Emerging Markets
Our Daily Meeting provides an amazing forum for intellectual exchanges and deep discussions on the macro outlook, how markets are behaving, and where we could be wrong as strategists. A frequent topic of discussion over the past month has been the potential…
Our Emerging Market Strategy team has the following observations. The peso is about 40% below its real effective exchange rate fair value based on consumer and producer prices. Based on past devaluation episodes, there could be another 15% downside for the…
The massive underperformance of Argentine assets in 2018 shows that investors are intensely asking if the country is heading toward another sovereign default. This is a valid question, given that Argentina's foreign currency public debt stands at $220…
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 Chart 2Trump's Approval Rating Lines The GOP Up For Steep Losses 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... Chart 4... Even Those That Produce Gridlock 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... Chart 5B...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! Chart 7Global 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 Chart 9Two 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 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 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 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... Chart 11B...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... Chart 12B...In Today's Pound Sterling Chart 13Policy 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 Chart 15Theresa May's Tenuous Grip Chart 16Hard Brexiters Are A Minority 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 Chart 18Abe Lives, But Yen Will Rise 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 Chart 20 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 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 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 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 Chart 5Market 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 Chart 6BGlobal 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 Chart 7BU.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 Chart 8BEM 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 Chart 9BUST 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... Chart 10B...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... Chart 11B...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... Chart 12B...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 Chart 13BStronger 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... Chart 14B...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 Chart 15BU.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."? 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 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 Chart 2Will 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 Chart 4Dollar Strength... Chart 5...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 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... Chart 6...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 ... Table 3... But It's Not A Problem Anymore 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 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.
Highlights Fed policy and U.S. interest rates are not irrelevant to EM, but they are of secondary importance. The most vital factors that drive EM financial markets - the direction of global trade, domestic demand, corporate profits, and borrowing costs - do not currently indicate a sustainable bottom. Stay short/underweight EM risk assets. Feature How long and how deep will the selloff in emerging markets (EM) be? There are many factors that investors should be watching to gauge potential for further downside in the EM universe, and to exercise judgement about a bottom. These include the business cycle trajectory, policy actions and shifts, market technicals, liquidity, valuations and other fundamental variables. Not all of preconditions typically need to be satisfied before a major bottom emerges. What's more, not all bottoms are identical and contingent on the same factors. Hence, there is no magical formula for calling a bottom or top in any financial market. Today we revisit some of the variables that, in our opinion, are worth monitoring in terms of gauging a bottom. To begin, we address a currently popular narrative within the investment industry, which contends the following: EM woes are primarily being driven by Federal Reserve tightening. According to this view, when the Fed halts its tightening campaign, the skies will clear for EM risk assets. By and large, we disagree with this narrative. EM And The Fed: Let's Get Things Straight Fed policy and U.S. interest rates are not irrelevant to EM, but they are of secondary importance. The primary drivers of EM economies are domestic fundamentals and the overall global business cycle. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the fed funds rate has been mixed (Chart 1). On this chart, we shaded the periods in which EM stocks rallied, despite a rising fed funds rate. Chart 1EM Equity Prices And Fed Funds Rate: Mixed Correlation There were only two episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates: the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet, it is vital to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals: elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits, pegged exchange rates, and so on. Importantly, EM stocks and currencies did well during other periods of a rising fed funds rate: in 1983-1984, 1988-1989, 1999-2000 and 2017, as illustrated by the shaded periods in Chart 1. Hence, statistically there is no case that EMs plunge when the Fed is tightening policy. Why did the behavior of EM risk assets during various Fed tightening episodes differ? The key was EM fundamentals at the time: When fundamentals were healthy, EM managed to rally, despite Fed tightening; when fundamentals were flawed, EM markets relapsed regardless of the Fed's policy stance. Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-1998. However, these late-1990s EM crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields. Notably, U.S. and EU growth were booming and U.S. bond yields were dropping in 1997-'98. Specifically, U.S. and EU import volumes were growing at double-digit rates but this did not preclude EM crises, including in export-dependent Asian economies such as Korea, Malaysia and Thailand (Chart 2). It is critical to emphasize that China was not an economic superpower in the late 1990s. EM economic dependence on the U.S. and European economies was much greater than it is today. Yet neither booming demand in the U.S. and EU nor falling U.S. government bond yields prevented the Asian/EM crises from rolling across the globe in 1997-'98 (Chart 3A). Moreover, the S&P 500 was in a bull market in the second half of 1990s, as it is today (Chart 3B), but it did not help EM either. Chart 2Asian/EM Crises In 1997-98 Occurred Amid Booming Growth In U.S. And EU Chart 3AAsian/EM Crises In 1997-98 Took Place Amid Falling U.S. Bond Yields And Rising S&P 500 Chart 3BAsian/EM Crises In 1997-98 Took Place Amid Falling U.S. Bond Yields And Rising S&P 500 Hence, we can safely conclude that the EM fallout in 1997-'98 was due to EM domestic fundamentals - not developed market dynamics in general and Fed tightening in particular. An essential question is: Why are EM risk assets currently plunging while U.S. stocks and credit markets are holding up just fine? The U.S. economy is much more exposed to rising U.S. borrowing costs than EM. Despite this, the American economy, U.S. share prices and corporate bonds have been performing very well. In our view, this also stipulates that the core root for the current EM bear market is EM fundamentals. As we have repeatedly noted in various reports,1 EM fundamentals have been very frail, and the end of easy Fed monetary policy has not helped. The Fed's tightening can be regarded as the trigger - not the cause - of the EM bear market. The cause is weak EM fundamentals, such as credit excesses, low return on capital, weakening productivity growth and, in some cases, inflation and dependence on external funding. Importantly, the dependence of EM countries on the Chinese economy is presently greater than their dependence on the U.S. as shown in Table 1. Further, mainland growth is decelerating. Adding it all up, it is not surprising to us that EM financial markets are in turmoil. Table 1Many Emerging Economies Sell More##br## To China Than to The U.S. Our bearish view on EM has not been based on a negative view on U.S./EU growth. On the contrary, we have been bearish on EM/China and positive on domestic demand in the U.S. and the EU. Early this year, we promoted the theme of tectonic macro shifts,2 arguing that China/EM growth would slump and the U.S. economy would accelerate - and that such dynamics would propel the U.S. dollar higher. In turn, a firm dollar would inflict substantial pain on EM. Bottom Line: Rising U.S. interest rates, in and of itself, is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for EM to sell off. Consequently, the Fed adopting an easier policy stance or lower U.S. Treasury yields may not, in and of themselves, create sufficient conditions for a reversal in EM financial markets, unless they coincide with a turnaround in other variables that matter for EM. What Matters For EM? As of now, we do not think sufficient conditions exist for a bottom in EM financial markets because of several pertinent factors: The most important factor for EM assets in the medium term is the direction of the business cycle in EM in general, and in China in particular. The EM business cycle is still decelerating, as evidenced by falling manufacturing PMI indexes in EM ex-China and China (Chart 4). Consistently, corporate earnings growth is decelerating for EM non-financial companies and Chinese non-financial A-share corporates (Chart 5). The rationale for our focus on non-financial corporate earnings is that non-performing loans are usually not recognized and provisioned for by banks in a timely way to reflect their true profitability. Typically, banks' earnings cycle lags the real economy. When the real economy is slowing, banks' profits typically deteriorate with a time lag. Chart 4Manufacturing Is Slowing In China And EM Ex-China Chart 5EM/China Corporate Profit Growth Is Decelerating Corporate profits in China and in EM have not yet contracted, but our view is that there will be a meaningful profit contraction in this downturn. As and when corporate earnings shrink, share prices will sell off. In brief, we are not out of the woods yet. In China, the industrial part of the economy continues to weaken, as evidenced by the slump in the total freight index and electricity consumption by manufacturing and resource sectors (Chart 6). So far, the cumulative impact of policy easing in China has not been sufficient to reverse its business cycle. As we discussed in our prior report,3 money/credit impulses lead China's industrial sector by nine months or so. Even if the government's recent stimulus initiatives cause money/credit impulses to improve materially today (which we still doubt), the impact on growth will be felt only next year. While financial markets are forward-looking, they are unlikely to bottom a full six months before the bottom in the real economy. Hence, we are currently in the window where China plays in financial markets remain at risk. Global trade is also weakening, as evidenced by falling semiconductor prices (Chart 7) and industrial metals. Similarly, the container freight index at Chinese ports is sluggish, and broader Asian export volumes are slowing (Chart 8). Chart 6Signs Of Industrial Slowdown In China Chart 7Semiconductor Prices Are Plunging Chart 8Asian Export To Slow Further Regarding liquidity, there are various definitions and ways to measure liquidity. One measure of EM liquidity is EM local interest rates. Chart 9A and 9B shows that interbank rates in various EM countries are rising due to the ongoing currency weakness. EM benchmark local currency bond yields are also under upward pressure (Chart 10, top panel). These are all signs of tightening liquidity. The ramifications of higher interest rates will be a slowdown in money and credit, and consequently a slump in domestic demand. Chart 9AEM: Interbank Rates##br## Are Rising Chart 9BEM: Interbank Rates##br## Are Rising Chart 10EM: Local Currency Bonds Yields##br## And Narrow Money Growth Chart 10 illustrates that local bond yields negatively correlate with narrow money growth in EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan and India. These four markets are not included in the EM GBI local bond index; to maintain consistency, we have removed them from the money supply aggregate. EM sovereign and corporate bond yields continue to rise. As we have shown numerous times in previous reports, EM share prices do not bottom until EM corporate and sovereign bond yields roll over on a sustainable basis. Finally, we discussed EM equity and currency valuations in our August 23 report. We maintain that aggregate EM equity and currency valuations are not yet cheap enough to warrant bottom-fishing. Bottom Line: The most vital factors that drive EM financial markets - the direction of global trade, domestic demand, corporate profits, and borrowing costs - do not currently indicate a sustainable bottom. Stay short/underweight EM risk assets. 6 September 2018 The list of our trades and country allocation is always presented at the end of each report (please see page 10-11). Specifically, we continue shorting BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR and MYR versus the U.S. dollar. Within the equity space, our overweights are Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Chile, India, Mexico and central Europe; and underweights are Brazil, Peru, Malaysia, Indonesia, and South Africa. Among local currency bonds we are overweight Russia, Korea, Mexico, Thailand, and central Europe and underweight Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Understanding The EM/China Cycles," July 19, 2018. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Tectonic Macro Shifts," January 31, 2018. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Do Note Catch A Falling Knife," August 23, 2018. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations