Emerging Markets

Highlights At just under 3-in-10 odds, the probability Brent crude oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end is now more than double what it was at the beginning of the year, following President Trump's announcement he would withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and re-impose all economic sanctions against Iran (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekProbability Brent Exceeds $90/bbl Is Understated By Markets Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility We believe these odds are too low. Indeed, we think the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are higher than the 1-in-8 chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. We also expect sharper down moves going forward, as news flows become noisier. Speculators have loaded the boat on the long side, and they will be exquisitely sensitive to any unexpected softening in fundamentals - e.g., a supply increase or the whiff of lower demand - given their positioning (Chart 2). Chart 2Specs Have Loaded the Boat##BR##Getting Long Brent and WTI Exposure Specs Have Loaded the Boat Getting Long Brent and WTI Exposure Specs Have Loaded the Boat Getting Long Brent and WTI Exposure Our research indicates that spec positioning in the underlying futures can, under some circumstances, dominate the evolution of oil options' implied volatility, the markets' key gauge of risk and the essential component of option pricing. As new risk factors arising from Trump's decision emerge, we expect option implied volatility to increase, as the frequency of spec re-positioning increases. Energy: Overweight. We are getting long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectation. We also recommend getting long Aug/19 $75 Brent calls vs. short Aug/19 $80/bbl calls. We already are long Dec/18 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short $70/bbl calls expiring at the end of Oct/18, which are up 74.2% since they were recommended in Feb/18. Rising vol favors long options positions. The new positions will put on at tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. Refined copper imports in China grew 47% y/y in March. For the first four months of 2018 they are up 15% y/y. Imports of copper ores and concentrates were up 9.7% y/y in the January - April period. Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain strategically long gold and tactically long spot silver. A stronger USD continues to weigh on both. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's weekly Crop Progress report indicates farmers in the U.S. are catching up in their spring planting, converging toward averages for this time of year. Nevertheless, the condition of winter wheat remains a concern. Feature The wild swings in crude oil prices following President Trump's decision not to waive nuclear-related sanctions against Iran - down ~ 2% after Trump's announcement Tuesday, then up more than 2.5% the following morning - resolved one of the more important "known unknowns" ahead of schedule - to wit, would the U.S. re-impose nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, or continue to waive them.1 Ahead of Trump's announcement this week, speculators clearly were building long positions in Brent and WTI, as seen in Chart 2. Among other things, stout fundamentals, which we have been highlighting, and a possible tightening of supply on the back of the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions were obvious catalysts for building the bullish positions. We find specs do not Granger-cause oil prices, and typically these traders are reacting to fundamental news.2 This is consistent with other research into this topic.3 In other words, we find specs essentially follow the fundamentals, they don't lead them, and, as a result, the level of oil prices largely is explained by supply, demand and inventories. Based on the Granger-causality tests and our fundamental modeling, we believe oil markets are, to a very large extent, efficient in the sense that prices reflect most publicly available information.4 This is not to say, however, that the role of speculation can be dismissed as trivial to price formation. Spec Positioning Matters For Implied Volatility In Oil Our most recent research, building on earlier work on speculation in oil markets, finds that the concentration of speculators on the long side or the short side of the market actually does play a significant role in how volatility evolves (Chart 3, bottom panel).5 Other factors are important to the evolution of volatility, as well - i.e., U.S. financial conditions, particularly the stress in the system as measured by the St. Louis Fed's Financial Stress Index; EM equity volatility; and y/y percent changes in WTI oil prices themselves (Chart 3). But spec positioning clearly dominates: In periods of rising or elevated volatility, it explains most of the change in WTI option implied volatilities (Chart 4). This can push volatility higher when it occurs. However, on the downside, this does not hold - Working's T Index is not material to the evolution of implied volatility when uncertainty about future oil prices is low or decreasing. Chart 3Key Variables##BR##Explaining Volatility Key Variables Explaining Volatility Key Variables Explaining Volatility Chart 4Spec Positioning Dominates##BR##Evolution of WTI Implied Volatility Spec Positioning Dominates Evolution of WTI Implied Volatility Spec Positioning Dominates Evolution of WTI Implied Volatility Working's T Index and implied volatility are independent of price direction - they are directionless, therefore they cannot be used to forecast prices.6 These variables tend to increase when the quality of information available to the market deteriorates - i.e., when it becomes more difficult to form expectations about future oil prices. This is, we believe, an attractive time for informed speculators to enter the market and use their information to make profits. We find two-way Granger-causality between WTI implied volatility and Working's T, when the annual change in excess speculation is one-standard deviation above or below its mean. This means the more specs are concentrated on one side of the market in the underlying futures - long or short - the more influence their positioning has on volatility, and that the higher volatility is the more specs are drawn to the market. Given that specs' beliefs are different, this means there is a rising number of long or short spec contracts relative not only to specs on the other side of the market, but also to long and short hedgers. Why Speculation Is Important Prices do not suddenly manifest themselves in markets fully aligned with fundamentals. They are made efficient by hedgers off-loading risk based on their marginal costs, and speculators uncovering information that is material to the level at which prices clear markets. The goal of speculation is to buy low and sell high. Hedging and speculation are both done in the presence of noise, or pseudo-information that has no real connection with where markets clear.7 Information is to noise as substance is to a void. Noise can look like information, as Black (1986) notes, and people can trade on it, but they will lose money and eventually go out of business. Information, on the other hand, is costly, as Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) point out. To incentivize someone (a speculator) to gather it and feed it into prices via the market clearing - i.e., buying and selling based on information - they have to be able to make a profit. Speculators supply the liquidity necessary for trading - and, most importantly, hedging - to occur. Successful speculators make profits. Therefore, the information on which they trade is more often germane to the market-clearing process than not. To be successful they have to be willing to buy when prices are low, expecting them to go higher, and to sell when prices are high, expecting them to go lower. As Paul Samuelson wryly observed, "Is there any other kind of price than 'speculative' price? Uncertainty pervades real life and future prices are never knowable with precision. An investor is a speculator who has been successful; a speculator is merely an investor who last lost his money."8 Known Unknowns Will Keep Vol Elevated Chart 5BCA's Oil Price Forecast Unchanged,##BR##Following Trump's Iran Announcement BCA's Oil Price Forecast Unchanged, Following Trump's Iran Announcement BCA's Oil Price Forecast Unchanged, Following Trump's Iran Announcement In the wake of Trump's announcement, the fundamental and geopolitical landscape has been re-cast, creating additional "known unknowns", particularly re how the U.S. will implement the renewed sanctions and the timing of these moves. Among the new known unknowns, which can only be resolved with the passage of time, are: The precise timing and extent of the re-imposed sanctions on the part of the U.S., which will evolve over the next 90 to 180 days. Demand-side implications of higher prices, particularly in EM economies where policymakers used the low prices following OPEC's 2014 - 16 market-share war to eliminate fuel subsidies, which prevented high prices from being experienced by their citizens. The supply-side implications of higher prices on U.S. shale production - does production and investment, including pipeline take-away capacity, take another leg higher? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's (KSA) ability to raise output, given the Kingdom said it would be raising output in the event Iranian volumes are lost to export markets. The fate of the Saudi Aramco IPO, and how the re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. on Iran affects the royal family's decision on whether to float 5% of the company publicly. Will production in distressed states in- and outside of OPEC be negatively affected by increasing geopolitical risk?9 Among the "known unknowns," Iran's next moves rank high, as do responses to such moves by the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. and its Gulf allies clearly view Iran as a threat and, with the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran, are confronting it. Iran has a similar view vis-à-vis the U.S. and its Gulf allies. Left to be determined: Does Iran increase its level of direct action against KSA, upping the ante, so to speak, in its ongoing proxy wars with the Kingdom? Is Gulf production threatened? Are U.S. - European relations threatened by Trump's action? Thus far, European leaders have indicated they remain committed to the sanctions deal Trump walked away from. What would it take for OPEC 2.0 to restore actual production cuts we estimate at 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d to the market? What would it take to trigger a release of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), estimated at just under 664-million-barrel, which could be released to the market at a rate of 500k to 1mm b/d? These known unknowns are not causing us to change our price forecast for this year - $74/bbl for Brent and $70/bbl for WTI, based on our fundamental modeling (Chart 5). However, we do think price risk is to the upside in both markets, given the elevated geopolitical tensions in the market. We continue to expect more frequent prices excursions to and through $80/bbl for the balance of the year, particularly for Brent. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 We lay out some of these "known unknowns" in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," published April 19, 2018. In addition to the Iran issues, which have been resolved, Venezuela looms large. Oil production declined by 900k b/d between December 2015 and March 2018, with half of that occurring in the past six months. We are carrying Venezuela's current production at ~ 1.5mm b/d, although other estimates have it lower. With the country moving closer to collapsing as a functioning state, the risk to its oil output and exports is high. 2 Granger-causality refers to an econometric test developed by Clive Granger, the 2003 Nobel laureate in economics. It determines whether past values of one variable can be said to predict, or cause, the present value of another variable. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published April 26, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also the International Energy Agency's "Oil: Medium-Term Market Report 2012;" and "The Role of Speculation in Oil Markets: What Have We Learned So Far?" by Bassam Fattouh, Lutz Kilian and Lavan Mahadeva, published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies. Also, see "Speculation, Fundamentals, and The Price of Crude Oil," by Kenneth B. Medlock III, published by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, August 2013. 4 This is the semi-strong form of market efficiency. For a discussion of how markets impound information in prices, please see Eugene Fama's Noble lecture, "Two Pillars of Asset Pricing," which was reprinted in the June 2014 issue of The American Economic Review (p. 1467). 5 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published April 26, 2018, in which we introduce Holbrook Working's "T Index," a measure of speculative concentration in futures and options markets. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Briefly, Working's T Index shows how much speculative positioning exceeds the net demand for hedging from commercial participants in the market. Excessive speculation - spec positioning in excess of hedging demand by commercial interests - could be read into index values above 1.0. However, the U.S. CFTC notes values of Working's T at or below 1.15 do not provide sufficient liquidity to support hedging, even though "there is an excess of speculation, technically speaking." Formally, Working's T Index looks like this: Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility 6 Please see Irwin, S. H. and D. R. Sanders (2010), "The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets: Preliminary Results", OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 27. 7 Please see Black, Fischer (1986), "Noise," in the Journal of Finance, 41:3; and Grossman, Sanford J., and Stiglitz, Joseph E. (1980), "On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets," in the June issue of the American Economic Review. 8 Please see Samuelson, Paul A. (1973), "Mathematics Of Speculative Price," in the January 1973 SIAM Review, 15:1. 9 Please see "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," published by BCA's Energy Sector Strategy on May 9, 2018, which discusses these production risks in depth. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility

Highlights The grand U.S.-China strategic negotiation is focused on Korea and trade - only Korea is seeing good news; The trade war is expanding to include investment - and Chinese capital account liberalization is the silver bullet; Capital account openness has mixed benefits for EMs, yet the risks are dire. China's policymakers will move only gradually; If Trump demands faster liberalization, a full-blown trade war is more likely; Favor DM equities over EM. Feature The American and Chinese economies have diverged for years (Chart 1), threatening to remove the constraint on broader strategic disagreements. Amidst the uncertainty, a grand U.S.-China negotiation is taking place, focused on two primary dimensions: Korea and trade. Chart 1Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes On the Korea front, the news is mostly positive.1 The leaders of North and South Korea have held their third summit, promising an end to hostilities and a new beginning for economic engagement and possibly denuclearization. They are laying the groundwork for U.S. President Donald Trump to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sometime this month, or in June. From China's point of view, the North Korean developments are mostly positive. A belligerent North Korea provides the U.S. and its allies with a reason to build up their military assets in the region, which can also serve to contain China. A calmer North Korea removes this reason and, over the long run, holds out the potential for the reduction of U.S. troops in South Korea. On net, China has benefited from the opening up of the formerly reclusive Vietnamese and Myanmar economies and stands to do the same if North Korea follows suit. On U.S.-China trade, however, the news is not so good.2 The two countries have just seen another high-level embassy conclude without progress, all but ensuring that relations will get worse before they get better. Investors should prepare for the U.S. to take additional punitive measures and for China to retaliate in kind. The U.S. Treasury Department is on the verge of imposing landmark new restrictions on Chinese investment by May 21 or sooner. Congress, separate from the Trump administration and in a notable sign of bipartisan unity, is considering legislation that would do the same. This is independent from Trump's impending tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of Chinese goods, which could also come as early as May 21. In other words, the U.S.-China economic conflict is rotating from trade to investment. Hence, in this report, we take a look at the "Holy Grail" of American demands on China: capital account liberalization. So far the Trump administration has not pushed its demands this far. That is a good thing, because China is not willing to move quickly on this front. Rapid and complete opening to global capital flows is a "red line" for China, so it is an important indicator of whether the two great powers are heading toward a full-blown trade war. The Uncertainties Of Capital Account Liberalization A country's capital account covers foreign direct investment (FDI), portfolio investment, cross-border banking transactions, and other miscellaneous international capital flows. Since the 1960s, especially since 1989, developed market economies in the West have encouraged the free flow of capital across national borders (Chart 2). As with the free flow of goods, services, and labor, the flow of capital promised integrated markets and more efficient uses of resources. Just as freer trade would lower prices, spur competition, and improve efficiency and innovation, so would the unfettered movement of capital. Trading partners could use savings to invest in each other's areas of productive potential that lacked funds. In this sense, capital flows were nothing but future trade flows: today's cross-border investment would be tomorrow's production of freely tradable goods.3 The laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon economies promoted capital account liberalization for several reasons. First, economic theory and practice supported free trade as a means of increasing wealth, and free trade requires some degree of capital liberalization. Furthermore, liberalization played to the advantage of London and New York City, as international financial hubs, and both the U.S. and the U.K. sought to expand their role as providers of global reserve currencies.4 The European Community also sought freer capital flows due to the fact that the creation of the common market, at minimum, required it for trade financing. In the 1980s, France's bad experience with capital controls led it to adopt a more laissez-faire approach, prompting a convergence across Europe to the Anglo-Saxon model. Capital account liberalization joined free trade, fiscal conservatism, and deregulation as part of the "Washington Consensus" orthodoxy. Major economies were encouraged to liberalize their capital accounts if they wanted to join the OECD, like Japan, or if they sought economic and financial assistance from the IMF (Table 1).5 And yet the empirical evidence of the benefits of capital account liberalization is surprisingly mixed. There is not a clear causal connection between free movement of capital and improved macroeconomic variables like higher rates of growth, investment, or productivity. Relative to other kinds of international liberalization - of labor markets, for example - capital account liberalization is likely to bring small gains to growth rates (Table 2). Chart 2Global Capital Flows Expand China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Table 1Capital Account Liberalization: A Timeline China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Table 2Economic Benefits Of Open Borders China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks We can illustrate this point simply by showing that emerging market economies with more open capital accounts, whether defined by the IMF's Capital Account Openness Index or by the ratio of direct and portfolio capital flows to GDP, do not necessarily have higher potential GDP growth or productivity (Chart 3 A&B). A change in openness also does not correlate with a change in growth potential or productivity. Chart 3AEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (1) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 3BEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (2) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks This conclusion can be reinforced by looking at portfolio investment. Portfolio investment is usually one of the last types of investment to be deregulated. Hence a large ratio of portfolio investment to GDP is a proxy for capital liberalization. However, emerging markets that rank high in this regard do not record higher potential growth, productivity, or capital productivity contributions to GDP growth (Chart 4). Chart 4EM: Larger Foreign Stock Inflows Not Correlated With Capital Productivity China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks While the benefits of capital account liberalization are debatable, the risks are dire. It has contributed to, if not caused, a number of financial crises in recent decades. Latin America saw a series of such crises from 1982-89. Mexico's peso crisis of 1994 also owed much of its severity to destabilizing capital flows. Japan opened its capital account in 1979 and over the succeeding decade experienced a rollercoaster of massive capital influx, culminating in the property bubble and financial crash of 1990. Thailand, South Korea, and other Asian countries suffered the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 as a result of premature and poorly sequenced liberalization. All of these countries faced different financial and economic circumstances, and the crises had different causes, but what they shared in common was a relatively recent openness to large inflows and outflows of global capital that triggered or exacerbated currency moves and liquidity shortages.6 This is not to say that there are not benefits to capital account liberalization, or that the benefits never outweigh the costs. The major multilateral global institutions continue to believe that capital account liberalization is optimal policy, if only because the richest, freest, best governed, and most advanced economies have all liberalized. Capital account openness is positively correlated with "rule of law" governance indicators. And back-of-the-envelope exercises such as those shown above suggest that developed market economies do see higher potential growth and capital productivity as a result of capital account liberalization, at least up to a point (Charts 5A & 5B). Chart 5ADM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (1) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 5BDM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (2) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks While a number of countries have experienced financial and economic crises after opening their capital accounts, studies have shown that the causal connection is not always clear (the crisis did not necessarily stem from capital account liberalization).7 The removal of barriers to entry or exit of capital does not have a unidirectional effect but can exacerbate capital flows when times are good or bad. Moreover, some research shows that countries are more likely to suffer financial crises from capital controls than from the removal of them.8 And it is very difficult for countries with open current accounts (free trade) to enforce rigid capital controls anyway, since the distinction between capital flows covering trade transactions and other capital flows is difficult in practice to enforce, resulting in leakage. Because of the link between trade and capital, no country has ever fully and permanently reversed liberalization.9 The academic debate rages on, but from a political point of view, two things are clear. First, the best practices of the most advanced countries suggest that capital account liberalization is optimal policy. Second, policymakers in less open economies are faced with uncertainty and a range of views from economic advisers, orthodox and unorthodox. In the wake of crises in recent decades, this uncertainty has made them less inclined over the years to trust to economic orthodoxy or the "Washington Consensus" when making critical decisions about capital flows. Rather, opening is likely when economic problems call for a change in tack, while capital controls are likely when flows are considered excessive or destabilizing. Bottom Line: Capital account liberalization is the best practice among advanced economies but the risk-reward ratio for policymakers in EMs and partly closed economies is likely skewed to the downside. China's Stalled Capital Account Liberalization Chart 6China's Fear Of Capital Flight China's Fear Of Capital Flight China's Fear Of Capital Flight In recent years China's policymakers have struggled with the problem of capital account liberalization. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis they announced that they would speed up the process. In 2015 they pledged to complete it by 2020, only to re-impose capital controls when financial turmoil that year prompted large capital outflows (Chart 6). In 2017 President Xi Jinping claimed that the country remains committed to gradual liberalization. We have argued that his administration would ease these controls later rather than sooner, in order to pursue tricky domestic financial reforms first.10 As we have seen (Chart 3 above), China lies on the low end of the IMF's "Capital Account Openness" index, which ranks countries across the world based on six economic indicators and 12 asset classes. By this measure, China is slightly more open than India - a notoriously hermetic economy - and less open than the Philippines. China's closed capital account is also clear from its international investment position. China has fewer international assets and liabilities, as a share of output, than the U.S., Japan, Europe, or South Korea (Charts 7A & 7B). China's international assets are largely the result of its government's $3.1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, as well as outward FDI. As for its liabilities, China has opened up to FDI more so than portfolio investment or other capital flows. This is because FDI is long-term capital that tends to be more closely tied to real production; it is difficult to unwind it in times of crisis. China allows inward and outward FDI to gain knowhow, technology, and natural resources. It is more closed, however, to short-term capital flows, such as dollar-denominated bank debt, currency speculation, and portfolio investment. Typically it is these short-term flows that are most destabilizing, especially when countries are newly open to them. Chart 7AChina Has Fewer Foreign Assets, Mostly Official Forex Reserves China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 7BChina Has Fewer Foreign Liabilities, Mostly FDI China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Western economies, however, stand to benefit if China opens up to these shorter-term capital flows. They have a comparative advantage in financial services and thus can rebalance their relationships with China if it gives its households and corporations more freedom to manage their wealth in foreign currencies and assets. It is logical that China's FDI and portfolio investment in western countries would rise if Chinese investors were allowed to go abroad, simply because the latter would wish to diversify their portfolios for the first time. China's neighbors and trade partners would receive a windfall of new investments. Meanwhile they would gain new investment opportunities, as private capital would be able to venture into China, and flee out of it, more easily.11 Western countries are also increasingly agitating for China to loosen its inward capital restrictions. Despite China's openness to FDI relative to other capital flows, it is still one of the world's most restrictive countries in which to invest long-term capital (Chart 8). China's heavy restrictions have granted monopolies to Chinese companies, depriving foreigners of the fruits of China's growth. This is especially important as China moves into consumer- and services-oriented growth. Western countries have a comparative advantage in high-end consumer goods and services relative to low-end goods and manufacturing in general, where they have largely lost out to Chinese competition in recent decades. Chart 8China Is Highly Restrictive Toward Foreign Direct Investment China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China, too, stands to benefit from freer capital flows, and policymakers believe there is a self-interest in liberalizing. But Beijing has repeatedly demonstrated that it wants to move very gradually because of the skewed risk-reward assessment. China's harrowing experience with capital flight in 2014-16 has vindicated this policy.12 It is not necessarily capital account opening per se that causes destabilizing capital outflows - it is also the macro and financial environment. And China has all the hallmarks of an economy that could suffer a crisis from premature liberalization, including: Large macro imbalances (Chart 9); An immature and shallow financial system (Chart 10); Lack of information transparency; Weak rule of law. Chart 9China Has Macro Imbalances China Has Macro Imbalances China Has Macro Imbalances Chart 10China's Financial System Is Shallow China's Financial System Is Shallow China's Financial System Is Shallow Bottom Line: It is guaranteed that China will not pursue capital account liberalization rapidly. It will continue to take small steps, and ultimately "two steps forward and one step back" if necessary to maintain overall stability. Will China Liberalize? By the same logic, why should China liberalize at all? The 2014-16 crisis not only revealed the dangers of too-rapid opening but also the dangers of an inflexible currency and draconian capital controls. When Chinese authorities devalued the yuan in August 2015, they made the capital flight (and global panic) worse. Since then, by imposing strict capital controls, China's leaders have signaled to domestic and foreign investors (1) that they are unwilling to allow global capital flows to discipline their fiscal or monetary policies (a negative sign for China's macro fundamentals), and (2) that they may deny investors the rights of their property or even confiscate it.13 This is why China has made important policy changes since the 2014-16 crisis. First, it has maintained a more flexible "managed float" of the RMB, allowing it to trade more freely along with a basket of currencies that belong to major trading partners and abandoning the dollar peg. Various measures of the exchange rate - offshore deliverable forwards, spot rates, and the exchange rate at interest rate parity - have converged, revealing an exchange rate that is more market-oriented, i.e. less heavily managed by the People's Bank of China (Chart 11).14 This process is being pursued with the long-term interest of rebalancing the economy - making it more flexible and less fixed to an export-led manufacturing model. It is also necessary in order to internationalize the yuan, which is a long and rocky road but, it is hoped, will eventually reduce foreign exchange risk to China's economy (Chart 12). One of the main reasons that governments, including China, have maintained closed capital accounts is to control exchange rates. As currencies float more freely, the economy becomes better able to withstand large or volatile capital flows. At the same time, the yuan will never be a global reserve currency if China never opens the capital account. Chart 11The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely Chart 12The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly Second, while tight capital controls remain in place, Beijing is pursuing long-delayed reforms to the financial sector and fiscal and legal systems to allow for better financial regulation, supervision, and transparency. For instance, the new central bank Governor Yi Gang's reported desire to genuinely liberalize domestic deposit interest rates will prepare China's banks for greater competition with each other, and hence ultimately to greater competition from abroad. This in turn will improve allocation of capital across the economy. Another example is the expansion of the domestic and offshore bond markets - and gradual formalization of the local government debt market - in order to deepen the financial sector.15 These reforms are desirable in themselves but also necessary for eventual capital account liberalization, as countries with deep domestic financial markets have less vulnerability to new surges of foreign inflows or outflows. Naturally, the reform process is taking place on China's timeline. Since Beijing stresses overall stability above all else, it is gradual. But we would expect the Xi administration to continue with piecemeal opening measures through the coming years, so that by 2021, the capital account is materially more open than it is today. As for full liberalization, it is beyond our forecasting horizon. Xi's goal of turning China into a "modern socialist country" by 2035 is not too late of a timeframe to consider, given the potential for serious setbacks. But such delayed progress raises the prospect of a clash with the U.S. A risk to this view is that China backslides yet again on the internal reforms, making it impossible to move to the subsequent stage of opening up to international flows. Vested financial and non-financial corporate interests often oppose capital account liberalization. State-controlled companies, for instance, will gradually have to compete more intensely for capital that comes from better disciplined domestic banks, all while watching small and medium-sized rivals gain market share due to the newfound access to foreign capital, which makes them more competitive.16 Backsliding will, again, antagonize the West. Bottom Line: China is preparing to open its capital account further, as we are in the "two steps forward" phase following Xi Jinping's political recapitalization in 2017. A New Front In The U.S.-China Trade War The U.S. has long argued that China maintains excessive capital controls that violate the conditions of China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001.17 The following statement, from one of the U.S. government's annual reports on China's compliance with the WTO, was written before the Trump administration took office and is typical of such reports and of the overall U.S. position: Although China continues to consider reforms to its investment regime ... many aspects of China's investment regime, including lack of a substantially liberalized market, maintenance of administrative approvals and the potential for a new and overly broad national security review system, continue to cause foreign investors great concern ... China has added a variety of restrictions on investment that appear designed to shield inefficient or monopolistic Chinese enterprises from foreign competition.18 The Trump administration's own reports on China's WTO compliance have amplified such criticisms.19 Remember that it was partly China's lack of WTO compliance that the Trump administration highlighted as justification for the sanctions announced in March under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. In particular, the administration argues that U.S.-China investment relations are not fair or reciprocal, i.e. that the U.S. does not have as great of investment access in China as vice versa (Chart 13). Even in FDI, where China is relatively open and the bilateral sums are fairly reciprocal, the U.S. share is smaller than that of comparable developed economies, such as Japan and Europe (Chart 14). While it is not a foregone conclusion that this is the result of discriminatory policies, the U.S. argues that it suffers from unfair practices. What is clear is that China designates a number of sectors "strategic," excluding them from foreign investment, and places caps on foreign ownership. The two countries tried but failed to conclude a bilateral investment treaty under the Obama administration, which was meant to resolve this problem and stimulate private capital flows. China also has not implemented a nationwide foreign investment "negative list," which it has promised since 2013.20 A negative list would explicitly designate sectors that are off-limits to foreign investment and thus implicitly liberalize investment in all others. Chart 13The U.S. Wants Investment Reciprocity China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 14The U.S. Wants More Investment Access China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks The U.S. is also demanding greater reciprocity for its banks to lend to Chinese borrowers. China is well-known for heavily restricting foreign bank access, with foreign loans accounting for only 2.75% of total. The U.S. grants much larger market access to Chinese lenders than vice versa (Chart 15). While there are perfectly good reasons for U.S. banks to hold a smaller share of China's total cross-border bank loans than European banks and comparable Asian banks (U.S. banks focus on their large domestic market while European and Japanese banks are bigger international lenders), nevertheless the Americans will see their smaller market share as evidence that American market access can go up (Chart 16). Chart 15The U.S. Wants Banking Reciprocity China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 16The U.S. Wants More Banking Access China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Thus the silver bullet for the Trump administration would be to demand accelerated, full capital account liberalization from Beijing. This would address the above problems of investment access while also constituting a larger demand for China to hasten structural reforms that would favor American interests. This is why American officials have urged China to liberalize during high-level bilateral dialogues in the past - while knowing that the reform itself was of such significance that China would only move gradually.21 Chart 17Is The RMB Undervalued? Is The RMB Undervalued? Is The RMB Undervalued? So far the Trump administration has not demanded that China accelerate capital account liberalization, perhaps knowing that it would be a non-starter for China.22 One reason may be the expectation that the RMB could depreciate. True, the yuan is roughly at fair value in real effective terms, after a 7.4% appreciation since Trump's inauguration. However, China's 2014-16 capital flight episode suggests that, under the circumstances of a rapid opening of the capital account, outflow pressure could resume and the currency could fall. This would, at least for a time, drive down CNY/USD, contrary to Trump's oft-repeated desire that the currency appreciate. Trump adheres to a view that the RMB is structurally undervalued, as illustrated here by the IMF's purchasing power parity model, which suggests that it should rise by 45% against the greenback (Chart 17). Given Trump's rhetoric, it may not be far-fetched to suggest that Trump is disinclined to push for capital account liberalization and would rather see China maintain its current "managed" system in order to manage the CNY/USD even further upward. The broader point, however, is that previous U.S. administrations have pushed for faster capital account liberalization, and the Trump administration could eventually follow suit. This would mark a major escalation in the standoff, since China possibly cannot, and certainly will not, deliver such a momentous structural change on a timeline imposed by a foreign power. Bottom Line: Rapid capital account liberalization represents China's "red line" in the trade talks. If Trump pushes his demands this far, then he will be seen as threatening China's stability and will be rebuffed. This is a pathway to a full-blown trade war. Investment Conclusions Capital account liberalization is by no means the only indicator for gauging whether the U.S. and China are heading toward a full-blown trade war. As things stand, Trump will soon impose Section 301 tariffs, China will retaliate, and Trump will retaliate to the retaliation. This is our definition of a trade war. Not only is Trump threatening tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of imports. He is now demanding that China reduce the U.S.'s trade deficit by $200 billion, or 53% of the total, twice as much as earlier. To give an indication of how significant such a change would be for China over the long haul, Table 3 provides a very simple scenario analysis of what would happen to China's trade surplus, current account surplus, and GDP growth rate if the U.S. reduced its bilateral trade deficit by 10%, 33%, or 50%. It shows that if the deficit fell by 33%, Trump's initial goal, then China's current account balance would fall to less than one percent of GDP, and GDP growth would slow down to 6.24% for the year. Table 3Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes U.S. Trade Deficit With China China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Table 4 takes the worst-case scenario for China, in which the U.S. cuts the deficit by 50%, while oil prices average $90/bbl due to oil price shocks from unplanned production outages in Iran (where Trump is re-imposing sanctions), or Venezuela or others, amid a very tight global oil market.23 China's current account surplus would go negative, while GDP growth would fall to 5.32%! Table 4Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes Deficit, Oil Prices Soar China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks These scenarios are significant because they are not very far-fetched. Instead, they show how easily China could undergo a symbolic transition into a "twin deficit" country - a country with an estimated 13% budget deficit and a negative current account balance. Such a development would not necessarily have immediate concrete ramifications. But it would, if it became a trend, mark a turning point in which China begins exporting rather than importing global wealth. It would cause global investors to scrutinize the country in different ways than before and to question the status and long-term trajectory of China's traditional buffers against financial and economic challenges: the country's large national savings and foreign exchange reserves. These scenarios are merely suggestive and meant to show the gravity of Trump's threats and the seriousness with which Xi will take them. In the current U.S.-China trade conflict, if China allows the CNY/USD to weaken - the logical way of alleviating tariff impacts - then it will be depreciating the currency in Trump's face: conflict will intensify. It is not clear how long the conflict will last or how bad it will get, so investors would be wise to hedge their exposure to stocks along the U.S.-China value chain, favoring small caps and domestic plays in both countries. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends staying long DM equities relative to EM equities. We are short Chinese technology stocks outright, and short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks. By contrast, BCA's China Investment Strategy service continues to recommend that investors stay overweight Chinese stocks excluding the technology sector (versus global ex-tech stocks) over the coming 6-12 months with a short leash. As highlighted in this report, the near-term risks to China from the external sector are clearly to the downside, which supports the decision of the China Investment Strategy team to place Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for Q2.24 This watch remains in effect for the coming two months, a period during which we hope fuller clarity on the U.S.-China trade dispute and the pace of decline in China's industrial sector will emerge. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Barry Eichengreen, "Capital Account Liberalization: What Do Cross-Country Studies Tell Us?" World Bank Economic Review 15:3 (2001), 341-65. Available at documents.worldbank.org. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Is King Dollar Facing Regicide?" dated April 27, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Jeff Chelsky, "Capital Account Liberalization: Does Advanced Economy Experience Provide Lessons for China?" World Bank Economic Premise 74 (2012), available at openknowledge.worldbank.org. 6 Please see Donald J. Mathieson and Liliana Rojas-Suarez, "Liberalization of the Capital Account: Experiences and Issues," International Monetary Fund, March 15, 1993, available at www.imf.org; Ricardo Gottschalk, "Sequencing Trade and Capital Account Liberalization: The Experience of Brazil in the 1990s," United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and United Nations Development Programme Occasional Paper (2004), available at unctad.org; see also Sarah M. Brooks, "Explaining Capital Account Liberalization In Latin America: A Transitional Cost Approach," World Politics 56:3 (2004), 389-430. 7 Please see Peter Blair Henry, "Capital Account Liberalization: Theory, Evidence, and Speculation," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2007-32 (2006); see also Eichengreen in footnote 1 above. 8 Please see Reuven Glick, Xueyan Guo, and Michael Hutchison, "Currency Crises, Capital-Account Liberalization, and Selection Bias," The Review of Economics and Statistics 88:4 (2006), 698-714, available at www.mitpressjournals.org. 9 Please see M. Ayhan Kose and Eswar Prasad, "Capital Accounts: Liberalize Or Not?" International Monetary Fund, Finance and Development, dated July 29, 2017, available at www.imf.org. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 This western interest in Chinese capital account liberalization exists entirely aside from any of the aforementioned capital flight pressures from Chinese investors, which could reignite again. Foreign countries would welcome such inflows to some extent but not to the point that they become destabilizing at home or abroad. 12 The earliest rumored deadline for capital account liberalization was the seventeenth National Party Congress of the Communist Party in 2007. Please see Derek Scissors, "Liberalization In Reverse," The Heritage Foundation, May 4, 2009, available at www.heritage.org. 13 Eichengreen highlighted these points with regard to the literature and observations on capital account liberalization across a range of countries. They are highly relevant to China today. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has The RMB Gone Too Far?" dated February 1, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Embracing Chinese Bonds," dated July 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 16 Raghuram G. Rajan and Luigi Zingales, "The Great Reversals: The Politics of Financial Development in the Twentieth Century," Journal of Financial Economics 69 (2003), 5-50, available at faculty.chicagobooth.edu. 17 China did not commit to fully liberalizing the capital account as part of its WTO accession agreements, but rather the U.S. cites China's use of capital controls as a means of violating other WTO commitments regarding market access, subsidization, etc. At the time China joined the WTO, it was widely believed that its commitments would include gradual liberalization. For instance, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange lifted capital controls imposed during the Asian Financial Crisis in September 2001. Please see Lin Guijun and Ronald M. Schramm, "China's Foreign Exchange Policies Since 1979: A Review of Developments and an Assessment," China Economic Review 14:3 (2003), 246-280, available at www.sciencedirect.com. 18 U.S. Trade Representative, "2015 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," December 2015, available at ustr.gov. 19 U.S. Trade Representative, "2017 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 20 Please see U.S. Department of State, "2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty," available at www.state.gov. See also U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Joint U.S.-China Economic Track Fact Sheet of the Fifth Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue," July 12, 2013, available at www.treasury.gov. 21 See, for instance, U.S. Department of the Treasury, "2015 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue Joint U.S.-China Fact Sheet - Economic Track," June 6, 2015, available at www.treasury.gov. 22 However, Michael Pillsbury, director of the Center for Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and an adviser on Trump's transition team, has argued that the Trump administration's endgame is to implement the well-known World Bank and China State Council Development Research Center report, China 2030, which full-throatedly endorses capital account liberalization. Please see Robert Delaney, "Donald Trump's trade endgame said to be the opening of China's economy," South China Morning Post, April 3, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. For the report, see "China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative Society," 2013, available at www.worldbank.org. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight," dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The greenback normally weakens when the U.S. business cycle matures; 2018 may prove an exception to this rule. Rising U.S. inflation could clash with deteriorating global growth, bringing the monetary divergence narrative back in vogue. This would help the dollar. EM assets are especially at risk from a rising dollar. Tightening EM financial conditions would ensue, creating additional support for the dollar. The yen is caught between bearish and bullish crosscurrents. Continue to favor short EUR/JPY and short AUD/JPY over bets on USD/JPY. Set a stop sell on EUR/GBP at 0.895, with a target at 0.8300 and a stop loss at 0.917. Feature Late in the business cycle, U.S. growth begins to slow relative to the rest of the world, and normally the U.S. dollar weakens in the process. The general trajectory of the dollar this business cycle is likely to end up following this historical pattern, and last year's decline for the greenback was fully in line with past experience. However, 2018 could be an odd year, where the dollar manages to rally thanks to a combination of softening global growth and rising inflationary pressures in the U.S., which forces the Federal Reserve to be less sensitive to the trajectory of global economic conditions than it has been since the recession ended in 2009. Normally, The USD Sags Late Cycle We have already showed that EUR/USD tends to rally once the U.S. business cycle matures enough that the Fed pushes interest rates closer to their neutral level. Essentially, because the eurozone business cycle tends to lag that of the U.S., the European Central Bank also lags the Fed, which also implies that European policy rates remain accommodative longer than those in the U.S. Paradoxically, this means that late in the cycle, European growth can outperform that of the U.S., and markets can price in more upcoming interest rate increases in Europe than in the U.S., lifting the euro in the process (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The Euro Rallies Late In The Business Cycle The Euro Rallies Late In The Business Cycle The Euro Rallies Late In The Business Cycle Not too surprisingly, these dynamics can be recreated for the entire dollar index. As Chart I-2 illustrates, when we move into the later innings of the business cycle, global growth begins to outperform U.S. growth, and in the process, the DXY weakens. There has been an exception to these dynamics - the late 1990s - when the dollar managed to rally despite the lateness of the U.S. business cycle. Back then, the dollar was in a bubble, and the strong sensitivity of the dollar to momentum (Chart I-3) helped foment self-fulfilling dollar strength.1 Moreover, EM growth was generally weak. This begs the question, could 2018 evoke the late 1990s? Chart I-2What Works For The Euro Mirrors What Works For The Dollar What Works For The Euro Mirrors What Works For The Dollar What Works For The Euro Mirrors What Works For The Dollar Chart I-3Momentum Winners: USD And JPY Crosses A Long, Strange Cycle A Long, Strange Cycle Bottom Line: Normally, the U.S. dollar tends to weaken in the later innings of the U.S. business cycle, as non-U.S. growth overtakes U.S. growth. However, in 1999 and in 2000, the dollar managed to rally despite the U.S. business cycle moving toward its last hurrah. Not A Normal Cycle This cycle has been anything but normal. Growth in the entire G-10 has been rather tepid. While it is true that potential growth, or the supply side of the economy, is lower than it once was, courtesy of anemic productivity growth and an ageing population, demand growth has also suffered thanks to a protracted period of deleveraging. But the U.S. has been quicker than most other major economies in dealing with the ills that ailed her, executing a quicker private sector deleveraging than the rest of the G-10 (Chart I-4). As a result, today the U.S. output and unemployment gaps are more closed than is the case in the rest of the G-10. As Chart I-5 illustrates, aggregate U.S. capacity utilization - which incorporates both industrial capacity utilization and labor market conditions - is at its highest level since 2006. With growth staying above trend, the inevitable is finally materializing and inflation is picking up. Chart I-4The U.S. Delevered, It Is Now Reaping The Benefits The U.S. Delevered, It Is Now Reaping The Benefits The U.S. Delevered, It Is Now Reaping The Benefits Chart I-5The Fed Is Now Less Sensitive To Foreign Shocks The Fed Is Now Less Sensitive To Foreign Shocks The Fed Is Now Less Sensitive To Foreign Shocks As Chart I-5 illustrates, aggregate U.S. capacity utilization - which incorporates both industrial capacity utilization and labor market conditions - is at its highest level since 2006. With growth staying above trend, the inevitable is finally materializing and inflation is picking up. Core PCE is now at 1.9%, and thus the 2% target is finally within reach. Just as importantly, 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakevens have rebounded to 2.17% and 2.24% respectively, close to the 2.3% to 2.5% range - consistent with the Fed achieving its inflation target (Chart I-6). This implies that inflation expectations are getting re-anchored at comfortable levels for the Fed. As the threat of deflation and deflationary expectation passes, the Fed is escaping the fate of the Bank of Japan in the late 1990s. It also means that the Fed is now less likely to respond as vigorously to a deflationary shock emanating from outside the U.S. than was the case in 2016, when the U.S. economy still had plentiful slack, and realized and expected inflation was wobblier. The rest of the DM economies have not deleveraged, have more slack, and are more opened to global trade than the U.S. This exposure to the global economic cycle was a blessing in 2017, when global trade and global industrial activity were accelerating. But this is not the case anymore. As Chart I-7 illustrates, the Global Zew Economic Expectations survey is exhibiting negative momentum, which historically has preceded periods of deceleration in the momentum of global PMIs as well. Chart I-6Stage 1 Almost Complete The Fed Finally Enjoys ##br##Compliant Inflationary Conditions Stage 1 Almost Complete The Fed Finally Enjoys Compliant Inflationary Conditions Stage 1 Almost Complete The Fed Finally Enjoys Compliant Inflationary Conditions Chart I-7Downdraft In##br## Global Growth Downdraft In Global Growth Downdraft In Global Growth While this phenomenon is a global one, Asia stands at its epicenter. China's industrial activity is slowing sharply, as both the Li-Keqiang index2 and its leading index, developed by Jonathan LaBerge who runs BCA's China Investment Strategy service, are falling (Chart I-8, top panel). China is not alone: Korean exports and manufacturing production are now contracting on an annual basis; Singapore too is suffering from a clearly visible malaise (Chart I-8, middle and bottom panels). Advanced economies are also catching the Asian cold. Australia and Sweden, two small open economies, have seen key leading economic gauges slow (Chart I-9, top panel). Even Canadian export volumes have rolled over (Chart I-9, middle panel). Finally, the more closed European economy is showing worrying signs, with exports slowing sharply and PMIs rolling over. As we highlighted two weeks ago, even the European locomotive - Germany - is being affected, with domestic manufacturing orders now contracting on an annual basis.3 Chart I-8Asia Is The Source Of The Malaise Asia Is The Source Of The Malaise Asia Is The Source Of The Malaise Chart I-9The Cold Might Be Spreading The Cold Might Be Spreading The Cold Might Be Spreading This dichotomy between U.S. inflation and weakening global activity is resurrecting a theme that was all the rage in 2015 and 2016: monetary divergences. Fed officials sound as hawkish as ever and will likely push up the fed funds rate five times over the next 18 months even if global growth softens a bit. However, the ECB, the Riksbank, the Bank of England, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Bank of Canada and even the BoJ are all backpedaling on their removal of monetary accommodation. They worry that growth is not yet robust enough, or that capacity utilization is not as high as may seem. The theme of monetary divergence will therefore likely be the result of non-U.S. central banks softening their rhetoric, not the Fed tightening hers. The end result is likely to cause a period of strength in the U.S. dollar, one that may have already begun. In fact, that strength is likely to have further to go for the following five reasons: First, as we showed in Chart I-3, the dollar is a momentum currency, and as Chart I-10 illustrates, the dollar's momentum is improving after having formed a positive divergence with prices. Chart I-10USD Momentum Is Picking Up USD Momentum Is Picking Up USD Momentum Is Picking Up Second, speculators and levered investors currently hold near-record amounts of long bets on various currencies, implying they are massively short the dollar (Chart I-11). This raises the probability of a short squeeze if the dollar's autocorrelation of returns stays in place. Chart I-11 A Long, Strange Cycle A Long, Strange Cycle Third, the dollar is prodigiously cheap relative to interest rate differentials (Chart I-12). While divergences from interest rate parity are common in the FX market, they never last forever. Thus, if monetary divergences become once again a dominant narrative among FX market participants, a move toward UIP equilibria will grow more likely. Fourth, rising Libor-OIS spreads have been pointing to a growing shortage of dollars in the offshore market. The decline in excess reserves in the U.S. banking system corroborates the view that liquidity is slowing drying up. Historically, these occurrences point to a strong dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12A Return To Interest-Rate##br## Parity? A Return To Interest-Rate Parity? A Return To Interest-Rate Parity? Chart I-13Falling Excess Bank Reserves Equals Strong Greenback Liquidity Factors Point To A Dollar Rebound Falling Excess Bank Reserves Equals Strong Greenback Liquidity Factors Point To A Dollar Rebound Falling Excess Bank Reserves Equals Strong Greenback Liquidity Factors Point To A Dollar Rebound Fifth, a strong dollar tightens EM financial conditions (Chart I-14). This could deepen the malaise already visible in Asia that seems to be slowly spreading to the global economy. This last point is essential, as it lies at the crux of the reason why the USD is the epitome of "momentum currencies." Essentially, this reflects the importance of the dollar as a source of funding for emerging market governments and businesses. The amount of EM dollar debt has been rising. In fact, excluding China, dollar-denominated debt today represents 16% of EM GDP, 65% of EM exports and 75% of EM reserves - the highest levels since the turn of the millennium (Chart I-15). Practically, this means that the price of EM currencies versus the USD is a key component to the cost of capital in EM. Chart I-14The Dollar Is The Enemy ##br##Of EM Financial Conditions The Dollar Is The Enemy Of EM Financial Conditions The Dollar Is The Enemy Of EM Financial Conditions Chart I-15EM Have A Lot ##br##Of Dollar Debt EM Have A Lot Of Dollar Debt EM Have A Lot Of Dollar Debt Additionally, EM local currency debt instruments are exhibiting their highest duration since we have data, making them more vulnerable to higher global interest rates (Chart I-16). Hence, the capital losses resulting from a given move higher in interest rates have grown, sharpening the risk that EM bond markets could experience a violent liquidation event. Moreover according to the IIF, the average sovereign rating of EM debt is at its lowest level since 2009. Normally, the allocation of global institutional investors into EM debt is positively correlated with the quality of EM issuers, but today this allocation has risen to more than 12%, the highest share in over five years. This suggests that DM investors are overly exposed to EM risk, creating another source of potential selling of EM assets. Ultimately, these risk factors can create a powerful feedback loop that support the sensitivity of the dollar to momentum. A strong U.S. dollar hurts EM assets, which prompts overexposed global investors to sell EM currencies further. This can be seen in the negative correlation of the broad trade-weighted dollar and high-yield EM bond prices (Chart I-17, top panel). Additionally, because rising EM bond yields as well as falling EM equities and currencies tighten EM financial conditions, this hurts EM growth. However, the U.S. economy is not as sensitive to EM growth as the rest of the world is.4 As a result, weakness in EM assets also translates into dollar strength against the majors (Chart I-17, middle panel). Additionally, commodity currencies tend to suffer more in this environment than European ones, as shown by the rallies in EUR/AUD concurrent with EM bond price weakness (Chart I-17, bottom panel). These risky dynamics in EM markets therefore are a key reason why we expect the U.S. dollar to be able to rally, bucking the normal weakness associated with the late stages of a U.S. business cycle expansion. Specifically, EUR/USD is set to suffer this year as the euro's technical picture has deteriorated significantly (Chart I-18), and, as we argued two weeks ago, the euro area still has plenty of slack. Chart I-16Heightened EM Duration Risk Heightened EM Duration Risk Heightened EM Duration Risk Chart I-17EM Risks Help The Greenback EM Risks Help The Greenback EM Risks Help The Greenback Chart I-18EUR/USD Technicals Are Flimsy EUR/USD Technicals Are Flimsy EUR/USD Technicals Are Flimsy Bottom Line: For the remainder of 2018, the dollar is likely to buck the weakness it normally experiences in the late innings of a .S. business cycle expansion. The U.S. is significantly ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to inflation, giving more room for the Fed to hike rates. This difference is now put in sharper focus than last year as the global economy is weakening, which could prompt a period of dovish rhetoric in the rest of the world that will not be matched by an equivalent backtracking in the U.S. Moreover, while positioning and technical considerations also favor a dollar rebound, the vulnerability of EM assets increases this risk by creating an additional drag on foreign growth. What To Do With The Yen? The yen currently sits at a tricky spot. Historically, the yen tends to depreciate against the USD when we are at the tail end of a U.S. business cycle expansion (Chart I-19). Toward the end of the business cycle, U.S. bond yields experience some upside - upside that is not mimicked by Japanese interest rates. The resultant widening in interest rate differentials favors the dollar. Chart I-19The Yen Doesn't Enjoy Late Cycle Dynamics The Yen Doesn't Enjoy Late Cycle Dynamics The Yen Doesn't Enjoy Late Cycle Dynamics On the other hand, a period of weakness in EM assets, even if prompted by a dollar rebound, could help the yen. The yen is a crucial funding currency in global carry trades, and a reversal of these carry trades will spur some large yen buying. Moreover, Japan has a net international investment position of US$3.1 trillion. This means that Japanese investors, who are heavily exposed to EM assets, are likely to repatriate some funds back home. So what to do? We have to listen to economic conditions in Japan. So far, despite an unemployment rate at 25-year lows and a job-opening-to-applicant ratio at a 44-year highs, Japan has not been able to generate much inflationary pressures. In fact, while the national CPI data has remained robust, the Tokyo CPI, which provides one additional month of data, has begun to roll over (Chart I-20). The Japanese current account is deteriorating sharply. This mostly reflects the downshift in EM economic activity as 44% of Japanese exports are destined to those markets. Interestingly, in response to the deterioration in export growth, import growth is also decelerating sharply, pointing toward a domestic impact from the foreign weakness (Chart I-21). It is looking increasingly clear that overall economic momentum in Japan is slowing. Both the shipment-to-inventory ratio as well as the Cabinet Office leading diffusion index are exhibiting sharp drops - signs that normally foretell a slowdown in industrial production and therefore a deterioration in capacity utilization, which still stands well below pre-2008 levels (Chart I-22). Chart I-20Weakening Japanese Inflation Weakening Japanese Inflation Weakening Japanese Inflation Chart I-21The Asian Malaise Is Hitting Japan The Asian Malaise Is Hitting Japan The Asian Malaise Is Hitting Japan Chart I-22Japanese Outlook Deteriorating Japanese Outlook Deteriorating Japanese Outlook Deteriorating In response to these developments, BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda has been sounding more dovish. Moreover, after its latest policy meeting, the BoJ is acknowledging that it will take more time than anticipated for inflation to move toward its 2% target. In this environment, the yen has begun to weaken against the USD, especially as the greenback has been strong across the board. Moreover, USD/JPY was already trading at a discount to interest rate differentials. The downshift in Japanese economic data as well as the shift in tone by the BoJ are catalyzing the closure of this gap. Practically talking, USD/JPY is currently a very dangerous cross to play, as it is caught between various cross currents: a broad-based dollar rebound and a BoJ responding to a slowing economy can help USD/JPY; however, rising EM risks could boost it. On balance, we now expect the bullish USD forces to prevail on the yen, but we are not strongly committed to this view. Instead, have long maintained that the higher probability vehicle to play the yen is to short EUR/JPY.5 We remain committed to this strategy for the yen. Based on interest rate differentials, the price of commodities and global risk aversion, the euro can decline further against the yen, as previous overshoots are followed with significant undershoots (Chart 23, left panels). Moreover, speculators remains too long the euro versus the yen (Chart I-23, right panels). Additionally, EUR/JPY remains expensive on a long-term basis, trading 13% above its PPP-implied fair value. Finally, in contrast to Japan's large positive net international investment position, Europe's stands at -4.5% of GDP. Japanese investors have proportionally more funds held abroad than European investors do, and therefore more scope to repatriate funds in the event of rising EM asset volatility. We have also highlighted that selling AUD/JPY, while a more volatile bet than being short EUR/JPY, is another attractive way to play the risk to EM markets. Not only is AUD/JPY still very overvalued (Chart I-24), but Australia remains highly exposed to EM growth. This remains an attractive bet, despite a good selloff so far this year. Chart I-23AShort EUR/JPY Is A Cleaner Story (I) Short EUR/JPY Is A Cleaner Story (I) Short EUR/JPY Is A Cleaner Story (I) Chart I-23BShort EUR/JPY Is A Cleaner Story (II) Short EUR/JPY Is A Cleaner Story (II) Short EUR/JPY Is A Cleaner Story (II) Chart I-24AUD/JPY Is At Risk AUD/JPY Is At Risk AUD/JPY Is At Risk Bottom Line: The yen tends to depreciate against the USD in the later innings of a U.S. business cycle expansion, a response to rising U.S. bond yields. However, the yen also benefits when EM asset prices fall, a growing risk at the current economic juncture. Moreover, Japanese economic data are deteriorating and the BoJ is shifting toward a more dovish slant. The balance of these forces suggests that the yen rally against the dollar is done for now. However, the yen has further scope to rise against the EUR and the AUD. Two Charts On EUR/GBP Since we are anticipating EUR/USD to fall further toward 1.15, this also begs questions for the pound. Historically, a weak EUR/USD is accompanied by a depreciating EUR/GBP (Chart I-25). Essentially, the pound acts as a low-beta euro against the USD, and therefore when EUR/USD weakens, GBP/USD weakens less, resulting in a falling EUR/GBP. This time around, British economic developments further confirm this assessment. The spread between the British CBI retail sales survey actual and expected component has collapsed, pointing to a depreciating EUR/GBP (Chart I-26). Essentially, the brunt of the negative impact of Brexit on the British economy is currently being felt, which is affecting investor sentiment on the pound relative to the euro. Why could consumption, which represents nearly 70% of the U.K. economy, rebound from current poor readings? Once inflation weakens - a direct consequence of the previous rebound in cable - real incomes of British households will recover from their currently depressed levels, boosting consumption in the process. Chart I-25Where EUR/USD Goes,##br## EUR/GBP Follows Where EUR/USD Goes, EUR/GBP Follows Where EUR/USD Goes, EUR/GBP Follows Chart I-26Economic Conditions Also Point ##br##To A Weakening EUR/GBP Economic Conditions Also Point To A Weakening EUR/GBP Economic Conditions Also Point To A Weakening EUR/GBP Finally, today only 42% of the British electorate is pleased with having voted for Brexit, the lowest share of the population since that fateful June 2016 night. Moreover, this week, the House of Lords voted that Westminster can adjust the final deal with the EU before turning it into law. This implies that the probability of a soft Brexit, or even no Brexit at all, is increasing. However, the challenge to Theresa May's post-Brexit customs plan by MP Rees-Mogg, is creating yet another short-term hurdle that makes the path toward this outcome rather torturous. Additionally, it also raises the probability of a Corbyn-led government if the current one collapses. As a result, while the economic developments continue to favor being short EUR/GBP, the political environment is still filled with landmines, creating ample volatility in the pound crosses. We will use any rebound to EUR/GBP 0.895 to sell this pair. Bottom Line: If the euro weakens further, GBP/USD is likely to follow and depreciate as well. However, the pound will likely rally against the euro. Historically, GBP/USD behaves as a low-beta version of EUR/USD. Moreover, the maximum post-Brexit economic pain is potentially being felt right now, implying a less cloudy economic outlook for the U.K. Additionally, the probability of a soft Brexit or no Brexit at all is growing even if partial volatility remains. Set a stop sell on EUR/GBP at 0.895, with a target at 0.8300 and a stop loss at 0.917. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets", dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 The Li-Keqiang index is based on railway cargo volume, electricity consumption, and loan growth. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "The ECB's Dilemma", dated April 20, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets", dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YYC!", dated January 12, 2018, and Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now", dated February 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was marginally positive this week. As headline PCE climbed to the targeted 2% level, the underlying core PCE also edged up to 1.9%, highlighting growing inflationary forces. However, countering these positive releases were disappointing PMIs and a slowing ISM, as well as pending home sales, which contracted on a 4.4% annual basis. Regardless, the Fed acknowledged the strength of the U.S. economy. The FOMC referred to the inflation target as "symmetric", signaling that for now, inflation above target will not be used as an excuse to lift rates faster than currently forecasted in the dots. Nevertheless, the much-awaited breakout in the dollar materialized two weeks ago. As global growth wains, key central banks such as the ECB, BoJ, and BoE are likely to retreat to a more dovish tilt, as growth forecasts are revised down. This should give the greenback a substantial boost this year. Report Links: Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? - April 27, 2018 U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? - April 13, 2018 More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 European data was weak: M3 and M1 money supply growth both weakened to 3.7% and 7.6%; Annual GDP growth slowed down to 2.5%, as expected; Both the headline and core measures of inflation disappointed, coming in at 1.2% and 0.7%, respectively. The euro broke down below a crucial upward-slopping trendline, which was defining the euro's rally last year. Additionally, EUR/USD has also broken the 200-day moving average technical barrier, highlighting the impact on the euro of weakening global growth and faltering European data. This decline in activity, along with the presence of hidden-labor market slack have been picked up by President Mario Draghi and other key ECB officials. Therefore, weakness in the euro is likely to continue for now. Report Links: More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Nikkei manufacturing PMI surprised to the upside, coming in at 53.8. However, Tokyo inflation ex-fresh food underperformed expectations, coming in at 0.6%. Moreover, consumer confidence also surprised negatively, coming in at 43.6. Finally, housing starts yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -8.3%. The Bank of Japan decided to keep its key policy rate at -0.1% last Friday. Overall, the BoJ sounded slightly more dovish, acknowledging that it might take more time for inflation to move to their 2% target. Taking this into account, it might be dangerous to short USD/JPY as the BoJ could adjust policy to depreciate the currency. However investors could short EUR/JPY to take advantage of increased risk aversion. Report Links: The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been negative: Gross domestic product yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.2%. Moreover, manufacturing PMI also surprised to the downside, coming in at 53.9. Additionally, both consumer credit and mortgage approvals underperformed expectations, coming in at 0.254 billion pounds, and 62.014 thousand approvals respectively. The pound has depreciated by nearly 5.5% in the past 2 weeks. Poor inflation and economic data as well as generalized dollar strength. Overall, we continue to be bearish on the pound, as the uncertainty surrounding Brexit will continue to scare away international capital. Moreover, the strength of the pound last year should weigh significantly on inflation, limiting the ability of the BoE to raise rates significantly. Report Links: Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was generally good: Building permits picked up, growing at a 14.5% annual rate, and a 2.6% monthly rate, beating expectations; The trade balance outperformed expectations comfortably, coming in at AUD 1.527 million; However, the AIG Performance of Manufacturing Index went down to 58.3 from 63.1; The AUD capitulated as a result of the growing global growth weakness, trading at just above 0.75. The RBA is reluctant to hike rates as Governor Lowe sited both stress in the money market and stretched household-debt levels as key reasons for his reluctance to hike. In other news, growing tension between Australia and its largest investor, China, are emerging in response to rumors that Chinese agents have been lobbying Australian officials in order to influence Australian politics. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: The unemployment rate surprised positively, coming in at 4.4%. Moreover, employment quarter-on-quarter growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.6%. However, the Labour cost index yearly growth surprised to the downside, coming in at 1.9%. Finally, the participation rate also surprised negatively, coming in at 70.8%. NZD/USD has depreciated by nearly 5%. Overall we continue to be negative on the kiwi, given that an environment of risk aversion will hurt high carry currencies like the New Zealand dollar. Moreover, a slowdown in global growth should also start to hurt the kiwi economy, given that this economy is very levered to China and emerging markets. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was mixed: Raw material price index increased by 2.1% in March, more than the expected 0.6%; GDP grew at a 0.4% monthly rate, beating expectations of 0.3%; However, the Markit manufacturing PMI disappointed slightly at 55.5. The CAD only suffered lightly despite the greenback's rally. Governor Poloz argued that the expensive Canadian housing market and the elevated household debt load have made the economy more sensitive to higher interest rates than in the past. He also pointed out that interest rates "will naturally move higher" to the neutral rate level, ultimately giving mixed signals. Despite these mixed comments by Poloz, the CAD managed to rise against most currencies expect the USD. Report Links: More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Real retail sales yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -1.8%. Moreover, the KOF leading indicator also surprised negatively, coming in at 105.3 However, the SVME Purchasing Manager's Index came in at 63.9. EUR/CHF has been flat these last 2 weeks. Overall, we continue to bullish on this cross on a cyclical basis, given that the SNB will keep intervening in currency markets, as the economy is still too weak, and inflationary pressures are still to tepid for Switzerland to sustain a strong franc. However, EUR/CHF could see some downside tactically in an environment of rising risk aversion. Report Links: The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Registered unemployment surprised positively, coming in at 2.4%. Moreover, the Norges Bank credit indicator also outperformed expectations, coming in at 6.3%. USD/NOK has risen by more than 4% these past 2 weeks. This has occurred even though oil has been flat during this same time period. Overall we are positive on USD/NOK, as this cross is more influenced by relative rate differentials between the U.S. and Norway than it is by oil prices. However, the krone could outperform other commodity currencies, as oil should outperform base metals, as the latter is more sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle than the latter. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 The krona's collapse seem never ending. While the krona never responds well to an environment where global growth is weakening and where asset prices are becoming more volatile, Riksbank governor Stefan Ingves is not backing away from his dovish bias. In fact, the Swedish central bank is perfectly pleased with the krona's dismal performance. Thus, the Riksbank is creating a stealth devaluation of its currency, one that is falling under President Donald Trump's radar. Swedish core inflation currently stands at 1.5%, but it is set to increase. The Riksbank's resource utilization gauge is trending up and the Swedish housing bubble is supporting domestic consumption. As a result, the Swedish output gap is well above zero, and wage and inflationary pressures are growing. The Riksbank will ultimately be forced to hike rates much faster than it currently forecasts. Thus, we would anticipate than when the global soft patch passes, the SEK could begin to rally with great alacrity. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Feature A Conversation With Ms. Mea I met with some of our European clients over the past few weeks, and used the opportunity to connect with Ms. Mea, a long-standing client of BCA who visited us last fall.1 As always, Ms. Mea was keen to scrutinize our viewpoints, delve into intricacies of our analysis and understand the differences between our interpretations of the global macro landscape and the prevailing market consensus. I hope clients find our latest dialogue insightful. Ms. Mea: It seems your negative call on emerging markets (EM) is finally beginning to work out: EM share prices in both absolute terms and relative to developed markets (DM) have dropped to their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-1). It seems we are at a critical juncture: If share prices bottom at these levels, a major upleg is likely and, conversely, if they break below this technical support, considerable downside may be in the cards. What makes you think this is not a buying opportunity? Indeed, EM stocks are testing a critical technical level. I doubt this is a buying opportunity. It looks like EM corporate profit and revenue growth have peaked (Chart I-2, top and middle panels). The question is not if but how much downside there is. I believe the downside will be substantial because the forces that drove this recovery are in the process of reversing. Chart I-1EM Equities Are At Critical Juncture EM Equities Are At Critical Juncture EM Equities Are At Critical Juncture Chart I-2EM Profits Have Topped Out EM Profits Have Topped Out EM Profits Have Topped Out First, the Chinese credit and fiscal stimulus of early 2016 has been reversed, and our China credit and fiscal spending impulse projects considerable downside in EM non-financial corporate earnings growth (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Second, Asia's manufacturing cycle is downshifting (Chart I-3). Korea's export growth is flirting with contraction (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Even if U.S. final demand remains robust, U.S. imports could slow, hurting the rest of the world. Chart I-4 illustrates that America's imports have been growing faster than its final demand, implying re-stocking of imported goods. Typically, periods of re-stocking are followed by waves of de-stocking. During the latter periods, import growth decelerates. Chart I-3Asia: Trade Is Decelerating Asia: Trade Is Decelerating Asia: Trade Is Decelerating Chart I-4U.S.: Final Demand And Imports U.S.: Final Demand And Imports U.S.: Final Demand And Imports Third, investor sentiment remains quite bullish on EM and EM equity valuations are not cheap in both absolute and relative terms (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, credit spreads as well as local bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys are very narrow. Chart I-5EM Equities Are Not Cheap EM Equities Are Not Cheap EM Equities Are Not Cheap Last but not least, U.S. wage growth and core inflation are rising. This warrants rising U.S. interest rate expectations and a rally in the dollar. As EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM stocks and bonds will sell off too. In a nutshell, it appears that the December and January spike in EM share prices was the final blow-off phase of this cyclical bull market. It is typical for a major market move to culminate with a bang. It seems this was the case with EM share prices, currencies and local bonds in December and January. Interestingly, the fact that EM share prices have failed to break above their previous highs is a bad omen (Chart I-1 on page 1). If our negative outlook on China's industrial cycle, commodities prices and the bullish view on the U.S. dollar play out, the current selloff in EM risk assets will progress into another bear market similar to the 2014-'15 episode. Ms. Mea: There is a widely held belief in the investment community that we are in the late expansion phase of the global business cycle. Late cyclical equity sectors, especially commodities and industrials, typically outperform at this stage. If so, this warrants overweighting EM as high commodities prices are going to help EM equities outperform DM ones. This is contrary to your recommended strategy of underweighting EM versus DM. Where and why do you differ from the consensus view? When discussing cycles, it is important to specify which economy we are referencing. With respect to the U.S. economy, I agree that we may be in a late-cycle expansion phase, when growth is strong, and wages and inflation are rising. In fact, in my opinion, U.S. wages and core CPI are likely to surprise to the upside (Chart I-6). Based on America's current economic dynamics, it makes sense to be overweighting late cyclicals. That said, just because the U.S. is in the late phase of its own expansion cycle doesn't mean China is at the same stage too. China's business cycle varies greatly from that of the U.S. and Europe. In my opinion, China's industrial sector in general, and capital spending in particular, are re-commencing the downtrend that took place between 2012-'16, but was interrupted by the injection of massive credit and fiscal stimulus in early 2016. Chart I-7 portrays China's manufacturing cycle along with the performance of EM stocks relative to their DM peers, as well as commodities prices. A few observations are in order: Chart I-6U.S. Wages And Inflation To Rise Further U.S. Wages And Inflation To Rise Further U.S. Wages And Inflation To Rise Further Chart I-7Where Are EMs & Commodities In The Cycle? Where Are EMs & Commodities In The Cycle? Where Are EMs & Commodities In The Cycle? China's capital spending and most of its industrial sectors were in their late cycle expansion phase in 2009-2011. The post-Lehman monetary and fiscal stimulus produced an unprecedented boom in investment spending. Yet, it was unsustainable because it created a misallocation of capital, enormous amounts of debt and asset bubbles. During this period, EM outperformed DM by a large margin, and global late cyclicals - such as materials, energy and industrials - outperformed the global equity benchmark. From 2012 to early 2016, there was a major downtrend in China's capital spending. Demand for capital goods/machinery and commodities downshifted and in some cases contracted (Chart I-8). After the new round of stimulus in early 2016, the Chinese economy recovered. However, the impact of this stimulus has now waned, and policymakers have been tightening policy since early 2017. Consequently, the downtrend in the mainland's industrial sector appears to be re-commencing and will likely deepen. In short, I view the rally in EM and commodities over the past two years as a mid-cycle hiatus in the bear market that began in 2011. Odds are that EM and commodities will sell off even if DM demand holds up. Chart I-9 denotes that global machinery and chemical stocks have already been underperforming the global equity benchmark. Energy stocks are still being supported by the rally in oil prices, but in my opinion it is a matter of time before oil prices roll over (we discuss our oil outlook below). However, given energy stocks have done so poorly relative to other sectors amid rising crude prices, they may not underperform, even if oil prices relapse. Chart I-8China: Construction Industry Profile China: Construction Industry Profile China: Construction Industry Profile Chart I-9Global Late Cyclicals Have Underperformed Global Late Cyclicals Have Underperformed Global Late Cyclicals Have Underperformed In 2010, I made the call that EM share prices, currencies and commodities had peaked for the decade. At the same time, I argued that technology, health care, and the equity markets with large weights in these sectors, namely the U.S., would deliver strong returns. This roadmap by and large remains pertinent. Chart I-10China Accounts For 50% Of ##br##Global Metals Demand Where Are EMs In The Cycle? Where Are EMs In The Cycle? Typically, winners of the previous decade perform poorly during the entire following decade. EM and commodities were the superstars of the last decade. There are still two more years to go in this decade. Consistent with this roadmap, we expect EM risk assets and commodities to relapse anew in the next 12-18 months. While the last two years were very painful not to chase the EM and commodities rallies, odds are that this has been a mid-cycle hiatus in a decade-long downtrend. Ms. Mea: Don't you think strong growth in DM will drive commodities prices higher, despite weakness in China? Are you bearish on oil because of China's demand too? I am optimistic about domestic demand in the U.S. and Europe. Yet, commodities prices, especially industrial commodities, are driven by China, not the U.S., EU or India. China consumes at least 50% of industrial and base metals (Chart I-10). Consistent with our view of a downtrend in China's capital spending in general, and construction in particular, we remain downbeat on industrial metals prices. Regarding oil prices, China's share in global oil demand is much smaller than it is for metals - the country consumes 14% of the world's petroleum products. Further, we are not negative on Chinese household demand for gasoline, but we are negative on mainland diesel demand. The latter fluctuates with industrial activity, as Chart I-11 illustrates. Importantly, oil prices will likely go down even if China's oil consumption growth remains robust. The basis is as follows: Investors' net long positions in oil are at record high levels (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China's Diesel Demand China's Diesel Demand China's Diesel Demand Chart I-12Investors Are Record Long Oil Investors Are Record Long Oil Investors Are Record Long Oil Traders have been buying oil because of rollover yield. Since the oil market is in backwardation, investors have been capturing rollover yield when they roll over contracts. Oil has been a carry trade over the past year as expectations of tight supply and a weaker U.S. dollar have spurred record numbers of investors to go long oil. As the U.S. dollar strengthens and China's growth slows, these traders will likely head for the exits with respect to their long oil positions. China has been importing more oil than it consumes since 2014. Our hunch is it has been accumulating strategic oil reserves. With oil prices spiking to $70, the pace of accumulation of strategic oil reserves may slow, and prices could retreat. China traditionally purchases commodities on dips. Finally, oil typically shoots up in the late stages of the business cycle. Chart I-13 illustrates that oil prices lag or at best are coincident with the global industrial cycle. In fact, often these spikes in oil prices - like the current one - occur due to supply constraints in the late stages of the business cycle. Nevertheless, they often mark the top. Chart I-13Oil Is Often Late To Peak Oil Is Often Late To Peak Oil Is Often Late To Peak In brief, while the case for oil is different than for industrial metals, risks to crude prices are tilted to the downside over the next six-to-nine months or so.2 Ms. Mea: One of the key drivers of your view on global markets has been a strong U.S. dollar. Why do you think the recent rebound in the dollar has staying power, and how far will it rally? Odds are that the U.S. dollar has made a major bottom and has entered a cyclical bull market. While we are not sure whether the greenback will surpass its early 2016 highs, it will at least re-test those levels on many crosses, especially versus EM and commodities currencies. The euro and other European currencies will likely not drop to their early 2016 lows, and as a result, EM currencies stand to depreciate considerably versus both the U.S. dollar and the euro. This will undermine the dollar- and euro-based investors' returns in EM equities and local currency bonds, and lead to an exodus of foreign funds. Contrary to market consensus thinking, the EM local interest rate differential over DM does not drive EM exchange rates. In fact, there is an inverse relationship between local interest rate spreads over U.S. rates and their currencies (Chart I-14). It is the exchange rate that drives local rates in EM. Currency depreciation pushes interest rates up, and exchange rate appreciation leads to lower interest rates. Many EM currencies correlate with commodities prices and global trade. The latter two will likely weigh on EM exchange rates in the next six to nine months. What's more, EM are much more leveraged to China than to DM. Both EM currencies as well as EM's relative equity performance versus DM mirror marginal shifts between Chinese and DM imports - the latter is a proxy for their domestic demand (Chart I-15). Chart I-14EM Currencies And Yields Differential Over U.S. EM Currencies And Yields Differential Over U.S. EM Currencies And Yields Differential Over U.S. Chart I-15EM Is Much More Sensitive To China Than DM EM Is Much More Sensitive To China Than DM EM Is Much More Sensitive To China Than DM As China's growth slumps, EM will likely catch pneumonia, while DM gets away with just a cold. This entails that EM currencies will come under downward pressure against both the U.S. dollar and the euro. Finally, provided EM ex-China has accumulated a lot of U.S. dollar debt, their currency depreciation will elevate debt stress. While we do not expect this to result in massive defaults, the ability of debtor companies with foreign currency liabilities to invest and expand will be curtailed. This is a negative for growth. EM debtors with dollar debt are much more vulnerable to an appreciating dollar than rising U.S. interest rates. From the perspective of their debt servicing costs alone, 10% dollar appreciation is much more painful than a 100 basis point rise in U.S. dollar rates. Hence, regardless of whether the greenback's rally occurs amid rising or falling U.S. bond yields, it will impose meaningful pain on EM debtors. In this context, EM sovereign and corporate spreads are too tight and will likely widen if and as EM currencies and commodities prices decline. Ms. Mea: In last week's statement, China's Politburo omitted the word "deleveraging" and the People's Bank of China cut the Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR). Notably, onshore bond yields have dropped a lot. Does this not mean that stimulus is in the pipeline and the point of maximum stress for EM and commodities is now behind us? I doubt it. First, China's official media outlet, Caixin,3 explicitly stated that the Politburo statement does not mean either new stimulus or that the policy of battling financial excesses has been abandoned. Second, the RRR cut has led to only small net liquidity injections in the banking system. Its primary goal was to reduce interest rate costs for banks. Are falling bond yields in China a bullish or bearish signal for China-related risk assets? It is not clear. In 2017, interest rates rose considerably, yet China/EM risk assets completely ignored it. I was puzzled by this. Meanwhile, the recent drop in bond yields has coincided with falling EM share prices (Chart I-16). Third, the budget plan for 2018 does not entail major fiscal stimulus. Table I-1 denotes aggregate fiscal and quasi-fiscal spending will rise by 8% in 2018 compared to an actual rise of 8.6% in 2017 and 8.1% in 2016. All numbers are for nominal growth. Table I-1China: Fiscal And Quasi-Fiscal Spending (Annual Nominal Growth Rates) Where Are EMs In The Cycle? Where Are EMs In The Cycle? The government can always change its budgetary plans and boost fiscal spending beyond what is initially planned. This was the case in 2016. However, without material deterioration in growth, it is unlikely. The authorities undertook the 2015-2016 stimulus because of extremely weak growth and plunging global financial markets. Fourth, some commentators have noted that land sales have been strong, entailing more local government revenues and hence more infrastructure investment. Yet Chart I-17 portrays that the broad money impulse leads land sales. If their past relationship holds, land sales will decrease in the next 12 months. Chart I-16China's Bond Yields And EM Stocks China's Bond Yields And EM Stocks China's Bond Yields And EM Stocks Chart I-17China: Land Sales Are To Slump bca.ems_sr_2018_05_03_s1_c17 bca.ems_sr_2018_05_03_s1_c17 Finally, the regulatory clampdown on banks and shadow banking is ongoing. This along with the anti-corruption campaign in the financial industry could have a larger impact on credit origination than a marginal drop in interest rates or marginal liquidity provision. On the whole, if the authorities, again, open the credit and fiscal spigots wide, they will relinquish their pledge of structural reforms, a reduction of financial excesses and containing rising leverage. This would entail policymakers opting for a short-term gain in sacrifice of the country's long-term economic outlook. Growth financed by banks originating money out of thin air will ultimately (in the years ahead) lead to lower productivity and higher inflation - i.e., stagflation. I believe Beijing understands this and will not open the credit and fiscal taps too fast or too wide. In brief, China-related risk assets will likely sell off a lot before the next round of stimulus arrives. Ms. Mea: What about Chinese consumer spending and the outlook for technology companies that have become dominant in the EM equity index? Does your negative outlook for investment spending entail a downtrend in household spending? I have been bearish on China's industrial cycle and capex, but not on consumer spending. In fact, household expenditure growth is booming and is unlikely to slow a lot, even amid a downtrend in the construction sector. However, there are a number of reasons to expect a moderation of the current torrid pace of household spending: Capital spending accounts for 42% of GDP, and as it slumps, job creation and income gains will slow. If banks originate less credit, there will be less investment, and income growth will likely be affected. Contrary to widely held beliefs, Chinese households have become a bit leveraged - the ratio of household debt to disposable income is slightly higher in China than in the U.S. (Chart I-18). Further, borrowing costs in China are above those in the U.S. This entails that debt servicing costs as a share of disposable income are higher for households in China than in the U.S. Chart I-18Household Leverage: China And U.S. Household Leverage: China And U.S. Household Leverage: China And U.S. Not surprisingly, the authorities are clamping down on banks and shadow banking lending to households. It seems that policymakers in China worry much more about credit and leverage excesses than global investors. We published an in-depth Special Report on China's real estate market on April 6 where we argued that excesses remain large and a period of property price deflation cannot be ruled out.4 This means that property wealth effects could turn from a tailwind to a headwind for households for a period of time. All that said, I am not bearish on household spending, apart from real estate purchases. What does this entail for mega-cap companies' share prices, like Tencent and Alibaba? For sure, technology will continue to gain importance in China, like elsewhere. However, given these stocks have seen significant share price inflation and trade at high multiples, buying these stocks at current levels may not be a good investment. Valuations and business models as well as regulatory risks are key in the current circumstances. We, like all macro strategists, can add little value on how to value internet/social media companies and assess their business models. From a big-picture perspective, Chart I-19 demonstrates that Tencent's and Amazon's share prices have gone up 12- and10-fold, respectively, in real U.S. dollar terms since January 2010, as much as the run-up that occurred during previous bubbles. Chart I-19Each Decade Had A Mania Each Decade Had A Mania Each Decade Had A Mania With respect to performance of other heavyweights like TSMC and Samsung, the electronics cycle - like overall trade in Asia - has topped out, as evidenced by relapsing semiconductor prices (Chart I-20). Chart I-20Semiconductor Prices Have Rolled Over Semiconductor Prices Have Rolled Over Semiconductor Prices Have Rolled Over This is a very cyclical sector, and a further slowdown is to be expected following the growth outburst of the past 18 months. This may be enough to cause a meaningful correction in technology hardware and semi stocks. Ms. Mea: Finally, translating these themes into market strategy, what are your strongest conviction recommendations? Investment and asset allocation strategy should favor DM over EM in equity, currency and credit spaces. This strategy will likely pay off in both risk-on and risk-off environments. Our overweights within the EM equity universe are Mexico, Taiwan, Korea, India, Thailand and central Europe. In the meantime, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and Malaysia are our strong-conviction underweights. In terms of sector trades, I would emphasize our long-standing short EM banks / long U.S. banks position. Finally, it seems EM currencies are breaking down versus the U.S. dollar. There is much more downside, and traders and investors should capitalize on this trend by being short a basket of EM currencies like the BRL, the ZAR, the CLP, the MYR and the IDR versus the dollar. For fixed-income investors, depreciating EM currencies are a major headwind for both local currency and U.S. dollar bonds, and we recommend defensive positioning. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Special Report "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available on emsbcaresearch.com 2 This differs from BCA's house view which is bullish on oil prices. 3 "Caixin View: Politburo Comments on Expanding Domestic Demand Don't Signal Stimulus," Caixin Global, April 2017. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Special Report "China Real Estate: A New-Bursting Bubble?," dated April 6, 2018, the link available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Feature Chart of the WeekAg Vol Will Rise Ag Vol Will Rise Ag Vol Will Rise Over the coming three months markets will be zeroing in on spring planting in the U.S., looking for deviations from the USDA's March intentions report. This will occur against the cyclical backdrop of increased volatility, as markets attempt to price the real impact of Chinese tariffs (Chart of the Week). Putting aside fundamentals, U.S. financial conditions will be a headwind to ag prices this year. Longer term, despite the more favorable USD outlook, a slowdown in China, which accounts for ~ 20% of global food demand, could be bearish for ag prices. Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. crude oil output rose to a record 10.3mm b/d in February according to the U.S. EIA. U.S. crude production exceeded Saudi Arabia's in 1Q18; we expect it to exceed Russia's output of 11.2mm b/d by December, 2018. Base Metals: Neutral. Permanent waivers on steel and aluminum tariffs were granted to Australian, Argentine, and Brazilian imports by U.S. firms, while exemptions on imports from the EU, Canada and Mexico were extended to June 1. Precious Metals: Neutral. USD strength is weighing on gold and silver: Our long positions on both metals are down 3.0% and 6.2%, respectively, over the past two weeks. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Ag market volatility will increase, as markets assess U.S. spring planting progress against a backdrop of a possible trade war in ags between the U.S. and China (see below). Feature All Eyes On U.S. Planting Progress It is a busy time of year for U.S. farmers as spring planting is underway. Based on the USDA's annual Prospective Planting Report, released end-March, corn and soybean plantings will fall 2% y/y and 1% y/y, respectively. If realized, corn planted area in the 2018/19 crop year will be the lowest since 2015, and, for only the second time in the history of the series, will fall behind soybean acreage (Chart 2). The USDA's survey also indicates U.S. corn and soybeans will lose ground to wheat, where farmers intend to expand acreage by 3%. Even so, wheat planting intentions are the second lowest on record since the beginning of the series in 1919, surpassed only by last year's all-time low. Mother Nature is not co-operating either: unseasonably cold and wet weather is hindering planting this spring (Table 1). Planting of corn and spring wheat are significantly behind average for this time of the year. Similarly, heading of winter wheat - which accounts for ~ 70% of total wheat intentions - is also behind schedule. Furthermore, harsh winter weather reduced the condition of almost 40% of the crop to poor or very poor, with only 33% qualifying as good or excellent, compared to last year's assessment of 13% and 54%, respectively. Chart 2U.S. Soybean Acreage To Surpass Corn In 2018/19 U.S. Soybean Acreage To Surpass Corn In 2018/19 U.S. Soybean Acreage To Surpass Corn In 2018/19 Table 1U.S. Farmers Are Behind Schedule Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up Weather-related delays are less of a risk for soybean plantings, which begin and end later in the summer. Progress is currently in line with historical averages, and, since farmers have an additional month of planting compared to corn and wheat, it is possible they will opt to switch their unplanted corn and wheat acreage to beans. This is a downside risk to the soybean market: When all is said and done, June soybean acreage may exceed targets indicated in the USDA's March intentions report. Although farmers' current lack of headway on the fields is cause for concern, it is still possible that farmers will be able to catch up, attaining their targeted acreage. A Backdrop Of Falling Inventories The termination of China's corn stockpiling scheme, which, prior to 2016 led to the rapid buildup of domestic inventories, was accompanied by policies designed to incentivize soybean plantings over corn. In the case of corn, these policies have paid off. By the end of the current crop year we expect the drawdown in Chinese inventories - along with U.S. stockpiles - to drag world corn reserves lower for the first time since 2010/11 (Chart 3).1 China's pro-soybean production policy is expected to yield a 1.1% expansion in the oilseed's planting area, leading to a 12.8% increase in output this crop year. Regardless, domestic inventories expressed in stocks-to-use (STU) terms are projected to fall (Chart 4). Similarly, world soybean reserves will contract on the back of a decline in Argentine output, which will lead to the largest - and one of only three on record - soybean deficits in the domestic market. In the case of wheat, although U.S. output is forecast to come down this year, weighing on domestic inventories, global markets remain well supplied (Chart 5). In fact, even though USDA's monthly revisions to U.S. production have been downward, forecasts of total use also were revised down. This means the net impact on the balance will be a wider-than-expected surplus. In the case of global markets, world wheat STU ratio will increase to levels last seen in 1986. Net, despite unfavorable weather weighing on the quality and quantity of U.S. wheat crops, there is no shortage of wheat in the world, unlike corn and soybeans. Chart 3Corn Deficit Eating##BR##Away At Stockpiles Corn Deficit Eating Away At Stockpiles Corn Deficit Eating Away At Stockpiles Chart 4China STU Falls Despite##BR##Pro-Soybean Policies China STU Falls Despite Pro-Soybean Policies China STU Falls Despite Pro-Soybean Policies Chart 5Global Wheat Markets Well Supplied##BR##Amid U.S. Supply Concerns Global Wheat Markets Well Supplied Amid U.S. Supply Concerns Global Wheat Markets Well Supplied Amid U.S. Supply Concerns Bottom Line: Given the slower-than-average planting progress this year, near term prices will likely reflect developments in the U.S., as farmers rush to get the crops in the ground. While winter wheat appears to be of poor quality this year, corn and spring wheat plantings are significantly behind schedule. This raises the risk that their acreages will be abandoned in favor of soybeans, which has a later planting window. All in all, if the June acreage report aligns with farmers' planting intentions, we expect to see an increase in wheat acreage at the expense of corn and soybean, which will provide some supply relief to domestic wheat markets. U.S. Farmers Less Competitive, Especially In Soybean Markets In theory, China's announced plans to levy duties on U.S. ag imports puts U.S. farmers - part of President Trump's base - at a disadvantage. But, reality may not be as bearish. The outcome hinges on whether the U.S. will be able to ramp up its exports to other markets amid declining imports from the top bean consumer. Given the impact of weather on soybean output in Argentina - where drought cut soybean output by 30% y/y - there will be a void in global supply. Since soybeans are fungible, we expect ex-China demand to remain supported on the back of limited global supply. This will provide an opportunity for the U.S. to export its surplus, at least in this crop year. To date, there appears to be some evidence of this. Domestic supply will be insufficient to cover Argentinian consumption this year (Chart 6). In an unusual move, USDA export sales data shows Argentina booked a 240k MT purchase of U.S. soybeans for delivery in the next marketing year. Argentina traditionally is a net exporter of soybeans. While we expect tariffs to reshuffle trade flows as China attempts to ensure supplies while avoiding U.S. soybeans, the net effect in terms of global demand for U.S. soybeans may not be as bearish as is feared. China simply does not have the domestic supply to satisfy its demands for beans. While opting for Brazilian or Argentinian beans may be way around importing U.S. supplies, this will open up other export opportunities for the U.S. variety, leading to a simple restructuring of trade flows.2 Recent declines in Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans amid growing imports from Brazil have been cited as evidence of a gloomy future for U.S. soybean farmers. However, this phenomenon is part of the Chinese import cycle: Brazilian soybeans flood Chinese markets in the second and third quarters, while American supplies flow in during the last and first quarters of any given year (Chart 7). Furthermore, U.S. soybean imports have been on the downtrend since the middle of last year. Thus, this observation alone does not signal a change in trend. Chart 6Weak Argentine Output##BR##Restrict Global Supplies Weak Argentine Output Restrict Global Supplies Weak Argentine Output Restrict Global Supplies Chart 7Chinese Preference For Brazilian Beans##BR##Typical For This Time Of Year Chinese Preference For Brazilian Beans Typical For This Time Of Year Chinese Preference For Brazilian Beans Typical For This Time Of Year In fact, the premium paid for Brazilian beans over those traded in Chicago spiked earlier last month. Although it has since come down slightly, it suggests Chinese consumers will have to bear the brunt of more expensive imports. Furthermore, this makes U.S. beans relatively cheaper - and more attractive - in the global market. All the same, higher costs may entice Chinese consumers to look at adjusting the feed formula by diversifying the source of feed. Although our baseline scenario is that these tariffs will remain in place, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lightizer's trip to Beijing may be the opening salvo to less hostile trade developments. If this is the case, we would expect these trade-related risks to ease. Bottom Line: Tariffs on U.S. soybean imports to China are, in theory, bearish for U.S. markets. However, China's reliance on these beans, along with a tight market this year, makes the outlook less gloomy. Courses of action that may be pursued by China are (1) diversifying the source of the bean, (2) reducing demand for the bean by adjusting feed formula, and (3) continuing to raise domestic soybean acreage. Given the cyclical nature of China's soybean imports, we are entering a period of naturally low demand for U.S. soybeans. Thus, we will not likely see the real impact of current trade disputes until China's demand for American beans kicks in again in 4Q18. In the meantime, a global deficit will open up alternative opportunities for U.S. exports. U.S. And Foreign Financial Conditions Drive Long Run Outlook As weather and the on-going trade tensions between the U.S. and China evolve, the U.S. financial backdrop - particularly real interest rates and the broad USD trade-weighted index (TWIB) - will remain crucial to ag markets. In line with BCA Research's House View, we expect Fed rate hikes to exceed those of other central banks, providing support to a stronger USD over the next 12 months. This will weigh on ag prices.3 Chinese economic growth also could figure prominently, based on recent research from the CME Group, which operates the world's benchmark grain futures markets.4 The relationship between China's unofficial economic gauge - the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) - and ag prices appear to operate through the currency channel. A weaker Chinese economy - reflected in the LKI - suppresses industrial commodity demand, which ends up weighing on the currencies of major commodity exporters. This means the local costs of production for these exporters fall, which, with a 1- to 2-year lag, incentivizes crop plantings in these regions. The increased supply at the margin is bearish for ag prices, all else equal. Given the current environment of a slowing Chinese economy, this relationship is relevant to the longer-term outlook. The significance of the LKI in our grains models provides some evidence of this relationship (Chart 8). When applying the analysis to Brazilian and Russian ag markets, we find the LKI to be positively correlated with the Brazilian Real and the Russian Ruble. This, in turn, explains the inverse correlation we find between the LKI and future ag production in these two markets (Chart 9). A weaker domestic currency does appear to entice farmers to increase plantings of ag commodities, allowing them to take advantage of greater local currency profits from USD-denominated ag exports. Chart 8China Slowdown May Weigh Down On Ags... China Slowdown May Weigh Down On Ags... China Slowdown May Weigh Down On Ags... Chart 9...By Incentivizing Production Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up Bottom Line: This preliminary analysis uncovers a supply side channel through which China may impact global ag supplies. It implies that a slowing Chinese economy may in effect spur greater global ag supplies, eventually weighing down on ag prices. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Despite the increase in domestic supply amid greater offerings of state reserves, much of the state corn stocks are reportedly in poor condition, only suitable as a source for ethanol production - cited as the justification for upward revisions to corn consumption this year. As such, imports will likely remain indispensable. Overall it appears that China intends to raise its industrial consumption of corn in order to digest its stockpiles, with limited impact on prices. Late last year, China announced its target of nationwide use of bioethanol gasoline by 2020. It estimates that corn stockpiles are sufficient to meet near term demand for the grain used as the ingredient in E10, and hopes to achieve a physical corn market balance within five years. 2 Please see the Ags/Softs back section titled "Can China Retaliate With Agriculture," in BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 For a more detailed discussion of the impact of U.S. financial variables on ag markets, please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Global Financial Conditions Will Drive Grain Prices In 2018," dated November 30, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Will A Sino-U.S. Trade War Impact Grain, Meat Markets?" dated March 28, 2018, available at cmegroup.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up

Highlights Our constraints-based methodology does not rely on human intelligence or the "rumor mill" to analyze political risks; Yet insights from our travels across the U.S., including inside the Beltway, offer interesting background information and a sense of the general pulse; Anecdotal information suggests that Trump is not "normalizing" in office; that U.S.-China relations will get worse before they get better; and that Trump will walk away from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Stick to our current trades: energy over industrial metals; South Korean bull steepener; long DXY; long DM equities versus EM; long JPY/EUR; short Chinese tech stocks and U.S. S&P500 China-exposed stocks. Feature With the third inter-Korean summit demonstrating our view that "diplomacy is on track,"1 we remind investors of the key geopolitical risks we have been emphasizing - souring U.S.-China relations and rising geopolitical risks over Iran's role in the Middle East.2 We at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy do not base our analysis on information from human "intelligence" sources. No private enterprise can obtain the volume of intelligence that would make the sample statistically significant. Private political analysts relying on such intelligence are at best using flawed reasoning devoid of an analytical framework, and at worst are hucksters. Government intelligence agencies obviously collect a wide swath of not only human but also electronic and signals intelligence. Their sample can be statistically significant. However, the cost of such an effort is prohibitive to the private sector. Nonetheless, we may use human intelligence for background information, insight into how to improve our framework, and to take the subjective pulse of any particular situation. The latter is sometimes the most useful. It is not what a policymaker says that matters so much as how they say it, or the fact that they mention the subject at all. Given that we live in an era of political paradigm shifts, and that "charismatic leadership" is rising in influence relative to more predictable, established institutions and systems,3 we have decided to do something we have not done in the past: share some insights from our recent trips to Washington, DC and elsewhere in the U.S. Caveat emptor: the rumor mill is often wildly misleading, which is why we do not base our research on it. Exhibit A: Donald Trump's tax cuts, which our constraints-based methodology enabled us to predict in spite of the prognostications of in-the-know people throughout the year.4 Trump Is Not Normalizing U.S. domestic politics is the top concern of investors, policymakers, and policy wonks almost everywhere we go. It routinely ranks above concerns about Russia, China, the Middle East, or emerging markets (EM). We frequently heard that the U.S. is entering a period of political turmoil worse than anything since President Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Some old Washington hands even claim that the Trump era will cause even greater uncertainty than the Nixon era did because Congress is allegedly less willing to keep the president in check. Economic policy uncertainty, based on newspaper word count, is at least comparable today to the tumultuous 1973-74 period, which culminated with Nixon's resignation in August 1974, and is trending upward (Chart 1). Chart 1Trump Uncertainty Approaching Nixon Levels? Inside The Beltway Inside The Beltway Of course, there is a big difference between Trump's and Nixon's context: today the economy is not going through a recession but rip-roaring ahead, charged with Trump's tax cuts and a bipartisan spending splurge. And the nation is not in the midst of a large-scale and deeply divisive war (not yet, anyway). There is little chance of major new legislation this year, yet deregulation, particularly financial deregulation, will continue to pad corporate earnings and grease the wheels of the economy. The booming economy is lifting Trump's approval ratings, which are trying to converge to the average of previous presidents at this stage in their terms (Chart 2). This development poses the single biggest risk to the unanimous opinion in DC that Republicans face a "Blue Wave" (Democratic Party sweep) in the midterm elections on November 6. However, a key support of the "Blue Wave" theory is that Republicans are split among themselves - and no one in the Washington swamp will deny it. Pro-business, establishment Republicans have never trusted Trump. They are retiring in droves rather than face up to either populist challengers in the Republican primary elections this summer or enthusiastic "anti-Trump" Democrats and independents in the general election (Chart 3).5 Chart 2Is Trump's Stimulus Bump Over? Inside The Beltway Inside The Beltway Chart 3GOP Retirements Are Unprecedented Inside The Beltway Inside The Beltway Trump is expected to ignite a constitutional crisis by firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the man leading the investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia. Republicans are widely against firing Mueller, but they are not united in legislating against it, leaving Trump unconstrained. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) says he will not allow consideration on the Senate floor of a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that would protect Mueller from firing.6 If Trump fires Mueller, Democrats expect a political earthquake. Some think that mass protests, and mass counter-protests encouraged by Trump himself, will culminate in violence. (We would expect protests to be mostly limited to activists, but obviously violent incidents are probable at mass rallies with opposing sides.) The Democrats are widely expected to take the House of Representatives; most observers are on the fence about the Senate. The House is enough to impeach Trump, which is widely expected to occur, by hook or by crook. But the impact on the country's political polarization will be much worse if there is impeachment without "smoking gun" evidence against Trump's person. Nixon, recall, refused to hand over evidence (the Watergate tapes) under a court order. When he handed some tapes over, they emitted a suspicious buzzing sound at critical points in the recording. Public opinion turned against him, prompting his party to abandon ship. He resigned because the loss of party support made him unlikely to survive impeachment. By contrast, there is not yet any comparable missing or doctored evidence in Trump's case, nor any sinkhole in Republican opinion that would presage a 67-vote conviction in the Senate (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Not Yet In Nixon's Shoes Inside The Beltway Inside The Beltway Still, clouds are on the horizon. When people raise concerns about geopolitical issues - the U.S.-Russia confrontation, or the potential for a trade war with China - their starting point is uncertainty about President Donald Trump and his administration's policies. The United States is seen as the chief source of political risk in the world. Bottom Line: People in the Beltway who were once willing to believe that Trump would learn on the job and become "normalized" in office now seem to be shifting to the view that he is truly an unorthodox, and potentially reckless, president. The New (Aggressive) Consensus On China China is in the air like never before in D.C. In policy circles, the striking thing is the near unanimity of the disenchantment with China. Republicans are angry with China over trade and national security. Democrats are not to be outdone, having long been angry with China over trade, and also labor issues and human rights violations. It seems that everyone in the government and bureaucracy, liberal or conservative, is either demanding a tougher policy on China or resigned to its inevitability. American officials flatly reject the view that the Trump administration is instigating a conflict with China that destabilizes the world economy. Rather they insist that China has already instigated the conflict and caused destabilizing global imbalances through its mercantilist policies. They firmly believe that the U.S. can and should disrupt the status quo in order to change China's behavior, but that no one wants a trade war. They believe that the U.S. can be aggressive without causing things to spiral out of control. This could be a problem, as we detect a similar hardening of sentiment in China. On our travels there, the attitude was one of defiance toward Trump and Washington. We have received assurances that Beijing will not simply fold, no matter how much pain is incurred from trade measures. Of course, it is in China's interest to bluster in order to deter the U.S. from tariffs. But Chinese policymakers may be ready to sustain greater damage than Washington or the investment community expects. Tech companies are particularly out of the loop with Washington. They are said to have been unprepared for the president's actions upon receiving the Section 301 investigation results. They may also be underestimating the product list that the U.S. Trade Representative has drawn up pursuant to Section 301.7 Even products on that list that are not imported directly from China could have their trade disrupted. While China is demanding that the U.S. ease restrictions on high-tech exports, to reduce the trade imbalance (Chart 5), the U.S. believes that export controls allow for plenty of waivers and exceptions. They do not see export controls as a major risk. Chart 5U.S. Deficit Due To Security Concerns Inside The Beltway Inside The Beltway Rather, they see rising U.S. restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. as the real risk. The U.S. wants reciprocity in investment as well as trade. The emphasis lies on fair and equal access, which will require massive compromises from China, given its practice of walling off "strategic" sectors (including aviation, energy, electricity, shipping, and communications) from foreign interests. China's recent pledges to allow foreigners majority stakes in financial companies may not be enough to pacify the U.S. negotiators, especially if the promises hinge on long-term implementation. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin will cause a stir when he releases his guidelines for investment restrictions, as expected by May 21 under the president's declaration on the Section 301 probe (Table 1).8 Both the House of Representatives and Senate are expected, within a couple of months, to pass the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R, TX) and Representative Robert Pittenger (R, NC). This bill would grant greater powers to the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in conducting investigations into foreign investment deals with national security ramifications. Under the new law CFIUS will be able to review proposed investment deals on grounds that go beyond a strict reading of national security. They will now include economic security, and potential sectoral impacts as well as individual corporate impacts, and previously neglected issues like intellectual property.9 Trump is unlikely to veto the bill, as previous presidents have done when laws cracking down on China have passed Congress, given his desire to shake up the China relationship. Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Inside The Beltway Inside The Beltway Will CFIUS enforcement truly intensify? Treasury's actions may preempt the bill, and CFIUS has already been subjecting China to greater scrutiny for years (Chart 6). Moreover, American presidents have always canceled investment deals if CFIUS advised against them.10 Presumably broadening CFIUS's powers will result in a wider range of deals struck down. The government already stopped Broadcom, a Singaporean company, from taking over the U.S. firm Qualcomm, in March, for reasons that have more to do with R&D and competitiveness (economic security) than with any military applications of its technologies (national security). Separately, U.S. policy elites are starting to turn their sights toward China's global propaganda and psychological operations. The scandal over the Communist Party's subversive institutional and political influence in Australia has heightened concerns in other Western, especially Anglo-Saxon, countries.11 This is a new trend that will have bigger implications going forward in Western civil society and the business community, with state efforts to create firewalls against Chinese state intrusion exacerbating political and trade tensions. Australians have the most favorable view of China in the West, and on the whole they continue to see China in a positive light. However, this view will likely sour this year. The recent attempt by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to pass legislation guarding against Communist Party interference in Australian politics has already led to a series of diplomatic incidents, including tensions over the South China Sea and Pacific Islands. These can get worse in the near future. Consistently, over 40% of Australians view China as "likely" to become a military threat over the next 20 years (Chart 7), and this number will worsen if attempts to safeguard democratic institutions from state-backed influence operations cause China to retaliate with punitive measures toward Australia. China is offering some concessions to counteract the new, aggressive consensus in Washington. Enforcing UN sanctions against North Korea was the big turn. But it is also allowing the RMB to appreciate against the USD (Chart 8), which is an issue close to Trump's heart. The change in temperature in Washington can be measured by the fact that these concessions seem to be taken for granted while the discussion moves onto other demands like trade and investment reciprocity. Chart 6U.S. To Restrict Chinese Investment U.S. To Restrict Chinese Investment U.S. To Restrict Chinese Investment Chart 7Australian Fears About China To Rise Inside The Beltway Inside The Beltway Chart 8Is This Enough To Stay Trump's Hand On Tariffs? Is This Enough To Stay Trump's Hand On Tariffs? Is This Enough To Stay Trump's Hand On Tariffs? Simultaneously, China is courting Europe. European policymakers say that they share U.S. concerns about China's trade practices but wish to resolve disputes through the World Trade Organization and reject unilateral American actions or aggressive punitive measures that could harm global stability. Meanwhile China hopes that American policy toward Iran and the Middle East will alienate the Europeans while distracting Washington from formulating a coherent pivot to Asia. Bottom Line: Investors are underestimating the potential for a full-blown trade war. Policymakers - in China as well as the U.S. - have greater appetite for confrontation. Iran: Reversing Obama's Legacy The financial news media continue to underrate the importance of geopolitical risk tied to Iran this year (Chart 9). Our sense is that the Trump administration, when in doubt, is still biased towards reversing Obama-era policy on any given issue. Iranian nuclear deal of 2015 appears to be no exception. Chart 9Iranian Geopolitical Risk About to Shoot Up Iranian Geopolitical Risk About to Shoot Up Iranian Geopolitical Risk About to Shoot Up Signs have emerged for months that Trump is likely to refuse to waive Iranian sanctions (Table 2) when the renewal comes due on May 12. He has fired his national security adviser and secretary of state, as well as lesser officials, in preference for Iran hawks.12 French President Emmanuel Macron, having tried to convince Trump to retain the deal on his recent state visit to Washington, is apparently convinced Trump will scrap it.13 Table 2U.S. Sanctions Have Global Reach Inside The Beltway Inside The Beltway Moreover, discussions of Iran mark the one exception to the hardening consensus on China. A number of people we spoke with were not convinced that the Trump administration will truly devote the main thrust of its foreign policy to countering China. Some believed U.S. voters did not have the stomach for a trade fight that would affect their pocketbooks. Others believed that the Trump administration would simply revert to a more traditional Republican foreign policy, accepting a "quick win" on China trade while pursuing a confrontational military posture in the Persian Gulf. Still others believed that Trump has unique reasons, such as political weakness at home and the desire to be respected abroad, for wanting to be in lock-step with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman against Iran. All agreed that while a shift to China makes strategic sense, it may not overrule Republican policy preferences or inertia. The stakes are high. Allowing sanctions to snap back into place would affect a substantial portion of the one million barrels per day of oil that Iran has brought onto global markets since sanctions were eased in January 2016 (Chart 10). Chart 10Re-Imposing Iranian Sanctions Threatens Oil Supply And Middle East Stability Re-Imposing Iranian Sanctions Threatens Oil Supply And Middle East Stability Re-Imposing Iranian Sanctions Threatens Oil Supply And Middle East Stability As BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy notes, global oil supply is tight and the critical driver - emerging market demand - remains strong. Meanwhile the "OPEC 2.0" cartel plans to extend production cuts throughout 2018 and likely into 2019, further draining global inventories. Inventories are now on track to fall beneath their 2010-14 average level by next year. In this context, the geopolitical risk premium will add to upside oil price risks this year. Our commodity strategists still expect oil prices to average $70-$74 per barrel this year (WTI and Brent respectively), but they can see it shooting above $80 per barrel on occasion, and warn that even small supply disruptions (whether from Iran, Venezuela, Libya, or elsewhere) could send prices even higher (Chart 11).14 Chart 11Oil Prices Can Make Runs Into /Barrel Range Oil Prices Can Make Runs Into $80/Barrel Range Oil Prices Can Make Runs Into $80/Barrel Range If the U.S. re-imposes sanctions on Iran, we doubt that the full one million barrels per day of post-sanctions Iranian production will be taken offline. Global compliance with sanctions will be ineffective this time around. The Trump administration's sanctions will not have the legitimacy or buy-in that the Obama administration's sanctions did. Trump may even intend to impose the sanctions for domestic political consumption while giving Europe, Japan, and others a free pass. Still, the geopolitical and production impact will be significant. As for oil, price overshoots are even more likely when one considers Venezuela, where our oil analysts estimate that state collapse will remove around 500,000 barrel per day from last year's average by the end of this year.15 Bottom Line: We continue to expect energy commodities to outperform metals in an environment where energy prices benefit from a rising geopolitical risk premium, while metals could suffer from ongoing risks to Chinese growth. Investment Conclusions Independently of the above anecdotes, Geopolitical Strategy has laid out a case urging clients to sell in May and go away.16 Last year we were confident recommending that clients forget this old adage because we had clarity on the geopolitical risks and their constraints. This year, with both China and Iran, we lack that clarity. The U.S.'s European allies could perhaps convince Trump to maintain the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement, and Trump could perhaps accept China's concessions (such as they are) to get a "quick win" on the trade front before the midterm elections. But we have no basis for assessing that he will do either with any degree of conviction. How long will it take to resolve the raft of outstanding U.S.-Iran and U.S.-China tensions? Our uncertainty here gives us a high conviction view that this summer will be turbulent. Geopolitical tensions will likely get worse before they get better. We would reiterate our recommendation that clients be long DXY and hold a "geopolitical protector portfolio" of Swiss bonds and gold. We remain long developed market equities relative to emerging markets and long JPY/EUR. We are also maintaining our shorts on Chinese tech stocks and U.S. stocks exposed to China. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Jordain Carney, "McConnell: Senate won't take up Mueller protection bill," April 17, 2018, available at thehill.com. 7 Please see U.S. Trade Representative, "Under Section 301 Action, USTR Releases Proposed Tariff List on Chinese Products," and "USTR Robert Lighthizer Statement on the President's Additional Section 301 Action," dated April 3 and April 5, 2018, available at ustr.gov. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Senator Jon Cornyn, "S.2098 - Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017," dated Nov. 8, 2017, available at www.congress.gov. For the argument behind the bill, see Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein, "FIRRMA Act will give Committee on Foreign Investment a needed update," The Hill, dated March 21, 2018, available at thehill.com. 10 Please see Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, "CFIUS In 2017: A Momentous Year," 2018, available at www.wsgr.com. 11 Australian Senator Sam Dastyari (Labor Party) resigned on December 11, 2017 after it was exposed that he accepted cash donations from a Chinese property developer that he used to repay his own debts. He had also supported China's position in the South China Sea. The scandal prompted revelations of a range of Chinese state-linked political donations. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has introduced legislation banning foreign political donations and forcing lobbyists for foreign countries to register. 12 Mike Pompeo replaced Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, John Bolton replaced H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser, and Chief of Staff John Kelly has been sidelined; Bolton has appointed Mira Ricardel as his deputy, who has been said to clash with Secretary of Defense James Mattis in trying to staff the Pentagon with Trump loyalists. Please see Niall Stanage, "The Memo: Nationalists gain upper hand in Trump's White House," The Hill, April 25, 2018, available at thehill.com. 13 Macron has presented a framework that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May have accepted that would call for improvements to outstanding issues with Iran while keeping the 2015 deal intact. Macron has also spoken with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani about retaining the deal while addressing the Trump administration's grievances. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," dated April 19, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see footnote 14, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks for now, despite the recent spell of poor relative performance. Our downgrade watch for Q2 remains in effect, however, as the risks to this position are clearly to the downside. Recent data suggests that China's industrial sector continues to slow. We also see more downside risk from monetary policy and the pace of structural reform than the market, underscoring that our stance towards China is a low-conviction overweight. Taiwan's recent outperformance has largely been passive, in that it has been driven by the movement in stock prices outside of Taiwan. The factors boosting the relative performance of technology and bank stocks are unlikely to be sustained, suggesting that investors should remain underweight Taiwan within Greater China bourses. Feature Chart 1Ex-Tech Stocks Edging Closer##BR##To A Breakdown Vs Global Ex-Tech Stocks Edging Closer To A Breakdown Vs Global Ex-Tech Stocks Edging Closer To A Breakdown Vs Global Chinese ex-technology stock prices edged closer to a technical breakdown in April (Chart 1), as ongoing concerns about the impact of a trade war with the U.S. weighed further on investor sentiment. Consumer discretionary stocks have fared particularly poorly, as President Xi's pledge to open up the auto sector (which is negative for the market share of domestic firms) underscores that car producers are facing a losing scenario even if a further escalation in trade tension with the U.S. is avoided. Panel 2 of Chart 1 shows that recent decline has brought consumer discretionary stocks back to early-2017 levels relative to the broad market. The selloff in the consumer discretionary sector has significantly benefitted one of China Investment Strategy's open trades: long investable consumer staples / short investable consumer discretionary, initiated on November 16. The trade had already been outperforming prior to Xi's pledge in response to the original basis that we articulated (negative impact on autos from environmental reforms), but the news of a likely deterioration in market share has helped the trade earn a whopping 20% in less than 6 months. We recommend that investors stick with the call for now, until greater clarity emerges about the ultimate impact of trade negotiations with the U.S. But we have also recommended that investors place Chinese ex-tech stocks on downgrade watch for Q2 (while maintaining an overweight stance versus global equities), and that technical measures should be watched closely to determine whether a downgrade is indeed warranted. Within this framework, the recent deterioration in performance is worrying, raising the question of whether it is time for investors to reduce their exposure to ex-tech shares. Stay Overweight, For Now... Three factors point to "no" as the answer: Chart 2A Pro-Cyclical Allocation Is Consistent##BR##With A China Overweight A Pro-Cyclical Allocation Is Consistent With A China Overweight A Pro-Cyclical Allocation Is Consistent With A China Overweight Despite the weakness of Chinese stock prices over the past few weeks, they have not yet broken down technically: Chart 1 highlighted that their relative performance versus global stocks remains above its 200-day moving average. For now, this is consistent with a worsening in sentiment rather than full-fledged expectations of a sharp deterioration in equity fundamentals. Investors are clearly reacting to the negative potential effect of trade protectionism on ex-tech earnings, the ultimate impact of which remains subject to negotiation. We singled out consumer discretionary stocks as being likely to fare poorly under any realistic trade outcome, but the decline in Chinese relative performance since mid-April has occurred across all sectors, suggesting that a reversal may occur outside of the discretionary sector if a trade deal is struck with the U.S. Talks in China between high level U.S. and Chinese officials tomorrow and Friday are a hopeful sign that a relatively beneficial deal for both sides may be possible, suggesting that it is too early to cut exposure. Over a 1-year time horizon, BCA continues to recommend that investors remain overweight global equities within an overall balanced portfolio. We have highlighted in previous reports that the Chinese investable stock market is now a decidedly high-beta equity market versus the global benchmark (even in ex-tech terms),1 meaning that an overweight stance is justified barring a significantly negative alpha. Since Chart 2 illustrates that Chinese ex-tech stocks have in fact generated a modestly positive alpha over the past year, a pro-cyclical asset allocation stance continues to favor an above-benchmark weight to Chinese equities ex-technology. For now, our investment recommendations remain unchanged: investors should stay overweight Chinese stocks excluding the technology sector over the coming 6-12 months. But as highlighted below, the risks to China are clearly to the downside, which supports our decision to place Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for Q2. This watch remains in effect for the coming two months, a period during which we hope fuller clarity on the U.S./China trade dispute as well as the pace of decline in China's industrial sector will emerge. Bottom Line: Stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks for now, despite the recent spell of poor relative performance. Our downgrade watch for Q2 remains in effect, however, as the risks to this position are clearly to the downside. ...But The Risks Are To The Downside Table 1 updates our macro data monitor that we have published in a few previous reports. The monitor tracks the data series that we found to have the most reliable leading properties when predicting the Li Keqiang index (LKI),2 which we have defined as the most relevant proxy of China's business cycle. Table 1No Convincing Signs Of An##BR##Impending Upturn In China's Economy China: A Low-Conviction Overweight China: A Low-Conviction Overweight Chart 3Lower Inventories =##BR##A Rise In Housing Construction? Lower Inventories = A Rise In Housing Construction? Lower Inventories = A Rise In Housing Construction? The table now shows a March datapoint for all of the series that we track, and continues to argue that the trend in Chinese industrial activity is down. In particular, it appears to confirm that the elevated January/February levels in Bloomberg's calculation of the LKI were likely noise, and not a signal of an impending uptrend. The table highlights that none of the components of our leading indicator for the LKI are above their 12-month moving average, and 5 out of the 6 components fell in March. While the April update of the Caixin manufacturing PMI is being released as we go to press, the official manufacturing PMI also fell in April. On the housing front, floor space sold, one of the most important leading indicators for residential construction activity in China, has also decelerated over the past two months. In last week's joint Special Report with our Emerging Markets Strategy service, my colleague Ellen JingYuan He noted that steel prices are at risk not only because of a likely increase in supply, but from weaker demand due to a potential slowdown in the property market. BCA's China Investment Strategy service has actually taken a cautiously optimistic stance towards the housing market, and noted in an early-February report that there were a few signs of a pickup in activity.3 Chart 3 presents the most hopeful case, which is that the multi-year downtrend in residential construction relative to sales may be over given the significant reduction in housing inventories that has occurred over the past two years. Still, the level of inventories remains quite elevated by conventional standards, and it is difficult to see growth in residential construction sustainably rise if floor space sold remains weak, as it has been for the past two months. Given the recent evolution of the important macro data from China, our view is that the downside risk to the industrial sector should be clear to most investors. However, the potential for monetary policy easing and the extent of the tailwind for China from global growth remain two areas where we see more downside risk than some in the market. On the policy front, China's recent cut in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) was greeted by some analysts as a sign of easing monetary policy, with others pointing to the recent decline in government bond yields as a clear sign that China's monetary policy is about to become less restrictive. However, we explained in a recent Special Report why the 3-month repo rate is currently the de-facto policy rate,4 and Chart 4 highlights that it appears to lead yields at the short-end. The recent tick down in the latter appears to be a delayed response to the sharp decline in the former, which preceded the RRR cut. Specifically, the repo rate slide was triggered by news reports in late-March that the deadline for new rules to be imposed on China's asset management industry would be extended, which is consistent with our argument that roughly 3/4ths of the tightening in monetary policy that has occurred since late-2016 has actually been regulatory/macro-prudential in nature. Given that the 3-month repo rate has since rebounded back to its post-2017 average following the announcement, we see no indication of any intension by the PBOC to ease monetary policy. Concerning trade, while the threat to China's export growth from U.S. protectionism is obvious, some investors have argued that global demand may be strong enough to overwhelm this negative effect and that it will buoy Chinese export growth (and, by extension, imports). This line of reasoning has a strong basis; Chart 5 shows that our BCA Global LEI is forecasting solid industrial production (IP) growth over the coming few months, and we have noted in past reports that there is a strong link between global IP and Chinese export growth. Chart 4No Convincing Signs Of Monetary Easing No Convincing Signs Of Monetary Easing No Convincing Signs Of Monetary Easing Chart 5Global Demand Likely To Remain Solid Global Demand Likely To Remain Solid Global Demand Likely To Remain Solid But Chart 6 presents a problem with this argument, which is that China's reform pain threshold is very likely positively correlated with global growth. In short, BCA has written extensively about how China has embarked on a multi-year reform effort that will likely weigh on growth in its early stages. We have made it clear that the pace of these reform efforts is likely to be responsive to the pace of economic growth (i.e. policymakers will set the pace to avoid a major growth slowdown), but the other side of this coin is that policymakers are likely to take advantage of a stronger export sector by increasing the pace of reforms. So while some investors view the external sector of China's economy as having some potential to counter weakness in the industrial sector if major protectionist action can be avoided, our sense is that ramped up reform efforts will offset and possibly overwhelm this positive factor, were it to occur. As a final point, in the context of Chart 6, material easing in either policy rates or the pace of reform efforts may occur over the coming 6-12 months, but it would likely be in response to a more serious slowdown in the economy than we are currently observing. As we noted in our April 18 Weekly Report,5 the possibility that Chinese authorities will need to stimulate the economy over the coming year is interesting because it raises the prospect of another economic mini-cycle in China, potentially leading to another meaningful acceleration. But the economic and financial market circumstances that would precede such an event are unlikely to be happy ones for investors, raising the risk of a serious selloff in China-related assets before policy eases sufficiently to return to an overweight stance. Chart 6If Demand For Chinese Exports Stays Strong,##BR##Reform Efforts Will Intensify China: A Low-Conviction Overweight China: A Low-Conviction Overweight Bottom Line: Recent data suggests that China's industrial sector continues to slow. We also see more downside risk than many investors from monetary policy and the pace of structural reform, underscoring that our stance towards China is a low-conviction overweight. An Update On Taiwanese Equities We last wrote about Taiwanese stocks in our December 14 Weekly Report,6 and argued that investors stick with our short MSCI Taiwan / long MSCI China trade and our underweight stance towards Taiwan vs Greater China bourses, despite extended technical conditions. Our recommendation was based on the argument that Taiwanese tech sector underperformance had been driven by material strength in the trade-weighted Taiwanese dollar (TWD), and that a lasting depreciation in the currency would be the most likely catalyst for a re-rating. Since our report in December, the relative performance of Taiwanese stocks has been volatile. After a period of underperformance versus Greater China stock prices, Taiwanese stocks then rose sharply in relative terms from late-February to early-April. The magnitude of the rise was sufficiently large to cause the relative price index to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart 7). However, Taiwanese relative performance has reversed course over the past month, retracing over half of the February to April surge. Chart 8 highlights that these confusing moves in Taiwanese stock prices versus Greater China have largely reflected passive outperformance in two sectors: tech sector outperformance versus China, and banking industry group outperformance versus global banks. On the tech front, Chinese tech stocks have been under pressure over the past month due to the tech-focused nature of U.S. import tariffs, and global investors appear to believe that Taiwanese tech stocks would not be as impacted by these tariffs as their Chinese peers. We disagree, as the export intensity of Taiwan's tech sector to China is quite high: exports to China account for 15% of Taiwan's GDP, and electronic components (i.e. semiconductors) account for nearly half of exports to China. This suggests that the tariff impact on Taiwan's tech sector will be sizeable even if it is indirect. Chart 7A Volatile Relative##BR##Performance Trend A Volatile Relative Performance Trend A Volatile Relative Performance Trend Chart 8Tech And Banks Have Driven Recent##BR##Developments In Relative Performance Tech And Banks Have Driven Recent Developments In Relative Performance Tech And Banks Have Driven Recent Developments In Relative Performance On the banking front, Chart 9 highlights that the outperformance of Taiwanese banks versus their global peers has occurred due to a failure of the former to selloff with the latter over the past few months. Global banks appear to be reacting to the recent flattening in the global yield curve caused by a rise at the short-end, whereas there is no sign of upcoming monetary policy tightening in Taiwan and Taiwanese banks have historically been low-beta versus their global peers (Chart 10). Chart 9Taiwanese Banks Have Passively##BR##Outperformed Global Banks Taiwanese Banks Have Passively Outperformed Global Banks Taiwanese Banks Have Passively Outperformed Global Banks Chart 10Continued Bank Outperformance Not##BR##Likely Barring A Decline In Global Equities Continued Bank Outperformance Not Likely Barring A Decline In Global Equities Continued Bank Outperformance Not Likely Barring A Decline In Global Equities We doubt that Taiwan's banks will continue to outperform global banks over the coming 6-12 months without a generalized selloff in global stock prices. As we noted earlier, BCA's house view is overweight global equities (and financials) over the cyclical horizon on the basis of still-strong global growth, stimulative U.S. fiscal policy, and the view that global monetary policy will not reach restrictive territory over the coming year. As such, we are inclined to lean against the recent outperformance of Taiwanese banks and, by extension, the trend in ex-tech relative performance. Bottom Line: Taiwan's recent outperformance has largely been passive, in that it has been driven by the movement in stock prices outside of Taiwan. The factors boosting the relative performance of technology and bank stocks are unlikely to be sustained, suggesting that investors should remain underweight within Greater China bourses. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: No Longer A Low-Beta Market," published January 11, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," published November 30, 2017. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Is China's Housing Market Stabilizing?," published February 8, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," published February 22, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Question That Won't Go Away," published April 18, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan: Awaiting A Re-Rating Catalyst," published December 14, 2017. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Looking Beyond The Next Few Months The next couple of months could remain tricky for equity markets. But, with economic growth set to remain above trend for another year or so and central banks cautious about the pace of monetary tightening, we continue to expect risk assets to outperform over the 12-month horizon. To begin, our short-term concerns. Global growth has clearly slowed in recent months, with Q1 U.S. GDP growth coming in at 2.3%, well below the 2.9% in Q4; global PMIs have also come down from their recent peaks, led by the euro zone and Japan (Chart 1). Inflation has begun to spook investors, with a sharp pick-up in core U.S. inflation, including a rise to 1.9% YoY in the core PCE inflation measure that the Fed watches most closely (Chart 2). Geopolitics will dominate the headlines over the next six weeks, with the waiver on Iran sanctions expiring on May 12, the end of the 60-day consultation for U.S. tariffs on China on May 21, the possible imposition of tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods starting on June 4, and likely developments with North Korea and NAFTA. Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 1Global Growth Has Slowed Global Growth Has Slowed Global Growth Has Slowed Chart 2...And Inflation Picked Up ...And Inflation Picked Up ...And Inflation Picked Up Investors inclined to make short-term tactical shifts might, therefore, want to reduce risk over the next one to three months. For most clients of the Global Asset Allocation service with a longer perspective, however, we continue to recommend an overweight on equities and other risk assets. In the U.S., in particular, fiscal stimulus will, according to IMF estimates, boost GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points this year and 0.9 percentage points next (Chart 3). U.S. corporate earnings should grow by almost 20% this year and around 12% next and, while this is already in analysts' forecasts, it is hard to imagine equity markets struggling against such a strong backdrop. Not one of the recession/bear market warning signals we are watching (inverted yield curve, rising credit spreads, Fed policy in restrictive territory, significant decline in PMIs, peak in cyclical spending) is yet flashing. Neither do we see any signs that higher interest rates or expensive energy prices are slowing growth. Lead indicators of capex have come off a little, but still point to robust growth (Chart 4). The housing market tends to be the most vulnerable to rising rates and the average rate on a 30-year U.S. fixed mortgage has risen to 4.5% (from 3.7% at the start of the year and a low of 3.3% in late 2016). But housing data still look strong, with a continued rise in house prices and mortgage applications steady (Chart 5). Perhaps the sector most vulnerable to rising U.S. rates in this cycle is emerging markets, where borrowers have grown foreign-currency debt to $3.2 trillion, according to the BIS - one reason for our longstanding caution on EM assets (Chart 6). With crude oil rising to $75 a barrel, U.S. retail gasoline prices now average $2.80 a gallon, up from below $2 in 2016, and transportation companies are complaining of rising costs. But, historically, oil prices have needed to rise by 100% YoY before they triggered recession (Chart 7). Chart 3U.S. Stimulus Will Boost The Economy Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 4Capex Remains Robust Capex Remains Robust Capex Remains Robust Chart 5No Signs Of Higher Rates Hurting Housing No Signs Of Higher Rates Hurting Housing No Signs Of Higher Rates Hurting Housing Chart 6Could EM Be Most Affected By Higher Rates? Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 7Oil Hasn't Risen Enough To Cause Recession Oil Hasn't Risen Enough To Cause Recession Oil Hasn't Risen Enough To Cause Recession Eventually, however, strong growth, especially in the U.S., will become a headwind for risk assets. There is still some slack in the labor market, with another 500,000 people likely to return to work eventually (Chart 8). When that happens, perhaps early next year, the currently sluggish wage growth will begin to accelerate. Fiscal stimulus is likely to prove inflationary, since it is unprecedented for a government to stimulate the economy so aggressively when it is already close to full capacity (Chart 9). These factors will push inflation expectations back to their equilibrium level, and the market will then need to adjust to the Fed accelerating the pace of rate hikes to choke off inflation, which will push up real bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 8Still 500,000 Who Could Return To Work Still 500,000 Who Could Return To Work Still 500,000 Who Could Return To Work Chart 9Stimulus Unprecedented In Such A Strong Economy Stimulus Unprecedented In Such A Strong Economy Stimulus Unprecedented In Such A Strong Economy Chart 10Eventually Real Rates Will Need To Rise Eventually Real Rates Will Need To Rise Eventually Real Rates Will Need To Rise When that starts to happen - perhaps late this year or early next year - the yield curve will invert, and investors will start to price in the next recession. That will be the time to turn defensive, but it is still too early now. Fixed Income: Markets are currently pricing only a 50% probability of three more Fed hikes this year, and only two hikes next year. As markets start to anticipate further tightening, long rates are also likely to rise (Chart 11). We see 10-year U.S. Treasury yields at 3.3-3.5% by year-end, and so recommend an overweight in TIPs and a short duration position. The ECB is unlikely to need to rush rate hikes, however, given the slack in the euro zone (Chart 12), and so the spread between U.S. and core euro yields should widen further. Corporate credit spreads are unlikely to contract further but, as long as growth continues, we see U.S. high-yield bonds, in particular, providing attractive returns within the fixed-income bucket. Our bond strategists find that between the 2/10 yield curve crossing below 50 BP and its inverting, high-yield debt has since 1980 given an annualized 368 BP of excess return.1 Chart 11Fed Expectations Drive Long Rates Fed Expectations Drive Long Rates Fed Expectations Drive Long Rates Chart 12Still Plenty Of Slack In The Euro Zone Still Plenty Of Slack In The Euro Zone Still Plenty Of Slack In The Euro Zone Equities: Our preference remains for developed equities over emerging, and for more cyclical, higher-beta markets such as euro zone and Japan. The risk of a stronger yen over the coming months is a concern for Japanese equities in local currency terms but, as our recommendations are expressed in U.S. dollars, the currency effect cancels out, and so we keep our overweight for now. At this stage of the cycle our preference is for value stocks (especially financials) over growth stocks (especially IT): value/growth usually performs in line with cyclicals/defensives, but the relationship has moved out of sync in the past year or so (Chart 13), mostly because of the performance of internet stocks, whose premium valuation makes them very vulnerable to any bad news. Currencies: A widening of interest-rate differentials between the U.S. and euro zone is likely to push down the euro against the U.S. dollar over the next few months, especially given how crowded the long-euro trade has become. The vulnerability of EM currencies to rising U.S. rates has been seen in the past few weeks, with sharp falls in currencies such as the Turkish lira, Brazilian real, and Russian ruble. We expect this to continue. Overall, we expect a moderate appreciation of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Commodities: The crude oil price continues to rise in line with our forecasts, and we expect to see Brent crude above $80 a barrel before the end of the year. The price next year will depend on whether the OPEC agreement is extended, and how much U.S. shale oil production reacts to the higher price. On the assumption of a moderate increase in supply from both OPEC and the U.S., the crude price is likely to fall back moderately in 2019. We see the long-term equilibrium