulate in response to a negative external environment, some investors have argued that China is actually about to enter a mini-cycle upswing. For now, two points suggest that this conclusion is premature: A 10% tariff rate on all remaining imports from China would imply close to $90 billion in tariffs collected, once the second round rate rises to 25%. As noted above, a simple equilibrium exchange rate framework would imply material further weakness in the RMB to counter protectionism of this magnitude. Besides heralding a further selloff in Chinese stocks, this could lead to competitive currency devaluation amongst China's largest trading partners, a "beggar-thy-neighbor" policy that tends to exacerbate rather than alleviate shocks to aggregate demand. As we have noted numerous times over the past year, China's old economy was slowing in the lead up to the U.S./China trade war, and it is not yet clear whether the announced stimulus will generate enough "lift" to convince investors that the low in economic activity is behind them. Chart 3 shows that the August rise in adjusted total social financing as a share of GDP was extremely muted, and that there is no sign yet of a pickup in government spending. Even if China ramps up its stimulus efforts in response to this week's decision from the Trump administration, Chart 4 highlights an important point for investors: there was a considerable lag between a policy response and the low in stock prices during the 2014-2016 episode (a lag that may re-occur today). The chart shows that despite an ongoing depreciation in the RMB and a rebound in our BCA leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, Chinese stock prices continued to decline for several months. This gap was caused by a lagged decline in earnings, and underscores that investors may ignore the current efforts by policymakers to stabilize the economy until clarity on the stability of earnings presents itself. Chart 3No Sign Yet Of##br## Major Stimulus No Sign Yet Of Major Stimulus No Sign Yet Of Major Stimulus Chart 4History Suggests Investors Need Both ##br##Stimulus And Earnings Clarity History Suggests Investors Need Both Stimulus And Earnings Clarity History Suggests Investors Need Both Stimulus And Earnings Clarity And for now, several signs point to potentially material downside risk for earnings: While the now considerably larger shock from U.S. tariffs has yet to impact the Chinese economy, trailing earnings growth has already peaked and has recently fallen below its trend (Chart 5, panel 1). Despite the recent deceleration in trailing earnings growth and the sharp decline in stock prices, analysts' 12-month forward growth estimates remain quite elevated (Chart 5, panel 2). This suggests that forward earnings could be vulnerable to a decline above and beyond what occurs to trailing earnings, as a full 1/3rd of the increase in the former since late-2015 has been due to very significant shift in growth expectations. The rise in trailing earnings over the past few years appears to be stretched, based the trend in profit margins (Chart 6). The chart highlights that 12-month trailing earnings have well surpassed sales since late-2016, causing margins to rise to their highest level on record and raising the risk of a significant mean-reversion in response to a meaningful economic shock. Net earnings revisions have done a good job at predicting inflection points in forward earnings growth over the past decade, and have recently fallen into negative territory (Chart 7). Chart 5Lofty Earnings Growth Expectations ##br##Are A Risk To Stocks Lofty Earnings Growth Expectations Are A Risk To Stocks Lofty Earnings Growth Expectations Are A Risk To Stocks Chart 6The Earnings Recovery Has Been Partly ##br##Reliant On A Margin Expansion The Earnings Recovery Has Been Partly Reliant On A Margin Expansion The Earnings Recovery Has Been Partly Reliant On A Margin Expansion Chart 7Earnings Revisions Herald ##br##Slowing Earnings Momentum Earnings Revisions Herald Slowing Earnings Momentum Earnings Revisions Herald Slowing Earnings Momentum It is true that some of the above-average levels for profit margins and 12-month forward growth expectations can be explained by the substantial rise in the share of the tech sector in the MSCI China index, whose constituents are significantly more profitable than ex-tech stocks, may have better longer-term growth prospects, and may be more immunized from the trade war with the U.S. Still, Chart 8 illustrates the high earnings hurdle rate for tech stocks over the coming year. Bottom-up analysts continue to expect tech stocks to grow their earnings more than 20% over the next 12 months, despite: Chart 8Are Chinese Tech Stocks Going To Be##br## Able To Grow Earnings 20+%? Are Chinese Tech Stocks Going To Be Able To Grow Earnings 20+%? Are Chinese Tech Stocks Going To Be Able To Grow Earnings 20+%? A poor economic outlook that is likely to impact consumer spending (even if households "outperform" the business sector), and The fact that tech sector net earnings revisions have fallen deeply into negative territory (panel 2). How should investors allocate capital within China in the middle of a trade war with the U.S? First, despite the fact that Chinese stocks have already fallen significantly from their early-January high, it is clearly too early to bottom fish either domestic or investable stocks. Stay neutral China, at best, relative to global stocks. Second, investors should certainly favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese equity universe. Currently, our low-beta equity portfolio includes industrials, telecom services health care, utilities, and consumer staples, but we update the portfolio weights at the end of every month. Third, as discussed below, investors should ignore the very bearish narrative towards Chinese corporate bonds, and hold a long but diversified position over the coming 6-12 months. Bottom Line: The Trump administration's decision to effectively tariff the second round of imports at 25% materially raises the odds of another significant uptick in Chinese financial market volatility. Even if China ramps up its stimulus efforts in response, the lesson of the 2014-2016 episode is that investors are likely to wait for earnings clarity before buying stocks aggressively. Stay neutral China, at best, relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. Chinese Corporate Bonds: A Contrarian Long Our analysis of the earnings risk facing equities suggests that it is probably still too early to buy Chinese stocks, but in our (contrarian) view there is still one pro-cyclical asset that investors should favor: Chinese corporate bonds. Headlines about defaults in China's corporate bond market continue to appear in the financial press, with concerns most recently focused on low recovery rates of defaulted issues.1 We last wrote about Chinese corporate bonds in June,2 and took a contrarian (i.e. optimistic) stance towards the market. In the meantime, our long China onshore corporate bond trade has continued to gain ground, and an analysis of the inferred credit rating of the market actually strengthens our conviction to stay long. One key element of the bearish narrative towards Chinese corporate bonds is the fact that investment-grade issues in the market are trading like junk. Table 1 highlights that this is largely true: the table presents the spread-inferred credit rating of the four major rating categories of the ChinaBond Corporate Bond Index, and shows that AAA bonds are trading on the border of equivalent maturity investment- and speculative-grade bonds in the U.S. Bonds rates AA+/AA/AA- in China are trading between lower-B and high-CAA, which is firmly in speculative-grade territory. However, in our view market participants are making a mistake when they assume that de-facto junk ratings on Chinese corporate bonds will translate into U.S. junk-style default rates on bonds over the coming 6-12 months (or, frankly, beyond). Chart 9 presents an estimate of the market-implied default rate for the four rating categories shown in Table 1, and suggests that investors are pricing in roughly a 1% default rate for AAA-rated corporate bonds and a 4-5% default rate for AA+/AA/AA-. Table 1Chinese Corporate Bonds Are Trading##br## Like Speculative-Grade Issues Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War Chart 9Allowing Market-Implied Default Rates##br## To Occur Would Be A Huge Policy Error Allowing Market-Implied Default Rates To Occur Would Be A Huge Policy Error Allowing Market-Implied Default Rates To Occur Would Be A Huge Policy Error There are two important factors to consider when gauging the validity of these expectations: Based on Moody's most recent Annual Default Study, the market's current expectations for Chinese corporate bond defaults are actually above the average historical one-year default rates for their inferred credit ratings. Average default rates almost never actually occur over a given 12-month period. Chart 10 highlights that default rates in the U.S. have a binary distribution that is almost entirely determined by whether the economy is in recession (not just slowing down). The late-1980s and the post-2015 environment have been exceptions to this rule, which in large part can be explained by industry-specific events (namely, a surge of energy-sector defaults due to a collapse in the price of oil). But the key point is that investors are likely to overestimate the actual default rate over a given 12 month period when assuming an average historical rate, unless the economy shifts from an expansion to an outright recession over the period. From our perspective, the combination of the market's default expectations and the fact that China is easing suggests an outright long position in Chinese corporate bonds is warranted over the coming year. In our judgement, there is simply no way that policymakers can allow default rates on the order of what is being priced in to occur, as it would constitute an enormous policy mistake that would risk destabilizing the financial system at a time when officials are attempting to counter the looming shock to the export sector. In fact, we doubt that China's typical policy of gradualism when liberalizing its economy and financial markets would allow default rates to rise from 0% to 5% over a year in any economic environment, particularly the current one. As a final point, Chart 11 highlights why a significant rise in the default rate is required in order for investors to lose money on Chinese corporate bonds. The chart shows the 12-month breakeven spread for the ChinaBond AA- Corporate Bond index, unadjusted for default. The breakeven spread represents the rise in yields that would be required for investors to lose money over a 12-month horizon (i.e. the yield change that exactly erases the income return from the position), assuming no defaults. Chart 10"Average" Default Rates ##br##Do Not Really Occur "Average" Default Rates Do Not Really Occur "Average" Default Rates Do Not Really Occur Chart 11A 2% Rise In Yields From Tighter Policy Is Not##br## Going To Occur Over The Coming Year A 2% Rise In Yields From Tighter Policy Is Not Going To Occur Over The Coming Year A 2% Rise In Yields From Tighter Policy Is Not Going To Occur Over The Coming Year The chart shows that AA- bond yields would have to rise approximately 215 bps over the coming year before investors suffer a negative total return, which would be an enormous rise that has a near-zero probability of occurring due of tighter monetary policy. As such, defaults (or the pricing of default risk) remains the only real credible source of potential capital loss from these bonds over the coming year. Our bet, with high conviction, is that holders of Chinese corporate bonds hold a put option that will prevent this from occurring. Bottom Line: Fade investor concerns about rising defaults, and stay long Chinese corporate bonds over the coming 6-12 months. We acknowledge that idiosyncratic risk is likely to be elevated for this asset class, and we recommend that investors take a diversified, portfolio approach when investing in China's corporate bond market. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, please see "In China, Less Than 20% Defaulted Bonds Have Been Paid Back" by Bloomberg News, August 27, 2018 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Shaky Ladder", dated June 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The recent improvement in China's housing data has been mainly driven by the central bank's direct lending to the real estate sector. This improvement is unlikely to last, as the authorities are scaling down this form of financing. Structural imbalances remain acute in the Chinese real estate market, and the path of least resistance is still down. Diminishing direct financing from the central bank, low affordability, slowing rural-to-urban migration, the promotion of the housing rental market and the government's continuing emphasis on clamping down speculation will all lead to weaker property sales over the next 12 months. Both weakening sales and tightening funding sources for real estate developers point to declining growth of property starts and construction. This will be negative for construction-related commodity markets (steel, cement, copper, aluminum and glass) and construction-related machinery. Stay neutral Chinese versus global stocks and favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese investable universe. Avoid Chinese property developers, though favor large versus small. Feature Chart 1Property Sales And Starts: Will Recent Growth Acceleration Continue? Property Sales And Starts: Will Recent Growth Acceleration Continue? Property Sales And Starts: Will Recent Growth Acceleration Continue? BCA's China Investment Strategy service has argued for the better part of the past year that China's old economy has been in the midst of a benign, controlled slowdown. Since then, our leading indicators have continued to deteriorate, and now China is facing a potentially significant shock to its export sector due to U.S. policy. This has caused many investors to focus on domestic demand, and whether there are any meaningful signs of improvement that could act as a reflationary bridge for the economy to weather the looming external shock. We have argued that housing has stood out as the best potential candidate for a domestic demand upturn and, at first blush, recent data suggests that a material uptrend in activity may be in the cards1 (Chart 1). However, in this report, we argue that the central bank's direct lending to the real estate sector has been the major force behind the recent improvement in the housing data, and will be unwinding. Barring new policy measures, the improvement is unlikely to last. What Has Driven Housing Sales? Chart 2Chinese Housing Monetization Policy: The Main Driver Of Property Market Since 2015 Chinese Housing Monetization Policy: The Main Driver Of Property Market Since 2015 Chinese Housing Monetization Policy: The Main Driver Of Property Market Since 2015 The growth acceleration in both floor space sold and floor space started, shown in Chart 1, warrants scrutiny of the Chinese property market. Will housing sales and starts growth continue to accelerate as it did in 2013 and 2016, or are the most recent gains just a temporary rebound? To answer this question, one needs to understand China's pledged supplementary lending (PSL) scheme, which refers to China's central bank's direct lending to the real estate market. In this report, we also use "housing monetization policy" as an interchangeable term to the "PSL scheme." Our research suggests that the central bank's PSL injections have been the major determinant of sales and prices in the Chinese real estate market over the past three years (Chart 2). The People's Bank of China (PBoC) injected 698 billion RMB in 2015 and 971 billion RMB in 2016 in the form of PSL injections into the real estate market as part of its attempts to revive the property market. The massive fund injection boosted floor space sold from a deep contraction in 2015 to a 30% year-over-year growth rate in 2016. This burst in sales volume drove up already-elevated housing prices even higher. In 2017, the government shrank the PSL amount by 35% and implemented other tightening policies to cool down the domestic property market. As a result, both property price growth and floor space sold growth decelerated significantly. Both floor space started growth and floor space sold growth bottomed last October as PSL injections re-accelerated again in November 2017. The most recent acceleration was also mainly because of the front-loaded PSL injection program, which was ramped back up 4.8% year-on-year in the first five months of 2018. In general, it takes several months for PSL lending to make its way into final purchase of properties. Clearly the PSL program has been responsible for boosting housing sales in the past three years. So, how does the PSL scheme work, and will it continue to boost property sales going forward? PSL = Housing Monetization Chart 3 illustrates how the PSL scheme works. The government designed the policy in 2014 with two objectives in mind: supplying sufficient funds for slum area reconstruction (also called shantytown redevelopment) and de-stocking the housing market. The PSL facility allows the PBoC to lend funds earmarked for slum area reconstruction to the three policy banks (China Development Bank, Agricultural Development Bank of China and Export-Import Bank of China) at very low interest rates. These policy banks in turn lend directly to local governments (mainly in tier-2 and smaller cities). Chart 3How Does Chinese Housing Monetization Scheme work? China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here? China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here? From there, to buy the land from slum owners, the local government can adopt one of three approaches: Give cash directly to slum owners in exchange for their land, and then the owners can go to real estate developers to buy properties; Use the funds to pay property developers for their existing housing inventories, and then use the purchased properties to exchange the land with slum owners; A combination of 1 and 2. This policy has empowered the PBoC to be able to inject a significant amount of liquidity directly into the Chinese property market. Consequently, the PSL scheme has boosted floor space sold as well as facilitated floor space started by providing more funds to real estate developers. The PSL program has been the main reason why housing inventories have dropped since 2015. Our calculations indicate that about 20% of floor space sold (in volume terms) in 2017 was due to the PSL facility designed for slum area reconstruction (Chart 4). Various reports have also suggested that, for some cities with strong monetization policies, this ratio has reached over 50%. Deposits and advance payments of property sales, which closely correlates with floor space sold, is the major source of funds available for real estate investment (Chart 5). It has contributed 30-40% of total fund growth every year in the past three years. Chart 4Housing Monetization: The Main Driver For Property Sales Since 2015 Housing Monetization: The Main Driver For Property Sales Since 2015 Housing Monetization: The Main Driver For Property Sales Since 2015 Chart 5More Property Sales = More Fund Inflows To Property Developers More Property Sales = More Fund Inflows To Property Developers More Property Sales = More Fund Inflows To Property Developers Last year, in RMB terms, PSL injections were equivalent to 94% of the annual increase in deposits and advance payments. Looking forward, while we do not think the government will completely halt the PSL scheme, we do believe the monetization scale is set to diminish considerably over the next 12 months: First, since this past June, when the central bank signaled it would restrict the scale of monetization, the year-over-year growth of PSL injections has already declined three months in a row with 36% contraction for the period from June-August from a year ago. Chart 6Destocking Is At Late Stage Destocking Is At Late Stage Destocking Is At Late Stage Second, in the government's 2018-2020 slum area reconstruction plan, the authorities aim to reconstruct 15 million units of flats. This year's goal is 5.8 million units, leaving 9.2 million units for the two years of 2019 and 2020 combined. Assuming an equal split of 9.2 million flats over the next two years, this will imply that the number of flats for the slum area reconstruction will decline to 4.6 million units in 2019, a 20% drop from this year's 5.8 million units. Third, the monetization policy has already successfully reduced residential inventories by 42% from their peak, based on the government's measure of property inventories (defined as completed and waiting for sale) (Chart 6). Lastly, if there had been no PSL scheme, the Chinese housing market and economy would have been much weaker. In this aspect, the policy was beneficial. However, it has had unintended consequences: The country's property bubble has become even more inflated. Overall, our view is that the authorities are likely to scale down the scheme. Bottom Line: Recent improvement in the housing data - mainly driven by the government's PSL scheme - is unlikely to last. The scale of housing monetization (i.e., PSL injections) will diminish. Structural Imbalances With diminishing tailwinds from the housing PSL program, will any other drivers emerge to boost floor space sales and started growth? We are quite pessimistic. Structural imbalances remain acute in the Chinese real estate market, suggesting the path of least resistance for the market is still down. The outlook for property sales growth Beyond the prospect of diminishing housing monetization over the next 12 months, structural factors including falling affordability, slowing rural-to-urban migration, demographic changes, the promotion of the rental market and the government's continuing emphasis on clamping down on speculation will all lead to weaker property sales. House prices in China remain extremely high relative to disposable income. Using the NBS 70-city residential average price, our calculation shows that it will take an average two-income household 11 years of disposable income to buy a 90-square-meter (equivalent to 970 square feet) house at current prices, much higher than the same ratio in the U.S. (Chart 7). With respect to the ability to service mortgage payments, on a 90-square-meter house with a 20% down payment, our calculations show that annual interest costs account for nearly half of average household disposable income levels (again, assuming a two-income household) (Table 1). Chart 7Poor Affordability For Chinese Home Buyers Poor Affordability For Chinese Home Buyers Poor Affordability For Chinese Home Buyers Table 1House Price-To-Income Ratios And Affordability China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here? China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here? A joint report released by the central bank and the finance department shows that the number of delinquent mortgages on housing provident funds2 - loans that are much cheaper than market mortgage loans - rose by 35% year over year last year, validating the extremely poor affordability of Chinese properties. The pace of urbanization is slowing (Chart 8). The number of individuals moving from rural areas to cities as a percentage of the urban population is decreasing. Net migration as a share of the urban population has fallen to 2% today. Overall urban population growth has slowed below 3%. The Chinese population is aging rapidly. The proportion of citizens who are over the age of 65 has risen from 8% of the population in 2007 to 11.4% as of last year, larger than the 10 to 19-year-old age group, which accounts for only 10.5% of the total population. Given Chinese life expectancy is currently at about 76 years, over the next 10 to 15 years the former cohort will leave a large number of houses to the latter cohort, most of whom will get married with high demand for shelter but likely little need to buy due to inheritance. This also indicates the number of second-hand properties available for either rent or sale will rise. The government is currently aiming to develop the domestic rental market. For example, the authorities are encouraging the private sector to convert excess office and commercial buildings and/or use currently empty apartments for housing rentals. President Xi Jinping's mantra that "housing is for living in, not for speculation" - proclaimed in December 2016 - remains the focal point of the government's current policies. Chart 8China: Slowing Pace Of Urbanization China: Slowing Pace Of Urbanization China: Slowing Pace Of Urbanization Chart 9Tightening Funding Sources For Chinese Property Developers Tightening Funding Sources For Chinese Property Developers Tightening Funding Sources For Chinese Property Developers The outlook for property starts growth Falling growth of sold area and the authorities' current de-leveraging focus all point to declining growth of floor space started. Real estate developers need funds to invest in and develop new buildings. Their main source of funds includes deposits and advance payments from property sales, bank loans, foreign investment (i.e., foreign borrowings and foreign direct investment), self-raised (i.e., equity financing), and capital raised through bond issuance. The government's current deleveraging focus has led to a sharp drop in bank loans and foreign investment for domestic real estate developers (Chart 9). In such an environment, developers have been facing increasing difficulty raising funds through issuing bonds - bond issuance both on- and offshore have plunged this year. Diminishing housing monetization will also slow fund growth from property sales. Hence, weakening sales and tightening financing sources available for investment entail floor space starts growth should decelerate. There are several signs suggesting unsustainability of the recent growth acceleration in floor space started. Excluding land purchases, real estate investment has showed contraction across the board - from construction and installation to equipment purchases (Chart 10). Despite the strong growth of floor space started, this may indicate the strength of actual construction activity of recent new starts has actually been weak due to slowing pace of construction because of lack of funds. Otherwise, strong floor space started growth should coincide with robust growth in non-land real estate investment. For projects under construction, completed floor space has also been in deep contraction across the board - from residential to commercial, office and others (Chart 11). This again signals that property developers are slowing the pace of construction. This could also be due to deficient financing. For the first seven months of this year, seven provinces (Jiangsu, Shandong, Hunan, Guizhou, Guangdong, Chongqing, and Fujian), which account for only about 40% of total national floor space started, contributed 80% of floor space started year over year growth. There were still 11 provinces experiencing contraction in floor space started so far this year. This suggests the breadth of the latest improvement in sales has been weak. Chart 10Real Estate Investment Ex. Land: Falling Across Board Real Estate Investment Ex. Land: Falling Across Board Real Estate Investment Ex. Land: Falling Across Board Chart 11Property Completed: Falling Across Board Property Completed: Falling Across Board Property Completed: Falling Across Board Moreover, for all these seven provinces, only this year floor space started growth has surpassed floor space sold growth (Chart 12). Chart 12AProperty Starts Growth Looks Shaky Property Starts Growth Looks Shaky Property Starts Growth Looks Shaky Chart 12BProperty Starts Growth Looks Shaky Property Starts Growth Looks Shaky Property Starts Growth Looks Shaky This raises questions on the sustainability of the recent growth acceleration in floor space started. Our bet is that the lagging relationship between floor space started and floor space sold is still valid. If our projection of weaker demand materializes, floor space started growth will likely soon fall back. Bottom Line: Structural imbalances in the Chinese real estate market point to a downtrend in both floor space sold growth and floor space started growth. Investment Implications From a macro perspective, it is unlikely that housing will act as a significant reflationary offset for the economy without a notable reversal on several policies described above (and then a lag for flow-through to real economy). This suggests that the primary trend for Chinese stock prices and CNY-USD remains captive to the ongoing U.S./China trade war. Stay neutral on Chinese stocks versus global equities and favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese investable universe. In addition, we can also draw the following investment strategy conclusions: Construction-related commodity markets (steel, cement, copper, aluminum and glass) and construction-related machinery may have more downside (Chart 13). As Chinese property developers' stocks are facing rising downside risks, we suggest avoiding Chinese property developers. However, China may have intense consolidation in its real estate market, so some large property developers may outperform. The fundamentals in the U.S. housing market are much better than in China. While rising U.S. interest rates could be a headwind for U.S. homebuilders' share prices, they stand to resume their outperformance versus Chinese property developers (Chart 14). Chart 13Commodities Prices Still Face Downside Risks Commodities Prices Still Face Downside Risks Commodities Prices Still Face Downside Risks Chart 14Chinese Property Developers Equities: More Downside Ahead Chinese Property Developers Equities: More Downside Ahead Chinese Property Developers Equities: More Downside Ahead Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports "Is China's Housing Market Stabilizing?", dated February 8, 2018, "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight", dated May 2, 2018, "11 Charts To Watch", dated May 30, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The housing provident fund is a long-term housing savings plan made up of compulsory monthly deposits by both employers and employees. It aims to help middle and low-income workers meet their housing needs. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights A sovereign debt default in Argentina is unlikely in the next 12 months, the primary reason being IMF financing. The peso and the stock market appear close to two standard deviations cheap. Consequently, it makes sense to argue that financial market adjustments in Argentina are probably advanced, and investors should avoid temptation to become more bearish. However, we are not yet comfortable taking unhedged bets. For fixed income and currency investors, we recommend the following relative positions: short Brazilian / long Argentine sovereign credit, and long Argentine peso / short Brazilian real. Feature Chart I-1The Argentine Peso Is Cheap The Argentine Peso Is Cheap The Argentine Peso Is Cheap Argentine financial markets have plunged dramatically, and the question is whether the country is heading into another sovereign default. Argentina has defaulted eight times and devalued its currency many times in the past 60 years. Hence, odds of a government debt default cannot be dismissed lightly. This is also a valid question, given that Argentina's foreign currency public debt stands at $220 billion, and that after the latest currency devaluation, it is equal to 71 % of GDP. Total public (foreign and local currency) debt stands at 87% of GDP. Yet, our assessment is that a sovereign debt default is not likely in the next 12 months because of IMF financing. The latter will be ready to increase the size of its funding to Argentina's current government, if needed, for both political and economic reasons. The IMF has a good working relationship with Argentine President Mauricio Macri's government, which is packed with orthodox economists who share the IMF's philosophies. Besides, the U.S. administration will welcome IMF financial support for Argentina, as it will not want the latter country to request credit lines from China, like it did under its previous government. Given that a sovereign debt default is likely to be avoided in the next 12 months before Macri's current term expires, should investors buy Argentine financial assets? On one hand, the currency seems to have become quite cheap - Chart I-1 illustrates that the peso's real effective exchange rate has plunged close to 40% below its fair value. On the other hand, both the near-term domestic outlook and broader EM dynamics remain risky. What Went Wrong? Argentina's woes this year have been due to excessive reliance on foreign financing as well as tardy fiscal tightening. The government had been delaying crucial fiscal tightening due to political considerations. Further, it used its access to global capital markets last year to raise an immense amount of foreign funds to finance its ballooning fiscal deficit. In particular, portfolio net inflows amounted to $35 billion in 2017 amid the buying frenzy in emerging markets (Chart I-2). Meantime, net FDI inflows were meager. The outstanding amount of portfolio debt securities and portfolio equity investment owned by foreigners has risen sharply since Macri's government came to power in December 2015 (Chart I-3). The most recent data points on this chart are as of the end of March 2018. Hence, they do not incorporate security liquidations that have occurred by foreigners since that time. Chart I-2Argentina: Heavy Reliance On##br## Foreign Portfolio Flows Argentina: Heavy Reliance On Foreign Portfolio Flows Argentina: Heavy Reliance On Foreign Portfolio Flows Chart I-3Securities Holdings By Foreigners Have ##br##Surged Since Macri's Election Securities Holdings By Foreigners Have Surged Since Macri's Election Securities Holdings By Foreigners Have Surged Since Macri's Election In brief, Macri's government relied on plentiful global portfolio flows into EM to finance the country's large fiscal deficit in 2016 and 2017. As soon as foreign portfolio inflows into EM reversed, Argentina immediately began to feel the punch. Some commentators blame the central bank for excessive money printing, and have recommended Argentina dollarizing its economy: i.e., adopting the U.S dollar.1 These accusations and recommendations are misplaced and misguided. In the short term, commercial banks have expanded their loans aggressively in the past 18 months (Chart I-4). This is what has contributed to the peso's plunge. The central bank was late to hike interest rates accommodating this credit binge and the collapse in the exchange rate value was the price to be paid for this mistake. From a structural perspective, however, local currency broad money (M3) supply in Argentina is not excessive at all. It is equal to mere 24% of GDP, which is a very low ratio compared to Turkey's 52%, Brazil's 90% and China's 240% (Chart I-5). Therefore, there has structurally been no excessive money creation. Chart I-4Private Credit Boom This Year Private Credit Boom This Year Private Credit Boom This Year Chart I-5Money Supply Is Not Excessive In Argentina Money Supply Is Not Excessive In Argentina Money Supply Is Not Excessive In Argentina The currency meltdown can be attributed to persistent hyperinflation that makes residents reluctant to hold and save in pesos. Inflation is a structural problem in Argentina, and it is not due to excessive demand, but rather due to lack of supply. Structural supply deficiency - the inability of the economy to produce goods and services efficiently - is the primary reason for structurally high inflation and large current account deficits. Each time demand recovers in Argentina, it can only be satisfied by ballooning imports and a widening current account deficit since domestic production/supply is weak. Chronic supply deficiency can be cured by structural reforms, though it will take years to show progress. It cannot be solved by fiscal and monetary policies within a year or two. Painful Adjustments Are In The Making In near term, the currency will remain volatile but over the next six months, it will likely find a floor because of the following. First, the nation's foreign debt obligations (FDO) will drop from $68 billion this year to $40 billion in 2019 (Chart I-6, top panel). This will alleviate pressure on the balance of payments that has been severe this year. Therefore, the outlook for foreign funding should improve over the next year. The negotiated new tranche from the IMF of about $30-35 billion will cover a considerable portion of Argentina's foreign funding needs over the next 16 months. If more funding is required, the IMF will likely provide it as well. Second, in the past year the government has already been reducing its primary fiscal spending - i.e. excluding interest payments on public debt (Chart I-7). The crisis has forced Macri's government to slash public expenditures more aggressively. In recent weeks alone the government announced cuts in several government ministries and raised taxes on exports of agricultural goods. Overall, the primary deficit target for 2019 has been revised in from -1.3% of GDP to a balanced budget (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Argentina: Lower Foreign Debt ##br##Obligations Due Next Year Argentina: Lower Foreign Debt Obligations Due Next Year Argentina: Lower Foreign Debt Obligations Due Next Year Chart I-7Argentina: Government Spending Has##br## Been Substantially Curtailed Argentina: Government Spending Has Been Substantially Curtailed Argentina: Government Spending Has Been Substantially Curtailed Chart I-8Argentina: No Primary ##br##Fiscal Deficit In 2019 Argentina: No Primary Fiscal Deficit In 2019 Argentina: No Primary Fiscal Deficit In 2019 The key risk to this target is government revenues that may underwhelm because the economy is in a major recession. If this occurs, additional spending cuts are likely. This is bad for the economy, but if the government implements these expenditure cuts it will be positive for the currency and government creditors. Third, the current account and trade balances will improve in the next 12 months as the peso's plunge and higher interest rates are already crashing domestic demand and imports (Chart I-9). Imports of both consumer and capital goods are already plunging, and total imports will likely drop by at least 30-35% in the next 12 months (Chart I-10). Finally, given the peso's 50% plunge this year, inflation is set to surge. Based on the regression of inflation on the exchange rate, consumer price inflation could reach 55% by year end (Chart I-11). This will impair household purchasing power - erode their income in real terms - as the government will likely maintain the growth ceiling of 13% for minimum wages in 2018. The minimum wage serves as a benchmark for wage negotiations nationwide. In real terms, wage diminution will reinforce a contraction in consumer spending. Chart I-9Argentina: Current Account Balance ##br##Was Unsustainably Wide Argentina: Current Account Balance Was Unsustainably Wide Argentina: Current Account Balance Was Unsustainably Wide Chart I-10Argentina: Imports Are##br## Set To Plummet Argentina: Imports Are Set To Plummet Argentina: Imports Are Set To Plummet Chart I-11Argentina: Inflation Will Surge##br## To About 50% Argentina: Inflation Will Surge To About 50% Argentina: Inflation Will Surge To About 50% In a nutshell, the unfolding crash in domestic demand will cap inflation next year. Bottom Line: A dramatic domestic demand retrenchment (a major recession) along with lower foreign debt obligations in 2019 will reduce the country's foreign funding requirements next year. Besides, the IMF will likely disburse the remaining $35 billion in the next 16 months. It will, in our opinion, also be disposed to providing additional funding to avoid a public debt default in Argentina in the next 12 months at least. In this vein, investors should be asking whether the peso and asset prices have become sufficiently cheap to warrant bottom-fishing. What Is Priced In? There is little doubt that economic growth and corporate profits in Argentina will be disastrous in the months ahead. Nevertheless, financial markets have already crashed and investors should be looking to make a judgment on whether the peso, equities and sovereign credit are cheap enough to warrant bottom-fishing. We have the following observations: Currency: The peso is about 40% below its fair value, according to our valuation model (Chart 1 on page 1). This model is built using the real effective exchange rate (REER) based on consumer and producer prices. Previous episodes of devaluation drove the peso's REER 40-55% below its fair value. Hence, there still could be up to 15% of downside in the REER or in the peso's total return adjusted for carry. However, from a big-picture perspective, the peso may not be too far from bottoming in real inflation-adjusted terms. This does not mean that the nominal exchange rate will appreciate. It entails that the peso will bottom in real terms or adjusted for the carry (on a total return basis). Stocks: The aggregate Argentine equity index has plunged by 60% in dollar terms, and bank stocks have dropped by 75% in dollar terms. As a result, our cyclically adjusted P/E ratio has fallen to 5 for the overall bourse and to 3 for bank stocks (Chart I-12A & Chart I-12B). Chart I-12AOverall Equities Are Cheap... Overall Equities Are Cheap... Overall Equities Are Cheap... Chart I-12B... As Are Bank Stocks ...As Are Bank Stocks ...As Are Bank Stocks Yet there might be a tad more downside before these cyclically-adjusted P/E ratios reach two standard deviations below their fair value. Furthermore, if we were to compare the magnitude of the crash in Argentine share prices relative to the Asian crisis (specifically, Thailand and Korea), there seems to be further downside in Argentine equities (Chart I-13). Sovereign credit: Argentine sovereign credit spreads have reached 850 basis points (Chart I-14, top panel), which is 450 basis points wider than the spread for the aggregate EM benchmark (Chart I-14, bottom panel), but they are still well below their 2013 highs. Clearly valuations are not yet sufficiently attractive in the credit space to warrant bottom-fishing. However, assuming our call that the IMF will do everything to preclude a public debt default, at least in the next 12 months, sovereign credit spreads may not widen excessively from current levels. Chart I-13There Is More Downside When Compared With Asian Crisis There Is More Downside When Compared With Asian Crisis There Is More Downside When Compared With Asian Crisis Chart I-14Sovereign Credit Spreads: Absolute And Relative To EM Sovereign Credit Spreads: Absolute And Relative To EM Sovereign Credit Spreads: Absolute And Relative To EM Investment Conclusions The peso and stock market appear close to two standard deviations cheap. Consequently, it makes sense to argue that financial market adjustments in Argentina are probably advanced, and that investors should avoid the temptation to become more bearish. For investors who own the currency, stocks, or sovereign credit, and can withstand further volatility, it likely makes sense to stay the course. Even though the economy has entered yet another major recession, investors should keep in mind that financial markets are forward looking and may have already priced in a major economic contraction. In the equity space, we will wait before recommending a long position in the overall market or in bank stocks, as disastrous corporate profits could produce a final down leg in share prices. Our negative view on EM risk assets also argues for being patient. In the sovereign credit space, we are not yet comfortable taking a unhedged absolute bet, and continue to recommend maintaining the following relative position: short Brazilian / long Argentine sovereign credit (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Argentina Versus Brazil: Sovereign Credit Spreads Argentina Versus Brazil: Sovereign Credit Spreads Argentina Versus Brazil: Sovereign Credit Spreads Relative to Argentina, Brazil's financial markets are expensive at a time when Brazil's macro fundamentals and politics are problematic. We discussed our view on Brazil in detail in our July 27, 2018 Special Report,2 and will not repeat it here. Our recommendation - from January 16th 2017 - of buying Argentine long-dated local currency bonds has incurred large losses. We are closing this position and opening a new trade going long the peso to earn the high carry at the front end of the curve. The high carry could provide enough downside protection. Yet we do not have strong conviction as to whether the peso has reached an ultimate bottom. Therefore, we recommend a relative currency trade: long Argentine peso / short Brazilian real. This trade has a 35% positive carry, and certainly the selloff in the Argentine peso is far more advanced than that of the real. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to Wall Street Journal article entitled: Argentina Needs to Dollarize, dated September 10th 2018. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: Faceoff Time," dated July 27, 2018, available on page 18. South African Rand: Engulfed In A Downward Spiral? 13 September 2018 Chart II-1Risks Are To The Downside For The Rand Risks Are To The Downside For The Rand Risks Are To The Downside For The Rand From the beginning of 2016 to early 2018, the South African rand enjoyed various tailwinds: rising metal prices, an improving trade balance, strong foreign portfolio inflows and lastly, hopes that the new president Ramaphosa would implement structural reforms, in turn enhancing the country's structural backdrop. These tailwinds have turned into headwinds since early this year and seem likely to persist. Hence, we believe the rand will remain in a downward spiral for now. First and foremost, metal prices have been under serious downward pressure. Typically, they correlate with the South African rand. Chart II-1 illustrates our new indicator for the rand, which is calculated as the annual growth rate in metal prices minus South Africa's broad money (M3) impulse. When the indicator drops below zero, like it has done recently, the rand tends to sell-off. In short, the bear market in the rand is not yet over. The broad money impulse in this indicator serves as a proxy for underlying domestic demand, and hence, import growth. Also, we use the average of the Goldman Sachs industrial and precious metal price indexes for metal prices. The latter is used as a proxy for export growth. Worryingly, not only export prices are plummeting but export volumes are also weak and mining production is contracting (Chart II-2). As a result, the trade and current account deficits will widen again. Chart II-3 illustrates that the rand depreciates when the annual change in trade balance turns down. It will be difficult for South Africa to finance its widening trade and current account deficits given the poor global backdrop and the slowing fund flows to EM. Since 2013, foreign capital inflows have by and large been comprised of volatile portfolio inflows rather than stable foreign direct investments (Chart II-4). Presently, the gap between the two stands at its widest in history. Additionally, foreign ownership of domestic bonds remains extremely elevated. Our big picture view is that the liquidation in EM financial markets will persist and foreign investors in South African domestic bonds will be under pressure to reduce their holdings or hedge their currency risk exposure. Chart II-2Mining Output ##br##Is Shrinking Mining Output Is Shrinking Mining Output Is Shrinking Chart II-3Trade Balance Momentum Points ##br## To Currency Depreciation Trade Balance Momentum Points To Currency Depreciation Trade Balance Momentum Points To Currency Depreciation Chart II-4Excessive Reliance On ##br##Foreign Portfolio Inflows Excessive Reliance On Foreign Portfolio Inflows Excessive Reliance On Foreign Portfolio Inflows Politics served as a justification for investors to buy South African risk assets at the start of the year. We downplayed that optimism back then and still remain negative on politics today. Ramaphosa has recently endorsed a constitutional change that would allow the confiscation of land without compensation. Whether this policy will actually materialize and get implemented is impossible to know. That said, as outlined in our June 28 2017 Special Report entitled South Africa: Crisis of Expectations,3 our fundamental political analysis suggests that the median voter in South Africa will continue favoring populism. As such, populist policies are likely to continue being proposed to appease the ANC base, and some of them might be implemented. Constant pressure on the ANC from South Africa's far-left political party Economic Freedom Fighters, before next year's election, entails a very low likelihood that painful structural reforms will be enacted. As such, the productivity outlook will remain poor for now. On the fiscal front, there has been little to no improvement since Ramaphosa assumed office in February of this year (Chart II-5). In terms of valuation, South African risk assets are not particularly attractive at the moment. The rand is not very cheap (Chart II-6) and neither are equities (Chart II-7). Odds are that the rand will become as cheap as in 2015 based on its real effective exchange rate - before a bottom is reached. Chart II-5There Has Been No Improvement##br## In Fiscal Accounts There Has Been No Improvement In Fiscal Accounts There Has Been No Improvement In Fiscal Accounts Chart II-6The Rand Will Likely Get ##br##Cheaper Before It Bottoms The Rand Will Likely Get Cheaper Before It Bottoms The Rand Will Likely Get Cheaper Before It Bottoms Chart II-7South African Equities##br## Are Not Cheap Yet South African Equities Are Not Cheap Yet South African Equities Are Not Cheap Yet Putting all these factors together, the path of least resistance for South African risk assets is down. We recommend EM dedicated equity and fixed-income (both local currency and sovereign credit) investors to maintain an underweight allocation on South Africa. We also continue recommending shorting general retailer stocks. For currency traders, we suggest maintaining the following trades: short ZAR vs. USD and short ZAR vs. MXN. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy & Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The U.S. midterm elections are far less investment-relevant than consensus holds; Trump will increase the pressure on China and Iran regardless of the likely negative election results for the GOP; The Iranian sanctions, civil conflict in Iraq, and other oil supply issues are the real geopolitical risk; Despite the tentative good news on Brexit, political uncertainty in the U.K. makes now a bad time to buy the pound; Go long Brent crude / short S&P 500; long U.S. energy / tech equities; long JPY / short GBP. Feature The U.S. political cycle begins in earnest after Labor Day. Understandably, we have noticed an uptick in client interest, with a steady stream of questions and conference call requests about U.S. politics. Generally, our forecast remains unchanged since our April net assessment of the upcoming midterm election.1 Democrats have a slightly better than 60% probability of winning the House of Representatives, with a solid 45% probability of taking the Senate, and rising. The latter is astounding, given that the "math" of the Senate rotation is against the Democrats. Our bias toward a Democratic victory is based on current polling (Chart 1) and President Trump's woeful approval rating (Chart 2). There are a lot of other moving parts, however, and we will update them next week in detail. Chart 1GOP Trails In Polls, But It Is Still Close GOP Trails In Polls, But It Is Still Close GOP Trails In Polls, But It Is Still Close Chart 2Trump's Approval Rating Lines The GOP Up For Steep Losses Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit But why, dear client, should you care? Do the midterms really matter for investors? History suggests that they tend to be a bullish catalyst for the stock market (Chart 3). Will this time be any different? The two bearish narratives hanging over markets have to do with the Democrats foiling President Trump's pro-business policy and impeaching him. The former would purportedly have a direct impact on earnings by stymieing Trump's pluto-populist agenda, while the latter would presumably force Trump to seek relevance abroad - through an aggressive foreign policy or trade policy. We think both concerns are without merit. First, by taking over the House of Representatives, the Democrats will not be able to stop or reverse the president's economic agenda. Trump's deregulation will continue, given that regulatory affairs are the sole prerogative of the executive branch of government. Tax cuts will not be reversed, given that Democrats have no chance of gaining a 60-seat, filibuster-proof, majority in the Senate, and would not have a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override Trump's veto. As for fiscal stimulus, it is highly unlikely that the party of the $15 minimum wage and "Medicare for all" would seek to impose fiscal discipline on the nation. As far as the market is concerned, President Trump has accomplished all he needed to accomplish. Gridlock is perfectly fine, which is why a divided Congress has not stopped bull markets in the past (Chart 4). And should the Republicans somehow retain Congress, the result would be a "more of the same" rally. Chart 3Midterm U.S. Elections Tend To Be Bullish... Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Chart 4... Even Those That Produce Gridlock Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit What about impeachment? Well, what about it? As we have illustrated in our net assessment of the impeachment risk, the Senate is not likely to convict Trump, so markets can look through it, albeit with bouts of volatility (Chart 5A & 5B).2 Chart 5AMarkets Can Rally Through Impeachment... Markets Can Rally Through Impeachment... Markets Can Rally Through Impeachment... Chart 5B...Despite Volatility ...Despite Volatility ...Despite Volatility To this our clients counter: "But Trump is different!" According to this theory, President Trump would respond to the threat of impeachment by becoming unhinged and seeking relevance abroad through an aggressive foreign and trade policy. But can he be more aggressive than ... Threatening nuclear war with North Korea; Re-imposing an oil embargo against Iran - and thus unraveling the already shaky equilibrium in the Middle East; Imposing tariffs on half, possibly all, U.S. imports from China; Threatening additional tariffs on U.S. allies like Canada, the EU, and Japan? More aggressive than that? We are agnostic towards the upcoming midterm elections. We already have a deeply alarmist view towards U.S. foreign policy posture vis-à-vis Iran3 and U.S. trade policy vis-à-vis China,4 both of which we have articulated at length. The midterm elections factor very little in our analysis of either. As such, they are a non-diagnostic variable. The outcome of the vote is a red herring. President Trump will seek relevance abroad whether or not his Republican Party holds the House and Senate. In fact, we believe that the midterms are a distraction. Investors have already forgotten about Iran (Chart 6), at a time when global oil spare capacity is falling (Chart 7). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is forecasting Brent to average $80/bbl in 2019, but prices would easily reach $120/bbl in a case where all three pernicious scenarios occur (shale production bottlenecks, Venezuela export collapse, and Iran sanctions).5 Chart 6Nobody Is Paying Attention To Iranian Supply Risk! Nobody Is Paying Attention To Iranian Supply Risk! Nobody Is Paying Attention To Iranian Supply Risk! Chart 7Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin These figures are alarming. But they could become even worse if our Q4 Black Swan - a Shia-on-Shia civil war in Iraq - manifests. The end of the U.S.-Iran détente has put the tenuous geopolitical equilibrium in Iraq on thin ice.6 Since our missive on this topic last week, the violence in Basra has intensified, with rioters setting the Iranian consulate alight. Investors were largely able to ignore the Islamic State insurgency in Iraq because it occurred in areas of the country that do not produce oil. A Shia-on-Shia conflict, however, would take place in Basra. This vital port exports 3.5 bpd. Any damage to its facilities, which is highly likely if Iran gets involved in the conflict, would instantly become the world's largest supply loss since the first Gulf War (Chart 8). Bottom Line: Our message to clients is that midterm elections are far less investment-relevant than is assumed. President Trump has already initiated aggressive foreign and trade policy. We expect the White House to intensify the pressure on Iran and China regardless of the outcome of the midterm election. And we also expect the Democratic Party to be unable to stop President Trump on either front, should it gain a majority in the House of Representatives. The truly underappreciated risk for investors is a massive oil supply shock in 2019 that comes from a combination of instability in Venezuela, aggressive U.S. enforcement of the oil embargo against Iran, and Iran's retaliation against such sanctions via chaos in Iraq. We are initializing a long Brent / short S&P 500 trade, as well as a long energy stocks / short tech trade, as hedges against this risk (Chart 9). Chart 8Civil Unrest In Basra Would Be Big Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Chart 9Two Hedges We Recommend Two Hedges We Recommend Two Hedges We Recommend Government Shutdown Is The One True Midterm-Related Risk There is a declining possibility of a government shutdown before the midterm - and a much larger possibility afterwards. It is well known that the election odds favor the Democrats, but if there were ever a president who would do something drastic to try to turn the tables, it would be Trump. A majority in the House gives Democrats the ability to impeach. While we think the Senate would acquit Trump of any impeachment articles, this view is based on stout Republican support. A "smoking gun" from Special Counsel Robert Mueller - comparable to Nixon's Watergate tapes - could still change things. Trump would rather avoid impeachment altogether. Trump could still conceivably try to upset the election by insisting on funding his promised "Wall" on the border. The Republicans want to delay the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which would include any border security funding increases, until after the election (but before the new House sits in January). Trump has repeatedly threatened to reject his own party's plan, though he has recently backed off these threats. A shutdown ahead of an election would conventionally be political suicide - especially given the likely need for a federal response to Hurricane Florence. Moreover Trump's border wall is opposed by over half the populace. But Trump could reason that the greatest game changer would be a spike in turnout when his supporters hear that he is willing to stake the entire election on this key issue. Turnout is everything. The success of such a kamikaze run would hinge on the Senate. Assuming that Trump retained full Republican support to push through wall funding, as GOP incumbents frantically sought to end the shutdown, there would be 12 Democratic senators, in the broadest measure, who could conceivably be intimidated into voting with them (Table 1). These senators would have to decide on the spot whether they are safer running for office during a government shutdown or after having given Trump his wall. They may decide on the latter. Table 1A Government Shutdown Could Conceivably Intimidate Trump-State Democrats Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit This would total 63 votes in the Senate, enough to invoke "cloture," ending debate, and hence break any Democratic filibuster against proposed wall funding. But this calculation is also extremely generous to Trump. More likely, at least four of the twelve senators would refuse to break rank: Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Robert Menéndez of New Jersey, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. They would be averse to defecting from their party on such a consequential vote, even if eight of their colleagues were willing to do so.7 This is presumably why Mick Mulvaney, Trump's budget director, has already gone to Capitol Hill and "personally assured" the leading Republicans that Trump is not going to pursue a government shutdown.8 The legislative math doesn't really work. Nevertheless, there is still some chance that Trump - as opposed to any other president - will try this gambit. Especially as the loss of the House and potentially the Senate begins to appear "inevitable." After the midterm, of course, all bets are off. A lame duck Congress, or worse a Democratic Congress, will give President Trump all the reason he needs to grind things to a halt over his wall, with a view to 2020. The odds of a shutdown will shoot up. Do shutdowns matter for investors? Not really. S&P 500 returns tend to be flat for the first two weeks after a shutdown. Looking at eight past shutdowns, the average return was 1% fifteen days later, and 4.5% two months later. Bottom Line: We give a pre-election shutdown 10% odds due to Trump's unorthodoxy and desperate need to boost turnout among his voter base. Post-midterm election, a government shutdown is inevitable, unless congressional Republicans manage to convince President Trump to sign long-term appropriation bills before the election. Brexit: Is The Pound Pricing In Uncertainty? The U.K.-EU negotiations are entering their final, and thus most uncertain, phase. Our Brexit decision-tree looks messy and complicated (Diagram 1). While we believe that Prime Minister Theresa May has increased the probability of the sanguine "soft Brexit" outcome, there are plenty of pathways that lead to risk-off events. Diagram 1Brexit: Decision Tree And Conditional Probabilities Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Is the pound sufficiently pricing in this uncertainty? According to BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, which recently penned a special report on the subject, the answer is no.9 According to their long-term fair value model, the trade-weighted pound exhibits only a 3% discount - well within its historical norm (Chart 10). Chart 10Pound: A Much Smaller Discount On A Trade-Weighted Basis Pound: A Much Smaller Discount On A Trade-Weighted Basis Pound: A Much Smaller Discount On A Trade-Weighted Basis In order to assess the degree of political risk priced into the pound, one needs to isolate the risk of the U.K. leaving the EU. This is because all fair value models - including that of our FX team - are based on a potentially unrepresentative sample, one where the U.K. is part of the EU! The problem is that the traditional variables used to explain exchange rate movements were also greatly affected by the shock following the Brexit vote in June 2016. For example, looking at the behavior of British gilts, the FTSE, consumer confidence, and business confidence, one can see very abnormal moves occurring in conjunction with large fluctuations in the pound during the summer of 2016 (Chart 11A & 11B). Thus, if one were to regress the pound on these variables, one would not have observed a risk premium, even though the market was clearly very concerned with the geopolitical outlook for the U.K. Chart 11AAbnormal Moves Around The Brexit Vote... Abnormal Moves Around The Brexit Vote... Abnormal Moves Around The Brexit Vote... Chart 11B...Make It Hard To Spot Geopolitical Risk ...Make It Hard To Spot Geopolitical Risk ...Make It Hard To Spot Geopolitical Risk Our FX team therefore decided to try to explain the pound's normal behavior using variables that did not experience large abnormal moves in the direct aftermath of the British referendum. For GBP/USD (cable), the currency pair was regressed versus the dollar index and the British leading economic indicator (LEI). For EUR/USD, the currency pair was regressed against the trade-weighted euro and U.K. LEI. The reason for using the trade-weighted dollar and euro as explanatory variables is simple: it helps isolate the pound's movements from the impact of fluctuations in the other leg of the pair. Using the U.K. LEI helps incorporate the immediate outlook for U.K. growth and U.K. monetary policy into the pound's movement. The remaining error term was mostly a reflection of geopolitical risk.10 The results of the models are shown in Chart 12A & 12B. While the pound did show a geopolitical discount in the second half of 2016 (as evidenced by the abnormally large discount from the fundamental-based model), today the pound's pricing shows no geopolitical risk premium, whether against the dollar or the euro. This corroborates the message from the economic policy uncertainty index computed by Baker, Bloom, and Davis, which shows a very low level of economic policy uncertainty based on news articles (Chart 13). Chart 12ANo Geopolitical Risk Embedded... No Geopolitical Risk Embedded... No Geopolitical Risk Embedded... Chart 12B...In Today's Pound Sterling ...In Today's Pound Sterling ...In Today's Pound Sterling Chart 13Policy Uncertainty Index Muted Policy Uncertainty Index Muted Policy Uncertainty Index Muted Considering the thin risk premium embedded in the pound against both the dollar and the euro, GBP does not have much maneuvering room through the upcoming busy calendar. The problem for the pound is that the 5% net disapproval of Brexit among the British public remains smaller than the cohort of British voters who remain undecided (Chart 14). This means that domestic politics in the U.K. could remain a source of surprise, especially as Prime Minister Theresa May's polling remains tenuous (Chart 15). This raises the risk that Hard Brexiters end up controlling 10 Downing Street - despite their status as a minority within the ranks of Conservative MPs (Chart 16). Chart 14A Liability For Sterling A Liability For Sterling A Liability For Sterling Chart 15Theresa May's Tenuous Grip Theresa May's Tenuous Grip Theresa May's Tenuous Grip Chart 16Hard Brexiters Are A Minority Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit With the global economic outlook already justifying a lower pound, especially versus the dollar, the pound seems to be too risky of an investment at this moment. It is true that positioning and sentiment towards cable are currently very depressed, raising the risk of a short-term rebound (Chart 17). This could particularly occur if the EU meeting in Salzburg in two weeks results in some breakthrough. Such an event would still not resolve May's domestic conundrum, which is why we would be inclined to fade any such rebound. Bottom Line: On a six-to-nine-month basis, it makes sense to short the pound against the dollar and the yen. Slowing global growth hurts the pound but also hurts the euro while benefiting the greenback and the yen. The political environment in Japan, in particular, supports this reasoning. As we have maintained, Shinzo Abe is not going to lose the September 20 leadership election for the ruling party (Chart 18).11 And the Trump administration is not going to wage a full-scale trade war against Japan. However, after the leadership poll, Abe will press ahead with his agenda to revise the constitution, which will initiate a controversial process and stake his fate on a popular referendum that is likely to be held next year. Chart 17Fade Any Short-Term Rebound Fade Any Short-Term Rebound Fade Any Short-Term Rebound Chart 18Abe Lives, But Yen Will Rise Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit At the same time, Trump might try throwing some threats or jabs against Japan before his defense secretary and admirals are able to convince him that such actions subvert U.S. strategy against China. Therefore Japan-specific political risks are on the horizon, in addition to the ongoing trade war with China, which is already a boon for the yen. We are therefore initiating a long yen / short pound tactical trade. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Juan Manuel Correa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Associate ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," dated July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk," dated August 23, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply," dated September 5, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Burgess Everett, "Key red-state Democrat sides with Trump on wall funding," Politico, August 8, 2018, available at www.politico.com, and Ali Vitali, "Vulnerable Senate Democrats embrace Trump's wall," NBC News, August 13, 2018, available at www.nbcnews.com. 8 Please see Niv Elis and Scott Wong, "Trump again threatens shutdown," The Hill, September 5, 2018, available at thehill.com. 9 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing The Geopolitical Risk Premium In The Pound," dated September 7, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 10 To make sure the exercise was robust, Foreign Exchange Strategy tested the out-of-sample performance of the model. Reassuringly, the GBP/USD and EUR/GBP models showed great predictive power out-of-sample (see Appendix), while remaining significant and explaining 80% and 65% of the pairs' variations respectively. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead," dated February 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix: Traditional Variables Are Of Little Use To Isolate A Geopolitical Risk Premium Chart 19 Out-Of-Sample Testing Of Model (I) Out-Of-Sample Testing Of Model (I) Chart 20 Out-Of-Sample Testing Of Model (II) Out-Of-Sample Testing Of Model (II) Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights U.S. Treasuries: EM market declines have, so far, shown no signs of impacting U.S. economic growth. The underlying acceleration of U.S. growth and inflation in the face of the EM turmoil suggests that bond investors should remain strategically underweight U.S. Treasuries with a below-benchmark duration stance. EM Contagion: The current EM turmoil has not yet spilled over into U.S. financial markets, as occurred during the 2013 and 2014/2015 EM selloffs, because the U.S. economy is in a much stronger position now. It will take a bigger tightening of U.S. financial conditions, likely through higher U.S. interest rates and a larger increase in the U.S. dollar, before U.S. risk assets suffer the type of decline that could trigger a pause in the Fed rate hike cycle. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Following Inflation & QT, Not EM Bond Yields Following Inflation & QT, Not EM Bond Yields Following Inflation & QT, Not EM Have investors become too complacent? The selloff in emerging market (EM) assets is intensifying. The White House is threatening to slap tariffs on virtually all Chinese imports in the U.S. Accelerating wage and price inflation in the U.S. is keeping Fed rate hikes in play. The divergence between the strong U.S. economy and the rest of the world is growing wider, keeping the U.S. dollar elevated. Yet despite all that, non-EM markets show a surprising lack of concern over the EM volatility. U.S. equity indices remain close to all-time highs, while corporate bond spreads in the major developed markets are generally stable. Government bond yields remain well above levels implied by measures of economic sentiment like the global ZEW expectations index (Chart of the Week). For yields, the big issue remains, as always, the outlook for inflation and monetary policy. On that note, yields are being supported by inflation expectations, which have been boosted by faster realized inflation, tight labor markets and high oil prices. These trends are most pronounced in the U.S., where the Fed is not only hiking rates but also slowly reducing the size of its swollen balance sheet. This comes on top of the diminished pace of asset purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), with the former still on track to end its net new buying of bonds at the end of the year. Against that backdrop of rising inflation and tightening global liquidity conditions, it is incorrect to solely make comparisons between today and the most recent period of EM weakness in 2014/15 that eventually spilled back violently into non-EM markets and caused the Fed to pause after only its first post-QE rate hike. The current backdrop also has similarities to the 2013 "Taper Tantrum", when the Fed surprised the markets by signaling that it was considering ending QE, triggering a spike in Treasury yields and a selloff in global risk assets. Chart 2China Remains The Key To Global Growth China Remains The Key To Global Growth China Remains The Key To Global Growth Then, global growth was accelerating and inflation expectations were at levels consistent with policymaker targets in the U.S. and Europe, yet central bank liquidity was slowing rapidly (mostly due to a contracting ECB balance sheet at a time when the Fed's balance sheet growth had already slowed). EM markets sold off alongside the rapid rise in U.S. Treasury yields during the Taper Tantrum. Yet with global growth accelerating and the U.S. dollar staying relatively stable, the EM selloff ended when the Fed delayed the start of the taper into 2014, providing a monetary boost to a global economy that did not need it. Today, realized inflation is even faster and central bank liquidity is again slowing rapidly. Yet market-based inflation expectations are still a bit below central bank targets, while non-U.S. growth expectations are slowing. Worries about the impact on the world economy from the brewing U.S.-China trade war are clearly weighing on the latter. The wild card will be how China responds to the tariff threat through policy stimulus. Already, China's policymakers have allowed some depreciation of the renminbi, along with some modest easing of monetary and fiscal policies, to counteract the growth threat from the Trump tariffs. BCA's China experts do not expect anything close to the massive 2015/16 package of fiscal/monetary stimulus, given the stated goal of President Xi Jinping to crack down on systemic financial risk.1 Yet the most recent figures on Chinese import growth, and higher-frequency data incorporated in the Li Keqiang index, are showing some reacceleration after the 2017 slowdown (Chart 2). At the same time, the most recent data point on the OECD's global leading economic indicator is potentially stabilizing (middle panel). A continuation of these trends could help reverse the cooling of non-U.S. growth seen so far in 2018 (bottom panel). Given all the uncertainties surrounding the U.S.-China trade battle, EM volatility and Chinese growth - at a time when global QE has turned into "QT", or "quantitative tightening", with an associated reduction in global capital flows - we continue to recommend only a neutral stance on global spread product, favoring U.S. corporates vs non-U.S. equivalents (especially avoiding EM credit). We also are maintaining our strategic recommended underweight stance on overall developed market duration, but favoring countries where monetary tightening will be more difficult to deliver (overweight U.K., Japan and Australia versus underweight U.S., euro area and Canada). A Quick Update On U.S. Treasuries: Stay Defensive Chart 3Stronger U.S. Growth = UST Underperformance Stronger U.S. Growth = UST Underperformance Stronger U.S. Growth = UST Underperformance The main U.S. data releases last week, the ISM surveys and the Payrolls report for August, came as a big surprise for the U.S. Treasury market. The headline ISM Manufacturing index hit a 17-year high of 61, led by increases in both the growth and inflation sub-components of the index (Chart 3), while the U.S. economy added another 200k jobs. The big shock came from the wage data in the Payrolls report, with Average Hourly Earnings rising by 0.4% in August, pushing the year-over-year growth rate to 2.9%, the highest since 2009. The Treasury market responded to data as expected, with the 10-year yield rising back to 2.94%. One of our favorite chart relationships shows the ISM Manufacturing index as a leading indicator of the momentum (12-month change) of core CPI inflation in the U.S. (Chart 4). The recent acceleration of U.S. core inflation can be explained as a lagged response to the U.S. economic growth acceleration since the start of 2016. If the relationship in this chart holds up, the current levels of the ISM are consistent with core CPI inflation accelerating to the 2.5-3% range next year. That outcome would keep the Fed on its planned rate hike path in 2019. At the moment, the market pricing of Fed rate expectations in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve remains below the latest FOMC projections for the funds rate for the next two years (Chart 5). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate, which now sits at 2.1%, is still priced below the 2.3-2.5% levels that, in the past, have been consistent with inflation expectations staying well-anchored around the Fed's 2% inflation target. A combination of accelerating U.S. growth, faster wages, and a market that has not fully discounted the likely outcome for inflation and the funds rate is not a bullish one for U.S. Treasuries. We acknowledge that there could be a short-term flight-to-quality bid for Treasuries if the EM turbulence becomes more violent and finally spills over into the U.S. markets (likely through a rapid rise in the U.S. dollar). Yet without any signs of a meaningful slowing of U.S. growth or inflation, such a move would prove to be a short-lived trading opportunity rather than a true change in the rising trend for bond yields. Chart 4U.S. Inflation Acceleration Will Continue U.S. Inflation Acceleration Will Continue U.S. Inflation Acceleration Will Continue Chart 5Market Still Underpricing Fed Rate Hikes Market Still Underpricing Fed Rate Hikes Market Still Underpricing Fed Rate Hikes Bottom Line: EM market declines have, so far, shown no signs of impacting U.S. economic growth. The underlying acceleration of U.S. growth and inflation in the face of the EM turmoil suggests that bond investors should remain strategically underweight U.S. Treasuries with a below-benchmark duration stance. EM Turmoil, Then & Now, In Charts As discussed earlier, we see signs today of both of the most recent EM selloffs in 2013 and 2014/15 that were fueled by rising U.S. interest rates and a higher U.S. dollar. In the sets of charts beginning on Page 7 we present "cycle-on-cycle" analyses of several economic and financial indicators during those episodes, as well as this year. The charts are set up so that the blue lines represent the current EM selloff and the dotted lines in each panel represent how the same data series responded in 2013 (top panel of each chart) and 2014/15 (bottom panel of each chart). The vertical line represents the date of the trough in the U.S. dollar for each episode, which occurred in February 2018 for the current cycle. By looking at these charts, we can see how the current backdrop is evolving versus those prior episodes. The goal is to try to determine where things are similar, and different, to EM market declines in recent history. We are focusing on the areas where we believe there is the greatest concern over the potential spillovers from the current bout of EM stress - U.S. economic growth, Chinese economic growth and U.S. financial markets. We present the charts in a rapid "chartbook" format, with our overall conclusions at the end. Leading Economic Indicators: The OECD's leading economic indicator for the U.S. (Chart 6A) is currently off the high seen at the beginning of the year, following a path similar to 2014/15, but the latest data point has ticked higher. More importantly, the level is higher than at the same point in the 2013 and 2014/15 cycles. Meanwhile, the OECD (ex-U.S.) global leading economic indicator (Chart 6B) is following the depressed path of the 2014/15 episode, rather than the acceleration seen during the 2013 Taper Tantrum. Chart 6AU.S. Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path U.S. Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path U.S. Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path Chart 6BGlobal Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path Global Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path Global Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path U.S. Dollar: The rising dollar of 2018 (Chart 7A) looks more like the 2014/15 episode in terms of magnitude, although the greenback is at a lower level than during that earlier cycle (note that all lines are indexed to 100 at the date of the trough in the dollar at the vertical line). In 2013, the increase in the dollar was fairly mild, even with U.S. bond yields soaring higher, due to fact that non-U.S. growth was improving at the time. Chart 7AU.S. Dollar Following 2014/15 Path...So Far U.S. Dollar Following 2014/15 Path...So Far U.S. Dollar Following 2014/15 Path...So Far Chart 7BU.S. Investment Grade Returns Matching 2014/15 Path U.S. Investment Grade Returns Matching 2014/15 Path U.S. Investment Grade Returns Matching 2014/15 Path U.S. Corporate Bonds: The path of excess returns for U.S. investment grade corporate debt (Chart 7B) is tracking extremely tightly to the 2014/15 experience, with larger losses compared to this similar point during the Taper Tantrum. EM Equities & Credit: The widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign credit spreads in 2018 (Chart 8A) is in line with the 2014/15 cycle and has already surpassed the 2013 episode. The decline in EM equities (Chart 8B) has been worse than both prior EM selloffs. Chart 8AEM Equities Worse Than Both 2013 & 2014/15 EM Equities Worse Than Both 2013 & 2014/15 EM Equities Worse Than Both 2013 & 2014/15 Chart 8BEM Spreads Matching 2014/15 Path EM Spreads Matching 2014/15 Path EM Spreads Matching 2014/15 Path U.S. Interest Rates: Our 12-month fed funds discounter, which measures the amount of Fed rate hikes expected by the market over the next year, is higher than the 2014/15 episode and much higher than 2013 (Chart 9A). 10-year Treasury yields are at the same level as occurred at this point during the Taper Tantrum, and well above the levels seen in 2014/15 (Chart 9B). Chart 9AMore Fed Hikes Expected Than 2013 & 2014/15 More Fed Hikes Expected Than 2013 & 2014/15 More Fed Hikes Expected Than 2013 & 2014/15 Chart 9BUST Yields Following 2013 Path UST Yields Following 2013 Path UST Yields Following 2013 Path U.S. Labor Markets: Perhaps the biggest difference between the current backdrop and the prior EM selloffs is state of the U.S. labor market. The unemployment rate of 3.9% is much lower than the 5.6% rate seen during the 2014/15 cycle and the 7.6% level seen at this point during the Taper Tantrum (Chart 10A). That is translating to a faster pace of U.S. wage growth, measured by the annual percentage change in Average Hourly Earnings, than in either of the previous episodes of USD strength and EM turmoil (Chart 10B). Chart 10AMuch Lower U.S. Unemployment In 2018... Much Lower U.S. Unemployment In 2018... Much Lower U.S. Unemployment In 2018... Chart 10B...With Faster U.S. Wage Growth ...With Faster U.S. Wage Growth ...With Faster U.S. Wage Growth U.S. Inflation: Realized U.S. inflation, using core CPI, is higher now than in either of the previous episodes (Chart 11A). That can also been seen in the ISM Prices Paid index, which is far above the levels seen in both 2013 and 2014/15 (Chart 11B). Chart 11AHigher U.S. Inflation In 2018... Higher U.S. Inflation In 2018... Higher U.S. Inflation In 2018... Chart 11B...With Greater Inflation Pressures ...With Greater Inflation Pressures ...With Greater Inflation Pressures U.S. Economy: We can obviously show many charts here, but we think the most relevant are those related to signs that non-U.S. market turmoil and slowing growth is spilling back into the U.S. On that note, we show the ISM New Orders index in Chart 12A and the annual growth rate of total U.S. exports in Chart 12B. The New Orders index today is as strong as it was at this point during the Taper Tantrum, and much healthier compared to 2014/15 when New Orders were falling sharply. U.S. export growth is faster than both prior episodes, especially 2014/15 when exports contracted outright. Chart 12AStronger ISM New Orders In 2018... Stronger ISM New Orders In 2018... Stronger ISM New Orders In 2018... Chart 12B...With Healthier Export Demand ...With Healthier Export Demand ...With Healthier Export Demand China Economy: Again, we could use any number of data series in these charts, but we are keeping it simple and choosing indicators that show the impact of Chinese growth on the world economy. Chinese nominal GDP growth, currently at 9.8%, is the same as it was at this point in the 2013 cycle but much faster than during the 2014/15 period (Chart 13A). Importantly, however, China nominal GDP growth is decelerating now as it was in both of the prior episodes. Chinese annual import growth, up 19% in RMB terms, is faster now than in both prior periods of EM stress, especially compared to the contraction seen during the 2014/15 episode (Chart 13B). Chart 13AFaster, But Still Slowing, China GDP Growth Faster, But Still Slowing, China GDP Growth Faster, But Still Slowing, China GDP Growth Chart 13BStronger China Import Growth In 2018 Stronger China Import Growth In 2018 Stronger China Import Growth In 2018 U.S. Corporate Profits: Here is perhaps the biggest difference between today and the previous EM stress episodes. The annual growth in earnings-per-share for the S&P 500 rose to 18% in the 2nd quarter of this year, far above the zero growth rate seen at this point of the 2013 and 2014/15 cycles (Chart 14A). A big reason for the difference is the impact of the Trump corporate tax cuts this year, which has boosted operating margins well beyond levels seen in the prior two episodes (Chart 14B). Chart 14AFaster U.S. Profit Growth In 2018... Faster U.S. Profit Growth In 2018... Faster U.S. Profit Growth In 2018... Chart 14B...With Wider Margins Thanks To Tax Cuts ...With Wider Margins Thanks To Tax Cuts ...With Wider Margins Thanks To Tax Cuts EM Growth: An aggregate of EM Purchasing Managers Indices (PMIs) shows that the current bout of softer EM growth looks similar to the slowdowns in 2013 and 2014/15 (Chart 15A). In both prior cases, the PMIs eventually fell below 50, signifying economic contraction. In the 2013 episode, however, the PMI rebounded around the same point in the cycle as we are at today. Chart 15AEM Growth Slowing Similar To 2013 & 2014/15 EM Growth Slowing Similar To 2013 & 2014/15 EM Growth Slowing Similar To 2013 & 2014/15 Chart 15BU.S. Financial Conditions Tightening Like 2014/15 U.S. Financial Conditions Tightening Like 2014/15 U.S. Financial Conditions Tightening Like 2014/15 U.S. Financial Conditions: U.S. financial conditions are tighter now than the level seen at this point in the 2013 cycle and are as tight as witnessed at this point in the 2014/15 period (Chart 15B). After looking through all these charts, we can come up with the following conclusions: Chart 16Is It All Just "Q.T."? Is It All Just "Q.T."? Is It All Just "Q.T."? EM financial stress today is worse than 2013 and 2014/15 The U.S. economy is stronger today than in 2013 and 2014/15 U.S. external demand and corporate profits are both more robust today than in 2013 and 2014/15 U.S. inflation pressures are greater today than in 2013 and 2014/15 China's economy today, while slowing, is still growing faster than in 2013 and 2014/15 EM economic growth is slowing at the same pace as in 2013 and 2014/15. In terms of "benchmarking" where we are now compared to the previous two EM big EM selloffs, the fact that U.S. and Chinese economic growth is stronger today, and U.S. inflation is faster today, are the most important differences. This may even explain why U.S. markets are not reacting more negatively to the growing protectionist threats from the White house. Against this backdrop, it will require higher U.S. interest rates and a much stronger dollar before U.S. equities and credit markets finally suffer a serious pullback. In the end, though, the fact that U.S. and Chinese growth is better today does not suggest that a cautious investment stance is unwarranted. For the best correlation can be seen in our final chart (Chart 16), which shows the growth rate of the major developed market central bank balance sheets as a leading indicator of EM equity returns and developed market credit returns (and as a coincident indicator of government bond yields). If one were to only look at this chart, the weaker returns from global risk assets in 2018 can be fully explained by "quantitative tightening" and the resulting pullback in risk-seeking global capital flows compared the 2016/17. Bottom Line: The current EM turmoil has not yet spilled over into U.S. financial markets, as occurred during the 2013 and 204/15 EM selloffs, because the U.S. economy is in a much stronger position now. It will take a bigger tightening of U.S. financial conditions, likely through higher U.S. interest rates and a larger increase in the U.S. dollar, before U.S. risk assets suffer the type of decline that could trigger a pause in the Fed rate hike cycle. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report, "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?", dated August 8th 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and cis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index EM Contagion? Or Just Q.T. On The QT? EM Contagion? Or Just Q.T. On The QT? Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Last week's View Meeting underlined the point that BCA's take on the macro backdrop hasn't changed. Decelerating global growth and the potential for a nasty EM debt episode still argue for slightly cautious asset allocation. Global desynchronization is in full swing, with the U.S. leading the other major DM economies by a wide margin. The growth disparity will be dollar-positive while it lasts, but the deteriorating U.S. budget position will weigh on the dollar in the long run. S&P 500 performance across the earnings cycle reveals that decelerating earnings growth is not a problem for stocks as long as earnings are still growing year-on-year. Acceleration beats deceleration, but peaking earnings growth is not a signal to trim equity exposures. The U.S. is not impervious to a meaningful EM credit event, but its direct exposures are very limited. Post-crisis banking regulations have meaningfully reduced the banking system's vulnerabilities and make it very unlikely that another LTCM-like event might occur. Feature BCA researchers convened last week for our monthly View Meeting with the explicit goal of taking stock of our strategy teams' macro views. The nine-year-plus U.S. expansion is well advanced, and we are carefully monitoring the business cycle, the credit cycle, and the policy cycle for early warning of inflections in the rates, credit, and equity markets. In addition to the regular cyclical movements, we also have to gauge the impact of the ongoing reversal of extraordinary monetary accommodation and a raft of geopolitical issues. The investment outcome of the many crosscurrents continues to be subject to spirited debate, but the warily constructive house view, in place since mid-June, was not challenged. Decelerating global growth was a key driver of our June downgrade to neutral on equities. The U.S. economy may be surging as two years of fiscal stimulus makes its presence felt, but the other major developed-world economies are softening, and the emerging-market bloc faces considerable pressure. Although the S&P 500 has since made new highs (Chart 1, top panel), the MSCI All-Country World Index ("ACWI") has gone nowhere (Chart 1, second panel). Within the ACWI, DM equities (Chart 1, third panel), have handily outperformed struggling EM equities (Chart 1, bottom panel). We continue to expect more of the same. Tax cuts will keep corporate profits growing at better than 20% for the rest of the year, and federal spending will boost the U.S. economy through the end of 2019. The pickup in aggregate demand will strain dwindling spare capacity, feeding inflation pressures, and keeping the Fed from easing up on its rate-hiking campaign. A resolute Fed will ratchet up the pressure on EM borrowers, while increasing trade barriers pose a headwind for the many DM and EM economies that are more open than the U.S. Chinese policymakers could provide some respite to the global economy, but our China and EM strategists aren't counting on it. Easing monetary and/or fiscal policy would run counter to the Party's ongoing deleveraging and anti-corruption campaigns (Chart 2). Though China's rulers have demonstrated a tendency to overreact when acting to offset adverse economic events, our in-house experts think conditions will have to get a good bit worse to provoke meaningful stimulus of any sort. The strike price on a Chinese policy put may be considerably out of the money. Chart 1So Far, So Good So Far, So Good So Far, So Good Chart 2Will They Swim Against The Tide? Will They Swim Against The Tide? Will They Swim Against The Tide? Bottom Line: Overindebtedness, rising trade barriers, and a U.S. economy with the potential to overheat will keep the pressure on the EM bloc and cast a shadow over global growth. The Chinese policy cavalry may not feel any particular urgency to ride to the rescue. Leading The Pack There was no dispute about the U.S. growth outlook, absolute or relative. The U.S. economy is flying high, and will continue to outdistance its DM peers for the rest of this year and next. S&P 500 EPS growth will maintain its better than 20% pace in the third and fourth quarters. Next year's 10% consensus may be ambitious, given that this year's dollar appreciation probably hasn't shown up in earnings data, but corporate management teams have not yet expressed much in the way of dollar concerns. Decoupling cannot go on forever in the 21st-century global economy, but the comparatively closed U.S. economy has room to run in the near term. Last week's August ISM Manufacturing survey reached a 14-year high while the global PMI continued to hook lower (Chart 3). The gap between the U.S. LEI index and the global ex-U.S. LEI index has been widening for over a year (Chart 4), and would seem to herald additional dollar strength (Chart 4, bottom panel). Our corporate earnings models see U.S. EPS growth widening its lead on Europe and Japan over the rest of the year (Chart 5). Chart 3You Go Your Way And I'll Go Mine You Go Your Way And I'll Go Mine You Go Your Way And I'll Go Mine Chart 4Dollar Strength... Dollar Strength... Dollar Strength... Chart 5...Hasn't Gotten In Earnings' Way Yet ...Hasn't Gotten In Earnings' Way Yet ...Hasn't Gotten In Earnings' Way Yet Bottom Line: The U.S. is outgrowing its developed market peers, and there is nothing on the immediate horizon that suggests a reversal is in store. Superior corporate earnings growth and dollar strength should allow U.S. equities to outperform their major DM peers on a common-currency basis well into 2019. The Change, Or The Change Of The Change? Deceleration has been at the heart of BCA's managing editors' concerns, and there is an intuitive appeal to the idea that equity markets prize the change of the change (the second derivative) over the first-order move itself. It has the potential to clash, however, with the empirical fact that stocks typically rise unless earnings are contracting. To determine the degree to which decelerating earnings growth has historically presented a challenge to the S&P 500, we posit a four-phase earnings cycle based on the interaction between earnings-estimate growth and acceleration (Diagram 1), as follows: Diagram 1The Earnings Cycle The U.S. Versus The World The U.S. Versus The World Phase I begins when the worst part of the cycle has ended. Earnings estimates are contracting on a year-over-year basis, but at a slowing rate. Because earnings typically grow, and the bounce off the bottom is typically swift, this phase has occurred just 8% of the time. In Phase II, year-over-year earnings are growing at an accelerating rate. In Phase III, year-over-year earnings are still growing, but at a slowing rate. Phase II and Phase III are the de facto default phases, each accounting for 39% of all observations. In Phase IV, year-over-year earnings are contracting at an accelerating rate. Phase IV is more common than Phase I because the decline to the bottom tends to unfold more slowly than the bounce off of it, but it still occurs just 14% of the time. Table 1 shows annualized S&P 500 price returns for each phase of the cycle and then groups the phases by acceleration/deceleration and expansion/contraction. Stocks perform better when the rate of earnings growth is accelerating than they do when it's decelerating, but they also perform better when earnings are growing on a year-over-year basis than they do when they're declining. Stocks perform terribly when earnings are falling year-on-year at an increasing rate (Phase IV), and do great when the pace at which they're falling slows (Phase I), but those occurrences are few and far between. Earnings grow four-fifths of the time, and when they do, the differences between accelerating and decelerating growth aren't all that big a deal (Chart 6). Table 1Acceleration Is Better, But Deceleration Isn't All Bad... The U.S. Versus The World The U.S. Versus The World Chart 6...As It's Not A Problem As Long As Earnings Still Grow …As It's Not A Problem As Long As Earnings Still Grow …As It's Not A Problem As Long As Earnings Still Grow Bottom Line: Deceleration in the rate of earnings growth is not a signal to abandon stocks as long as earnings are still growing year-on-year. Investors have fared well for 40 years when earnings estimates expand, regardless of whether the rate of expansion is accelerating. 2018 Is Not 1997-98 In the wake of August's wobbles, several clients have been eager to explore various EM economies' vulnerabilities1 in more detail. We have fielded several questions relating to U.S. banks' EM exposures and how they compare to their exposures to the Asian Tigers on the cusp of the Asian Crisis. Per data from the Bank for International Settlements and the FDIC, U.S. claims on Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan amounted to about 14% of all U.S. bank credit at the end of 1996. That exposure is very similar to the U.S. banking system's current exposure to Argentina, Turkey, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile, South Africa, and Indonesia. Direct exposure to fragile EM economies did not drive the S&P 500's 19% decline across July and August of 1998, however, nor did it inspire a consortium of fourteen major global financial institutions to come together to attempt to ring-fence the U.S. banking system. Those outcomes can be laid to the brokers' and investment banks' indirect exposure to the massively leveraged investment portfolio of the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund (LTCM). To gauge the system's fragility back then, we perform a simple comparison of LTCM's debt to the publicly traded U.S. investment banks' total equity. In our back-of-the-envelope analysis (Table 2), we assume that the four investment banks, which contributed a quarter of the funds to rescue LTCM, had provided at least a quarter of LTCM's financing.2 Per our assumptions, LTCM claims accounted for 82% of the four banks' total equity. Losses given default would not have been anywhere near 100%, but a disorderly exit from LTCM's positions would surely have forced several of LTCM's creditors to conduct urgent capital raisings of their own. Fortunately for investors, today's banking system is nowhere near as vulnerable. Investment bank leverage ratios of 30 or more, commonplace in the late '90s, are a practical impossibility today. While lenders are no less likely to chase business late in the cycle today, post-crisis regulation makes it far more difficult to indulge their folly. Today's investment banks operate with a third of the leverage of 20 years ago (Table 3). The odds that another overextended investor, or group of investors, could imperil the U.S. banking system are much longer today than they were then. It's considerably harder to come by leverage via the regulated banking system, and leverage is the essential contagion ingredient. Table 2Enormous Leverage Made The Banking System Unstable In The Summer Of 1998 ... The U.S. Versus The World The U.S. Versus The World Table 3... But It's Not A Problem Anymore The U.S. Versus The World The U.S. Versus The World Bottom Line: Basel III, Dodd-Frank and the Volcker Rule save lenders from their own worst impulses. The odds of another LTCM crisis are far slimmer than they were in the late '90s. Investment Implications We continue to have a constructive view of the business, market and policy cycles in the U.S., but there's more to the global investing backdrop than just the U.S. Global investors should overweight U.S. equities versus equities in the rest of the world and U.S. investors should be sure to be at least equal weight equities, but the environment is sufficiently risky to inspire caution. We join our colleagues in continuing to recommend a benchmark equity allocation, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash. August's employment report supports our economic and investment takes. The labor market remains tight, with the broader U-6 definition of unemployment (including involuntary part-time and discouraged workers) making a second straight 17-year low (Chart 7, top panel), and average hourly earnings extending their slow march higher (Chart 7, bottom panel). With the three-month moving average of payrolls (185,000) expanding at a rate well above the 110,000-per-month pace required to absorb new entrants to the labor market, qualified candidates are going to become even more difficult to find. The upshot is that the Fed remains firmly on a path to hike rates more than the market consensus currently expects. Despite the potential for a near-term flight-to-safety bid for Treasury bonds, we are sticking with our below-benchmark duration call. Chart 7As Slack Is Absorbed, Wages Will Rise As Slack Is Absorbed, Wages Will Rise As Slack Is Absorbed, Wages Will Rise Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the August 20, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Rude Health," available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Lehman did not contribute to the bailout, but it is highly improbable that it had not lent to LTCM.