crude price in the $55-65 range, the level where global supply can be increased enough to satisfy around 1.5% annual growth in demand. We remain more cautious on industrial commodities, and see the first signs coming through of a slowdown in China, which will dent demand (Chart 14). Chart 13Value Stocks Look Attractive Value Stocks Look Attractive Value Stocks Look Attractive Chart 14Signs Of China Slowing bca.gaa_mu_2018_05_01_c14 bca.gaa_mu_2018_05_01_c14 Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt," dated 24 April, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights The scale of "de-capacity" reforms is diminishing considerably - old, inefficient capacity shutdowns are declining. Sizable new technologically advanced and ecologically friendly capacity is coming on stream for both steel and coal in 2018 and 2019. We project this will boost steel and coal output by 5.2% and 4.7% respectively, this year at a time when demand is set to slow. Steel, coal, iron ore and coke prices are all vulnerable to the downside. Share prices of the companies and currencies of countries that supply these commodities to China are most at risk. Feature Last November, our report titled, "China's "De-Capacity" Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," painted a negative picture for steel and coal prices over 2018 and 2019.1 Since then, after having peaked in December and February respectively, both steel and thermal coal prices have so far declined by about 20% from their respective tops (Chart 1). In the meantime, iron ore and coking coal have also exhibited meaningful weakness (Chart 2). Chart 1More Downside In Steel And Coal Prices More Downside In Steel And Coal Prices More Downside In Steel And Coal Prices Chart 2Iron Ore And Coking Coal Prices Are Also At Risk Iron Ore And Coking Coal Prices Are Also At Risk Iron Ore And Coking Coal Prices Are Also At Risk In this report, we revisit the topic of de-capacity reforms and examine how Chinese supply side reforms in 2018 will affect steel and coal prices. The key message is as follows: Having implemented aggressive capacity reduction over the past two years, the authorities are shifting the focus of supply side reforms from "de-capacity" to "replacement" of already removed capacity with technologically advanced capacity. This means the scale of "de-capacity" reforms is diminishing considerably - old, inefficient capacity shutdowns are declining. In addition, sizable new technologically advanced and ecologically friendly capacity is coming on stream for both steel and coal in 2018 and 2019. From an investing standpoint, this means both steel and coal prices are still vulnerable to the downside. Both could drop by more than 15% from current levels over the course of 2018. Diminishing Scale Of "De-Capacity" Reforms Reducing capacity (also called "de-capacity") in the oversupplied steel and coal markets has been a key priority within China's structural supply side reforms over the past two years. Steel Table 1 shows that the capacity reduction target for steel in 2018 is 30 million tons, which is much lower than the 45 million tons in 2016 and 50 million tons in 2017. Table 1Capacity Reduction: Target And Actual Achievement Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms In addition, between May and September 2017, the "Ditiaogang"2 removal policy eliminated about 120 million tons of steel capacity, and sharply reduced steel products production. Most of Ditiaogang capacity was completely dismantled last year. Therefore, there is not much downside to steel production from Ditiaogang output cutbacks going forward. Furthermore, between October and December 2017, environmental policies aimed at fighting against winter smog also cut steel products output substantially, which pushed steel prices to six-year highs in December (Chart 3). Chart 3Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Steel Sector Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Steel Sector Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Steel Sector In particular, in the last quarter of 2017, to ensure fewer smog days around the Beijing area, Tianjin's steel products output was reduced by 50% from a year earlier. The second biggest contribution to total steel output decline occurred in Hebei - the largest steel-producing province in China - where steel output plummeted by 7%. Excluding Tianjin and Hebei, national steel products output fell only by 3.9% from a year ago. As a long-term solution to ameliorate ecology and air quality around Beijing, the government is aiming to reduce the heavy concentration of steel production in Tianjin and Hebei by shifting a considerable portion of steel capacity to other regions in 2018 and following years. These two provinces together accounted for about 30.6% of the nation's steel products output in 2016; their share dipped to 27.6% in 2017. As a result, next winter the required production reduction from these regions to achieve the air quality targets in Beijing will be smaller. In short, the scale of specific policy driven steel output reduction in 2018 will be meaningfully lower than last year. Coal For coal, despite the same target as last year (150 million tons), the actual capacity cut this year will be much less than last year's actual reduction of 250 million tons, which exceeded the 150 million-ton target. Amid still-high coal prices, the authorities will be more tolerant of producers not cutting too much capacity. Plus, with nearly two-thirds of the 2016-2020 target for capacity cuts having already been achieved in the past two years, there is much less outdated capacity in the industry (Table 1 above). In addition, the government's environment-related policies also led to a decline in total national coal output between October-December 2017 (Chart 4), with Hebei posting the biggest cut in coal output among all provinces. Chart 4Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Coal Sector Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Coal Sector Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Coal Sector However, the authorities shortly thereafter relaxed restrictions on coal output, as the country was severely lacking gas supply for heating. In January and February of this year, the authorities reversed course, demanding that producers accelerate new advanced capacity replacement and increase coal production. Bottom Line: The scale of China's "de-capacity" reforms are diminishing, resulting in a lessening production cuts. Installing Technologically Advanced Capacity China's supply side reforms have included two major components - reducing inefficient capacity and low-quality supply that damaged the environment while boosting medium-to-high-quality production that is economically efficient and ecologically friendly. In brief, having removed significant obsolete capacity in the past two years, the policy focus is now shifting to capacity replacement. The latter enables China to upgrade its steel and coal industries to become more efficient and competitive worldwide, as well as ecologically safer. To guard against excessive production capacity of steel and coal, the authorities are reinforcing the following replacement principle: the ratio of newly installed-to-removed capacity should be less or equal to one. Two important points need to be noted: First and most important, the zero or negative growth of total capacity of steel and coal does not necessarily mean zero or negative growth in steel and coal output. For example, while total capacity for crude steel and steel products declined 4.8% and 1.8% year-on-year in 2016 respectively, output actually increased 0.5% and 1%. Despite falling total capacity, rising operational capacity could still contribute to an increase in final output. Total capacity (measured in tons) for steel and coal production includes both operational capacity and non-operational capacity, the latter representing obsolete/non-profitable capacity. As more technologically advanced capacity is installed to replace the already-removed one, both the size of operational capacity and the capacity utilization rate (CUR) will rise. Typically, advanced technologies have a higher CUR - consequently, production will grow. Second, an increase in the CUR of existing operational capacity will also result in rising output. In 2018, odds are that both the steel and coal industries in China will have non-trivial output increases as a result of new advanced capacity coming on stream. Steel Since late 2015, in environmentally sensitive areas of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta, steel plants have been required to add no more than 0.8 tons of new capacity for every 1 ton of outdated capacity removed. For other areas, the same ratio is 1 or less. Electric furnace (EF) steel-producing technology - which is cleaner, more advanced and used to produce high-quality specialized steel products - has become the major type of new capacity addition. This technology is favored by both the government and steel producers. Chinese EF-based steel production accounted for only 6.4% of the nation's total steel output in 2016, far lower than the world average of 25.7% (Chart 5). The EF technology uses scrap steel as raw materials, graphite electrodes and electricity to produce crude steel. Graphite electrodes, which have high levels of electrical conductivity and the capability of sustaining extremely high levels of heat, are consumed primarily in electric furnace steel production. Chart 6 demonstrates that prices of both graphite electrode and scrap steel have surged since mid-2017. This signifies that considerable new EF production capacity has been coming on stream. Chart 5Chinese Electric Furnace Crude Steel ##br##Production Will Go Up Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms Chart 6Considerable New Addition Of##br## Chinese Electric Furnace Capacity Considerable New Addition Of Chinese Electric Furnace Capacity Considerable New Addition Of Chinese Electric Furnace Capacity Indeed, in 2017 alone, 44 units of EF were installed. In comparison, between 2014 and 2016, only 47 units of EF were installed. As the completion of a new EF installation in general takes eight to 10 months, all of EF capacity installed in 2017 - about 31 million tons of crude steel production capacity - will be operational in 2018. In addition, a report from China's Natural Resource Department indicates that as of mid-December there have been 54 replacement projects with total new steel production capacity of 91 million tons (including new EF capacity, new traditional capacity and recovered capacity). This compares to 120 million tons of capacity removed in 2016-'17. Assuming 60% of this 91 million tons capacity will be operating throughout 2018 at a utilization rate of 80% (the NBS 2017 CUR for the ferrous smelting and pressing industry was 75.8%), this alone will result in 43.6 million tons more output in 2018 from a year ago (5.2% growth from 2017 output) (Table 2). Table 2Strong Profit Margins Will Encourage Steel Production Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms At the same time, strong profit margins will encourage steel makers to produce as much as possible to maximize profits (Chart 7). This will be especially true if the incumbent companies have to absorb liabilities of firms that were shutdown (please refer to page 14 for the discussion on this point). Facing more debt from shutdowns of other companies, steel incumbent producers would have an incentive to ramp up their production to generate more cash. Yet, we do not assume a rise in CUR for existing steel capacity. Hence, crude steel output growth in 2018 will likely be around 5.2%, higher than the 3% growth in 2017. This is in line with the top 10 Chinese steel producers' projected crude steel output growth in 2018 of 5.5%, based on their published production guidance data. The Ditiaogang and environmental policy caused a significant contraction in steel products growth in 2017, but will have limited impact in 2018 as discussed above. Eventually, increasing crude steel output will translate into strong growth in steel products output3 (Chart 8). Chart 7Strong Profit Margins ##br##Will Encourage Steel Production Strong Profit Margins Will Encourage Steel Production Strong Profit Margins Will Encourage Steel Production Chart 8Steel Products Production ##br##Will Rebound In 2018 Steel Products Production Will Rebound In 2018 Steel Products Production Will Rebound In 2018 Coal China's current coal capacity is about 5310 million tons, with 4780 million tons as operational capacity and the remaining 530 million tons as non-operational capacity, which has not produced coal for some time. As in general it takes roughly three to five years to build a coal mine, it will take a long time to replace the obsolete capacity. Yet there is hidden coal capacity in China. The China Coal Industry Association estimated last year that there was about 700 million tons of new technologically advanced capacity that has already been built and is ready to use, but has not yet received government approval. This is greater than the 530 million tons of coal production removed in the past two years by de-capacity reforms - equivalent to about 20% of China's total 2017 coal output. This hidden capacity originated from the fact that coal producers in China historically began building mines before applying for approval. However, since 2015, all applications for new coal mines have been halted. Consequently, in the past three years a lot of capacity has already been built but has not been put into operation. Some 70% of this hidden capacity includes large-scale coal mines, each with annual capacity of above 5 million tons. In comparison, China has about 126 million tons of small mines with annual capacity of 90,000 tons that will be forced to exit the market this year as they are non-competitive due to their small scale and inferior technology. Why do we expect this hidden capacity to become operational going forward? The authorities now allows trading in the replacement quota for coal across regions. Producers having these ready-to-use high-quality mines can buy the replacement quota from the producers who have eliminated the outdated capacity. The government wants to accelerate the process of allowing the advanced capacity to be in operation as fast as possible. The following policy initiative supports this: A new policy directive released this past February does not even require coal producers with advanced capacity to pay the quota first in order to apply for approval - they can apply for approval to start the replacement process first, and then have one year to pay for it. Economically, quotas trading makes sense. The mines with advanced technology that have lower costs and higher profit margins should be able to pay a reasonably high (attractive) price for quotas to companies with inferior technologies, so that the latter will be better off selling their quotas than continuing operations. The proceeds from the selling quotas will be used to settle termination benefits for employees of low-quality coal mines. Regarding our projections for coal output in 2018, assuming 30% of the 700 million tons of capacity among high-quality mines will be operational this year at a CUR of 78% (the NBS 2017 coal industry CUR was 68.2%), this alone will bring a 164 million-ton increase in coal output (4.7% of the 2017 coal output) (Table 3). Table 3Chinese Coal Output Will Rise By 4.7% In 2018 Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms In addition, still-high profit margins could encourage existing coal producers to increase their CUR this year (Chart 9). Yet, we do not assume a rise in CUR for existing coal mining capacity. In total, Chinese coal output may increase 4.7% this year, higher than last year's 3.2% growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Strong Profit Margins Will Boost Coal Production Strong Profit Margins Will Boost Coal Production Strong Profit Margins Will Boost Coal Production Chart 10Coal Output Is Already Rising Coal Output Is Already Rising Coal Output Is Already Rising Bottom Line: Sizable technologically advanced new capacity is coming on stream for both steel and coal. This will boost both steel and coal output by about 5.2% and 4.7%, respectively, this year. Impact On Global Steel And Coal Prices In addition to diminishing capacity cuts and new technologically advanced capacity additions, the following factors will also weigh on steel prices: Relatively high steel product inventories (Chart 11, top panel) Weakening steel demand, mainly due to a potential slowdown in the property market4 Declining infrastructure investment growth (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chinese net steel product exports contracted 30% last year as steel producers opted to sell steel products domestically on higher domestic steel prices (Chart 12). Chart 11Elevated Steel Product Inventory##br## And Weakening Demand bca.ems_sr_2018_04_26_c11 bca.ems_sr_2018_04_26_c11 Chart 12China's Steel Product Exports ##br##Will Rebound China's Steel Product Exports Will Rebound China's Steel Product Exports Will Rebound Falling domestic steel prices may lead steel producers to ship their products overseas. In addition, the government has reduced steel products export tariffs starting January 1, 2018, which may also help increase Chinese steel product exports this year. This will pass falling Chinese domestic steel prices on to lower global steel prices. Between 2015 and 2017, about 1.6% of all Chinese steel exports were shipped to the U.S. Even if U.S. tariffs dampen its purchases of steel from China, mainland producers will try to sell their products to other countries. In a nutshell, U.S. tariffs will not prevent the transmission of lower steel prices in China to the global steel market. With respect to coal, in early April the Chinese government placed restrictions on Chinese coal imports at major ports in major imported-coal consuming provinces including Zhejiang, Fujian and Guangdong (Chart 13). The government demanded thermal power plants in those areas to limit their consumption of imported coal and use domestically produced coal. Clearly the government is trying to avoid cheaper imports flooding into the domestic coal market amid still elevated prices. This will help prevent a big drop in domestic coal prices but will be bearish for global coal prices. For example, 40% and 30% of Chinese coal imports are from Indonesia and Australia, respectively (Chart 14). These economies and their currencies are at risk from diminishing Chinese coal imports. Chart 13Chinese Coal Imports Will Decline Chinese Coal Imports Will Decline Chinese Coal Imports Will Decline Chart 14Indonesia and Australia May Face Falling ##br##Coal Demand From China Indonesia and Australia May Face Falling Coal Demand From China Indonesia and Australia May Face Falling Coal Demand From China For the demand side, continuing strong growth in non-thermal power supplies such as nuclear, wind and solar will curb thermal power growth in the long run and thus limit thermal coal consumption growth in China. This may also weigh on domestic coal prices and discourage coal imports. Bottom Line: The downtrend in domestic steel and coal prices will weigh on the global steel and coal markets. What About Iron Ore And Coking Coal? Iron ore and coking coal prices are also at risk: Chart 15Record High Chinese Iron Ore Inventory Record High Chinese Iron Ore Inventory Record High Chinese Iron Ore Inventory Given about 40% of newly installed steel capacity is advanced electric furnace (EF) based - which requires significant amounts of scrap steel rather than iron ore and coke - rising steel output will increase demand for iron ore and coke disproportionally less. As more Chinese steel producers shift to EF technology, mainland demand for iron ore and coke will diminish structurally in the years to come. Despite weakness in both domestic iron ore production and iron ore imports, Chinese iron ore inventories at major ports, expressed in number of months of consumption, have still reached record highs (Chart 15). This suggests rising EF capacity has indeed been constraining demand for iron ore. Increasing coal output will bring more coking coal and a corresponding rise in coke supply, thereby further depressing coke prices. Bottom Line: Global iron ore and coking coal prices are also vulnerable to the downside. Investment Implications From a macro perspective, investors can capitalize on these themes via a number of strategies: Shorting iron ore and coal prices, or these commodities producers' stocks. Chart 16Chinese Steel And Coal Shares:##br## Puzzling Drop Amid High Profit Chinese Steel And Coal Shares: Puzzling Drop Amid High Profits Chinese Steel And Coal Shares: Puzzling Drop Amid High Profits Going short the Indonesian rupiah (and possibly the Australian dollar) versus the U.S. dollar. Australia and Indonesia are large exporters of coal and industrial metals to China - they account for 30% and 40% of Chinese coal imports, respectively, so their currencies are vulnerable. Notably, although steel and coal prices are still well above their 2015 levels and producers' profit margins are very elevated, share prices of Chinese steel makers and coal producers have dropped almost to their 2015 levels (Chart 16). From a top-down standpoint, it is hard to explain such poor share price performance among Chinese steel and coal companies when their profits have been booming. Our hunch is that these companies have been forced by the government to shoulder the debt of the peer companies that were shut down. This is an example of how the government can force shareholders of profitable companies to bear losses from restructuring by merging zombie companies into profitable ones. On a more granular level, rapidly expanding EF steel-making capacity in China will lead to outperformance of stocks related to EF makers, graphite electrode producers and domestic scrap steel collecting companies. First, demand for graphite electrodes continues to rise, as EF steel production expands. Prices of graphite electrodes may stay high for quite some time (Chart 6 above, top panel). Second, scrap steel prices may go higher or stay high to encourage more domestic scrap steel collection. Companies who collect domestic scrap steel may soon have beneficial policy support, which will create huge potential for expansion (Chart 6 above, bottom panel). Third, EF makers will also benefit due to strong sales of electric furnaces. As a final note, equity investors should consider going long thermal power producers versus coal producers as thermal power producers will benefit from falling coal prices. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Frontier Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed", dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 "Ditiaogang" is low-quality steel made by melting scrap metal in cheap and easy-to-install induction furnaces. These steel products are of poor quality, and also lead to environmental degradation. 3 The big divergence between crude steel production expansion and steel products output contraction last year was due to both the removal of "Ditiaogang" and statistical issues. "Ditiaogang" is often converted into steel products like rebar and wire rods. As steel produced this way is illegal, it is not recorded in official crude steel production data. However, after it is converted into steel products, official steel products production data do include it. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China Real Estate: A New-Bursting Bubble?", dated April 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations