Emerging Markets

Highlights The synchronized upturn lifting global GDPs will pull demand for stainless steel higher, as consumers increase purchases of autos, ovens, refrigerators, freezers and other household durables. That's good news for nickel, since roughly two-thirds of demand for the metal worldwide is accounted for by the stainless steel market. This means the current nickel supply deficit will persist into 2018, which will be supportive of prices over the next 3 - 6 months (Chart of the Week). Going into 2H18, however, we expect nickel supply growth to pick up, which is keeping us neutral on the metal for now. Chart of the WeekDeficit Will Further Support Prices Into 1H2018 Energy: Overweight. Leaders of OPEC 2.0 are strongly signaling they will extend their 1.8mm b/d production cuts to end-December 2018, when they meet at the end of the month. This could lift our 2018 Brent and WTI forecasts - $65/bbl and $63/bbl, respectively - by as much as $5.00/bbl, should it materialize. We remain long $55/bbl calls vs. short $60/bbl Brent and WTI call spreads expiring in May, July and December 2018; they are up an average 26.5%. In anticipation of a more pronounced backwardation arising from tighter supply-demand fundamentals in the WTI forward curve, we are getting long Jul/18 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI at tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. Nickel markets will remain in deficit into next year, as stainless steel demand is lifted on the back of the synchronized global upturn in GDP (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold markets appear to have fully discounted the appointment of Jerome Powell as the next Fed Chair, trading on either side of $1,280/oz since the beginning of October. Ags/Softs: Neutral. U.S. ag officials on the ground in Argentina reported corn production for the 2017/18 crop year is projected to be 40mm tons, or 2mm tons below the USDA's official estimate, due to smaller areas planted in that country. Wheat production is expected to be 16.8mm tons, 700k tons below the USDA's official forecast, due to excess rain. Directionally, these unofficial posts are supportive of our long corn vs. short wheat position, which is up 4% since inception on October 5, 2017. Feature Focus On Demand For Nickel Price Guidance Synchronized global GDP growth will fuel demand for consumer durables - autos, refrigerators, freezers, etc. - which will lift demand for stainless steel. This, in turn, will increase consumption of nickel, given the stainless steel market accounts for some two-thirds of nickel demand (Chart 2). Receding fears of an imminent slowdown in China, which accounts for 46% of global nickel demand, also is supportive: China's manufacturing PMI currently stands at multi-year highs (Chart 3). Likewise, the pace of investment in China's real estate, automobile, infrastructure, and transportation sectors - all of which are stainless steel end users - remains strong (Chart 4). Chart 2Consumer Durables Demand##BR##Will Lift Nickle Consumption Chart 3Easing Fears Of China##BR##Slowdown Also Supportive Chart 4Stainless Steel End-Use##BR##Markets Growing We do not foresee a near-term slowdown in China's consumer sector, following the conclusion of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. On the contrary, we expect stainless steel demand will remain strong, and a bullish factor in nickel fundamentals going into the beginning of next year.1 However, we are watching the evolution of China's economy closely, now that President Xi has consolidated power.2 Weak ore output from nickel mines was the main culprit behind the deteriorating nickel balance since 2014. Although the global deficit has contracted significantly from its 2016 record, declining consumption - rather than accelerating production - was the driver of the improvement in the supply-demand balance to this point. Increased Supply Won't Be Enough In The Short Run Over the short term, growth in stainless steel demand will outpace increased nickel ore output, which is slowly adjusting to the return of Indonesian ore exports following the 2014 ban. Indonesia's ban on nickel-ore exports fundamentally shifted the market in several ways. In 2013, just before the export ban, China's imports of Indonesian nickel ore stood at more than 41mm MT. Providing almost 60% of China's nickel ore imports, Indonesia was vital to China's thriving nickel pig iron (NPI) industry - which uses low grade nickel ores to produce a cheaper alternative to refined nickel. Output of NPI is then used in the production of stainless-steel. An immediate consequence of the Indonesian export ban was the emergence of the Philippines as China's main nickel ore supplier. It exported 29.6mm MT of nickel ores to China in 2013, accounting for the remaining 40% or so of China's nickel ore imports then. With the Indonesian export ban, the Philippines became China's top, and practically only, supplier of nickel ores (Chart 5). Although the Philippines captured almost all of China's nickel ore trade, it failed to grow the volume of its exports. This had a profound impact on China's domestic processing and refining market. Restricted access to nickel ores meant that China no longer had the necessary supply to keep its NPI industry churning. Instead, it turned to NPI imports, which grew more than 5-fold in the three years following the ban (Chart 6). Similarly, China's unwrought nickel net imports stand above pre-ban levels. The loss of access to Indonesian ores also coincided with a fall in China's laterite inventory.3 Chart 5Indonesia Export Ban Crippled China Imports Chart 6China NPI Imports Up 5-Fold Since 2013 Loss Of Ore Exports Created Refined Nickel Deficit The shrinking supply of nickel ores had a knock-on effect on refined supply. Global production of refined nickel - which was expanding by an average 11.4% yoy between 2011 - 2013 collapsed by 7.3% in 2014, and has remained largely unchanged since. At the same time, demand remained strong, growing by 11.4% and 7.4% in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The combined characteristics of shriveling production amid stable demand put nickel in a large deficit in 2016. This is also evidenced in LME inventory data, which by the end of last year was down 20% from its mid-2015 peak (Chart 7). Chart 7Inventory Draw On Shriveling Production However, Indonesia's export ban appears to have attracted some $6 billion in nickel smelter investments, which allowed it to capture value-added revenues above and beyond those associated with simply exporting raw ores. In fact, many of the NPI operating plants in Indonesia - now in excess of 20 - were built by Chinese companies looking to circumvent the ban by off-shoring NPI production. While Indonesia's minerals export ban was partially lifted in May of this year, we do not expect the market to suddenly return to its pre-2014 fundamentals. The government still maintains an export quota, and has limited the granting of exemptions to companies that have already constructed a value-add processing plant within Indonesia. Instead, we expect Indonesia will lift the quota gradually. Just this past week, the government granted state-owned miner Aneka Tambang additional export rights equal to 1.25mm MT of laterite ore over the next 12 months. The company's initial export capacity, approved in March, was 2.7mm MT.4 This would be a windfall for China's domestic nickel processing plants as their unrefined ore supplies from Indonesia would increase. However, longer term, the reversal of the country's export ban could eventually lead to nickel smelter closures in Indonesia. Virtual Dragon is a China-backed NPI smelter in Indonesia which shipped its first 10k MT to China in August and has a 600k MT annual output target in its first stage. Yet the smelter is concerned with the impact of the ban's reversal on its longer run plan, and reportedly put a $1.83 billion expansion on hold following the policy change.5 In any case, we expect the complete lifting of the ban to transpire gradually, rather than shock the market. Consequently, we do not foresee a sudden flooding of nickel ores to international markets. Bottom Line: Indonesia's ban on nickel ore exports altered trade flows and reversed production trends. While the eventual lifting of the export quotas will change the nickel market, we expect this to transpire gradually. Thus the policy U-turn is not a bearish force in our near term assessment of the nickel market. Stainless Steel Demand To Dominate In Near Term Despite Indonesia's move towards scraping its export ban, we expect strong consumption to drive the evolution of the market in the near term. Solid demand from the stainless steel sector will dominate over supply side growth, and we expect the market to remain in deficit until early next year. In fact, despite the partial return of Indonesian ores to global markets, nickel ore production grew by a modest 1.3% yoy while refined production fell 4.2% yoy in the first 8 months of 2017. A 65% increase in refined output from Indonesia could not offset declines from many of the top producers, including an 11.3%, 22%, and 18.5% yoy decrease in production from China, Russia, and Brazil, respectively. Chart 8Stainless Steel Demand To##BR##Recharge Nickel Market China's share of global stainless steel production has stalled at around 52% since Indonesia's export ban. Stainless steel production was strong - growing an average of 22.4% yoy prior to 2014 (Chart 8). Although it continues to grow, it is doing so at a slower rate. In fact, production stayed largely unchanged last year. We expect the re-emergence of Indonesia's nickel ores will recharge China's stainless steel market. Furthermore, reports of capacity closures in Shandong will stifle China's NPI production. These closures - which aim to reduce smog and pollution during the wintertime - are expected to begin next month and last until mid-March. Thus even with an increase in global ore exports, China's NPI production will be limited in the short run by domestic capacity closures and will continue to depend on imports. Eventually, we expect a supply boost from the return of Indonesian ores to global markets. Refined production has been falling by 2.5% per year since the ban, compared to an average annual production growth rate of 11.4% in the three years prior to the ban. However, we do not expect production to immediately return to the pre-2014 growth pace. While global production has been on the uptrend since June, a comeback in demand will keep nickel in shortage. In fact, the supply deficit would have been significantly wider were it not for declining consumption so far this year. Global refined nickel consumption fell a staggering 7.8% yoy in the first 8 months of 2017, reflecting the 24.8% yoy decline in Chinese consumption. Thus, nickel demand from its top user - the stainless steel sector - will determine the market's direction for the remainder of this year and the beginning of next. The main risk to this view comes from a stronger-than-expected U.S. dollar. This would make the commodity more expensive to holders of other currencies, reducing its demand. Furthermore, while we do not anticipate it, a sudden - rather than gradual - reversal of Indonesia's export ban would tilt the balance to a surplus. Bottom Line: Declining refined nickel production from top producers this year is worrying. However, a simultaneous fall in China's demand - the world's top consumer - means that the net effect on the nickel balance was a shrinking of the supply deficit. Going forward, we expect a gradual increase in supply on the back of a steady expansion of Indonesian ore export quotas. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Given the slow adoption of EVs we project over the next 20 years or so, we do not expect Electric Vehicle (EV) batteries to be a material source of demand growth for nickel for the next 3 - 5 years. Please see "Electric Vehicles Part 3: EVs' Impact on Oil Markets Muted Over Next 20 Years," part of a three-part Special Report jointly researched and written by BCA Research's Technology Sector Strategy, Energy Sector Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy. It was published August 29, 2017, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. EV battery demand currently accounts for 70k TH, or 3%, of nickel usage. According to estimates from UBS, nickel demand from EVs will reach 300-900k MT annually by 2025. Goldman Sachs are much more conservative in their nickel demand estimate, expecting it to remain under 100k MT prior to 2020, and to grow to 200k MT thereafter. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?," published on November 1, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com and cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Laterites are a type of soil containing nickel, and account for more than 70% of world nickel reserves, according to "Geology for Investors." Please see https://www.geologyforinvestors.com/nickel-laterites/ 4 Please see "PT Antam approved to export another 1.25m tonnes of nickel ore from Indonesia," dated October 26, 2017, available at metalbulletin.com. 5 Please see "Indonesia's Virtue Dragon smelter ships first nickel pig iron," dated September 28, 2017, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Dear Client, The attached report on China’s just-completed nineteenth National Party Congress marks the culmination of six years of political analysis by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy. In it, my colleague Matt Gertken posits that President Xi Jinping’s domestic political constraints have significantly eased, allowing his administration to intensify its preference for structural reform. Our cardinal analytical rule holds that policymaker preferences are optional and subject to constraints, whereas constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. As a matter of methodology, we focus on constraints. In China, Xi faced formidable constraints when he took power five years ago, which is why we pushed against the enthusiastic narrative at the time that he would transform China through supply-side reforms. This narrative, strongest in the wake of the October 2013 Third Plenum, has not materialized in line with investor expectations thus far. In this report, we argue that it is time to adjust the view on China. Xi has amassed substantial political capital thanks to his anti-corruption campaign, centralization of power, and other actions largely popular with the middle class. Investors are today missing this point because they are disappointed with the lack of genuine progress since 2012. We expect that President Xi will begin spending this political capital by favoring supply-side reforms, especially by reining in the rampant credit growth that has underpinned China’s investment-led economic model. In the short term, this means that politics in China will evolve from a tailwind to a headwind to growth. In the long term, it is too soon to say what it means. For investors, however, it means that today’s synchronized global growth recovery may be at risk of a policy-induced growth slowdown in China. I sincerely hope you enjoy our report. If you are interested in similar investment-relevant geopolitical analysis, please do not hesitate to contact us for a sample of our work. Kindest Regards, Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Highlights Xi Jinping has shed domestic political constraints that have been in place since 2012; The lack of constraints suggests his reform agenda will intensify over the next 12 months; The use of anti-corruption agencies to enforce economic policy suggests that reform implementation will become more effective; Chinese politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets. Feature Chart 1Stability Continues After Party Congress? China's nineteenth National Party Congress concluded on October 25 with the new top seven leaders - the members of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) - taking the stage in the Great Hall of the People. The party congress is a five-year leadership reshuffle that, in this case, marks the halfway point of President Xi Jinping's term in office.1 President Xi was the center of attention throughout the event. It is widely perceived that he is the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. The Communist Party chose to elevate his personal power in conspicuous ways that raises political uncertainties about the succession in 2022 as well as about the future trajectory of Chinese policy, including economic policy. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has awaited this transition since 2012, when President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang took over the top two positions in China.2 While we are inherently skeptical of Xi's grandiose reform agenda, we are also deeply aware of the importance of political constraints in determining economic policy outcomes - and Xi has just overcome significant domestic constraints. If Xi accelerates and intensifies his reforms next year - particularly deleveraging and industrial restructuring - he will add volatility to Chinese risk assets and create a drag on Chinese growth. Xi's personal concentration of power could be an enabling factor in driving reforms. But it will certainly be a source of higher political uncertainty over the next five years (Chart 1), especially as the 2022 succession approaches. Therefore a lack of reform would be a noxious combination. Finally, China's ascendancy increases the phenomenon of global multipolarity - it is a challenge to the U.S.-led system and will eventually produce a reaction, most likely a negative one.3 In short, Chinese political and geopolitical risk is understated. This situation presents a range of risks and opportunities for investors, but it is broadly a headwind for global growth and EM assets. A Chinese "policy mistake" is also a risk to our House View of being overweight equities and underweight bonds for the next 12 months. Back To 2012 When Xi rose to power in 2012, it was widely known that China's economy had reached a pivotal moment. Exports were declining as a share of GDP in the wake of the Great Recession and end of the U.S. "debt super-cycle," and investment was weakening as the country's massive fiscal and credit stimulus wore off (Chart 2). Meanwhile the Communist Party faced a crisis of legitimacy, with an emergent middle class making ever greater demands on the system (Chart 3). The rapid rise in household income over preceding years, combined with high income inequality and poor quality of life, raised the prospect of serious socio-political challenges to single-party rule.4 President Hu Jintao searched for ways to strengthen state control over an increasingly restless society, while outgoing Premier Wen Jiabao warned openly that China's economy was unsustainable and imbalanced and that political reform would be an "urgent task." Hu Jintao's farewell address at the eighteenth party congress (2012) reflected the party's grave concerns. His successor, Xi Jinping, was in charge of drafting the report. This relationship highlighted an important degree of party consensus. The report called for fighting corruption and disciplining the party, while doing more to protect households from the negative externalities of the past decade's rapid growth, including pollution (Chart 4). Chart 2Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Chart 3The Communist Party's Newest Constraint Chart 4Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks It also outlined China's hopes of becoming a more consequential global player through acquiring naval power and forging a new, peer relationship with the United States. The overriding imperative was to win back support and legitimacy for the party, lest it fall victim to the fate of the world's other Marxist-Leninist regimes - i.e. internal socio-economic sclerosis and external pressure from the U.S.-led, democratic-capitalist world order. Xi Jinping took over at this juncture, using the 2012 work report as his guideline for an ambitious policy agenda. Xi's main goals centered on power: namely, ensuring regime survival at home and increasing China's international clout abroad. Specifically, the Xi administration sought to (1) centralize political control so that difficult choices could be made and implemented effectively; (2) improve governance so that public discontent could be mitigated over the long run; and (3) restructure the economy so that productivity growth could remain robust in the face of sharply declining labor force growth, thus stabilizing the potential GDP growth rate.5 Obviously there was no guarantee that Xi would be successful. China's response to the Global Financial Crisis had required a large-scale decentralization of control: local governments, banks, state-owned enterprises and shadow lenders were encouraged to lever up and grow amid the global collapse (Chart 5). This created imbalances and liabilities for the central leadership while also creating new economic (and hence political) centers of power outside Beijing. Chart 5aLocal Government Spending Unleashed... Chart 5b...And Shadow Lending Too The central leadership also seemed to be losing control of the provinces: regional and institutional powerbrokers had emerged, challenging the party's hierarchy, and there was even reason to believe that the armed forces were deviating from central leadership.6 Without control of the local governments and other key institutions, any reform agenda would get bogged down. Finally, the political cycle was not particularly favorable to Xi. While the line-up of the all-powerful PSC looked favorable from 2012-17, the next crop of Communist leaders set to move up the ladder in 2017 seemed likely to constrain him. Moreover, the previous two presidents had chosen Xi's successors for 2022, according to party norms. Xi had very little room for maneuver - and this was negative for his policy outlook overall. As such, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy poured cold water on the more enthusiastic forecasts of economic reforms throughout Xi's first term. Our assessment was that he would focus on anti-corruption and governance reforms first and only attempt genuine economic reforms once his political capital grew significantly. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping faced major obstacles to his policy agenda of centralization, governance and economic reform in 2012. He faced a large and restless middle class, the difficulty of reining in local governments and state institutions, and the likelihood that China's previous top leaders would constrain his maneuverability in 2017 and 2022. Xi's First Term A lot has changed over the past five years. First, both global demand for Chinese goods and Chinese domestic demand have held up rather well, giving China a badly needed cushion during its economic transition. Steady consumption growth has partially offset the blow from declining investment, while Chinese exports have grown well, often faster than global trade (Chart 6).7 Second, Xi has consolidated power extensively within the party, the army, and other institutions. He executed the most aggressive purge that the party has seen in decades, enabling him to rebuild some public trust among a middle class worn out by corruption, as well as to remove political rivals (Chart 7). He also launched an extensive restructuring of the People's Liberation Army, its organizational structure and personnel, ensuring that "the party controls the gun."8 And he intensified social control, particularly in the online realm. Chart 6Changing The Economic Model Chart 7Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Symbolically, Xi was anointed the "core" of the Communist Party by the political elite in late 2016. Economic reform, however, has been compromised by Xi's focus on consolidating political power. True, he and Premier Li Keqiang tinkered with various policies to cut red tape, simplify domestic taxes, attract foreign investment, and encourage better SOE management, but none of the reforms launched over the past five years were painful and thus none were significant.9 Nowhere was this more apparent than during 2015-16, when economic and financial instability caused the Xi administration to delay reform initiatives and focus on reforming the economy. Beijing increased infrastructure spending, bailed out the local governments, depreciated the RMB, and imposed capital controls (Chart 8). "Old China," state-owned China, was the primary beneficiary. The stimulus-fueled rebound helped stabilize the global economy in 2016-17, particularly commodity-producing emerging markets, but it exacerbated China's internal problems - slow productivity growth, excessive debt creation, weak private sector investment, and waning foreign investment (Chart 9). Chart 8State Interventions In 2015-16 Chart 9Economic Reforms Still Needed The upside, however, was stability, which enabled Xi to approach the nineteenth National Party Congress from a position of strength. Now that the party congress has concluded, we can say that Xi has notched a series of significant "victories" and that his political capital is overflowing: Xi Jinping Thought: The congress voted to enshrine Xi's name into its constitution (Table 1), with a phrasing that echoes "Mao Zedong Thought," hence elevating Xi to immense moral authority within the party. The name of Xi's philosophy, "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era," makes a slight adjustment to Deng Xiaoping's market-friendly philosophy. In other words, Xi's authority stems from his providing a synthesis of the regime's greatest two leaders: Mao's single-party Communist rule is being reaffirmed, but Deng's attention to economic reality and the need for pragmatic policies has also been preserved. As we have argued, this constitutional change is a reflection of the fact that Xi has already positioned himself to be the most influential leader well into the 2020s. Table 1Xi Jinping Thought Xi removes his successors: Xi managed to exclude any of China's "sixth generation" of leaders from the Politburo Standing Committee. He thus broke a very important (albeit informal) party norm. The norm was created under Deng Xiaoping to ensure a smooth transition of power, unlike the power struggle that occurred upon Mao's death. Now Xi will have a greater hand in choosing his successor, or even staying in power beyond 2022. This aids in the process of centralization, but it may well prove a step backwards in terms of governance and reform - that remains to be seen. It is a source of higher political uncertainty going forward. Xi dominates the Politburo: Xi prevented his predecessor Hu Jintao's loyalists from gaining a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, as they seemed lined up to do in 2012. The line-up of the new Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee broadly indicates that Xi and his faction are the dominant force (Table 2). Taken with Xi's personal power, this is significant political capital with which the new administration can push its priorities, whatever they may be. Xi gets a new inquisitor: The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CDIC) is the party's internal watchdog. It has taken the leading role in the sweeping party purge and anti-corruption campaign over the past five years. Xi removed its chief, the hugely influential Wang Qishan, by reinforcing the retirement age and two-term PSC limit - a notable case of institutional norms being upheld. He put one of his loyalists, Zhao Leji, in this role instead. The CDIC will have a huge role over the next five years, and a market-relevant one, as we discuss below. Table 2The Magnificent Seven: China's New Politburo Standing Committee The above conclusions raise the possibility that Xi has become excessively powerful, that political institutions in China are being eroded by personal rule, and that political risks are set to explode upward in the near future. However, it is too soon to declare that Xi has staged a Maoist "power grab." There are reasons to think that Xi's accumulation of power has not overturned the delicate internal balances within the top leadership bodies.10 The result is in keeping with what we expected in our Strategic Outlook last December: Xi Jinping has amassed formidable political capital, but he has not destabilized the Chinese political system.11 He is a strongman leader within the established political system of an authoritarian state - he is not a tyrant seizing power in a bloodless revolution. (At least, not yet.) This is broadly positive for China's policy continuity and political framework - and in this sense it is also broadly market-positive, being an outgrowth of the status quo rather than a disruptive break from it. China's leaders continue to be career politicians, trained in law or economics, with considerable executive experience in governing and limited business or military experience, all unified in the name of regime preservation (Chart 10). Over the long run, this suggests that China's "Socialist Put" remains intact, i.e. that the state will intervene to prevent a crash landing.12 Nevertheless, an important corollary of the above is that Xi holds the balance, and hence there are no longer any major domestic political or governmental constraints to prevent him from pursuing his policy agenda - especially over the next 12 months, when his political capital is still fresh and the economic backdrop is favorable. The fact that Xi emphasized "sustainable and sound" growth, deliberately excluded GDP growth targets beyond 2021, and altered the definition of the Communist Party's so-called "principal contradiction" in order to prioritize quality-of-life improvements, suggests that the reform agenda is about to get rebooted. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has consolidated power extensively, but he has not staged a silent coup d' état or overthrown the balance of power within the Communist Party. This suggests that Xi's policies and reforms will intensify over the next year. Chart 10Characteristics Of Chinese Rulers Mostly Unchanged Since 2012 Xi's Second Term: What To Expect Instead of playing it safe in the lead-up to the all-important party congress over the past twelve months, Xi surprised the markets with a series of regulatory actions designed to tamp down the property bubble, regulate the financial markets, punish speculation, and reduce industrial overcapacity and pollution (Chart 11).13 This tightening of policy strongly signaled that Xi's appetite for political risk is rising in keeping with his growing political capital. Beijing is signaling that it aims to continue with tougher financial, industrial and environmental reforms in the aftermath of the party congress. In particular, systemic financial risk has been identified as a risk to the state's overall stability. Of course, China is unlikely to sharply reduce the ratio of total debt-to-GDP out of an ill-advised, self-imposed bout of austerity. But the Xi administration is likely to suppress its growth rate (Chart 12), as well as to continue cracking down on specific institutions and financial practices deemed to be excessively risky or under-regulated, as has occurred this year in insurance and shadow lending.14 Chart 11China's Borrowing Costs Rising Chart 12Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls This financial focus is clear from top-level appointments and meetings in 2017, including a special Politburo meeting on financial risks in April and the once-in-five-years Central Financial Work Conference in July.15 The latter declared new regulatory powers for the central bank that will be put into place in the coming 12 months. The head of the new Financial Stability and Development Committee to oversee this work will likely be named, along with a replacement for the long-serving People's Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan. This change will initiate a new generation of leadership in the central bank, and one ostensibly directed at overseeing stricter macro-prudential controls.16 Another outcome of the financial conference was the warning that, going forward, local government officials will be held accountable over the course of their entire lives if they allow excessive financial risks and debt to build up under their watch.17 These developments suggest that policy will become a headwind to growth next year. We would expect downside risks to China's implicit 6.5% growth target. Why should the new deleveraging campaign have any more effect than similar efforts in the past? Aside from Xi's stronger position to enforce policies - explained above - the nineteenth party congress reinforced an important trend in policy implementation. The Xi administration has been using the CDIC, the party's anti-corruption unit, as a political tool to ensure broader policy enforcement. We have observed this trend over the past year both in the financial regulatory crackdown and the anti-pollution and overcapacity crackdown.18 Anti-corruption officials can compel more serious implementation from local governments, SOE managers, and others because they threaten to impose job losses or jail time, rather than mere fines. The CDIC appointed two new officials to oversee its operations in China's financial regulators just as the party congress was getting underway. Moreover, on the final day of the party congress, officials have announced that corruption investigations will be conducted into the commercial housing sector.19 The message is that the regulatory storm will expand - and will have teeth. Xi went a step further at the party congress by declaring the creation of a National Supervisory Commission, which will oversee the next phase of the anti-corruption campaign.20 This commission will expand the campaign outside the ranks of the Communist Party - where it has operated so far - to the government as a whole, i.e. the state administration and bureaucracy. It implies that every official from China's top ministries down to its lowest-level governments will be subjected to new forces of scrutiny. If this effort resembles the CDIC's role in hastening compliance in other areas of economic policy, then it will be a powerful tool for the Xi administration as it attempts to engineer a top-down restructuring of China's governance and economy. An aggressive new regulatory push, with the threat of corruption charges, in China's financial and industrial sectors would create a powerful drag on economic growth. It could easily send a chill down the spines of government officials, prompting them to cut or delay key investment decisions, as the initial anti-corruption campaign did in 2013-14.21 China's leaders will eventually attempt to offset any disorderly slowdown from reform measures with additional stimulus. However, given that the deleveraging campaign cuts to the heart of the financial sector, and that sharp new tools are being put to use, we would think that the probability of a "policy mistake" is going up. Bottom Line: Risks to Chinese economy and assets are rising as politics shifts from being a tailwind to a headwind. Xi Jinping faces few policy constraints and has shown appetite for greater political risk in the pursuit of his reform agenda. His administration has signaled that China's financial imbalances pose a threat to overall stability and require tougher regulation. New enforcement mechanisms - particularly those connected with anti-corruption efforts - threaten to bring the financial sector, as well as local government debt, under the spotlight and to create a chilling-effect among local officials. Investment Conclusions On one hand, any genuine attempt to hasten the transition of China's economy to consumer-led growth, de-emphasize GDP growth targets, and pare back overbuilt and heavy-polluting industry is highly consequential and will redistribute global growth.22 Table 3Post-Party Congress Scenarios And Probabilities Broadly speaking, the transition is negative for Chinese growth in the short term, but positive in the long term, as productivity trends would improve. It is negative for China's heavy industry, yet positive for technology, health and education; negative for commodities tied to the old economy (e.g. coal, iron ore, and diesel), but positive for commodities tied to consumers (oil/gasoline, aluminum, nickel, and zinc); negative for emerging markets that are commodity- and export-reliant and China-exposed, yet positive for domestic-oriented and/or China-insulated EMs. On the other hand, there is no longer a convincing excuse for poor implementation of central government policies. If China does not take concrete steps in pursuit of Xi's reform agenda - an agenda of "supply-side reform" that is now enshrined in the party's constitution - then it follows that Xi himself is unwilling to practice what he preaches. The first big test will be whether, when the economy starts to wobble, policymakers stimulate the "old economy" with the usual fervor, or whether they hold true to a course of re-ordering the economy and concentrating any stimulative credit flows more heavily into the social safety net and consumer-led industries and services. Given Xi's and China's rare opportunity, a failure to undertake difficult reforms in the coming months and years would be a clear sign that China will never pursue significant reforms of its own accord. It would have to be forced to do so by an internal or external crisis. This would mean that China's potential GDP would continue to decline for the foreseeable future (Table 3). Chart 13China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. If that were the case, declining potential GDP growth would combine with political uncertainty over Xi's 2022 succession to create a noxious brew of social malaise. A final and very important consideration is China's relationship with the United States and its allies, given the ongoing strains over U.S.-China trade, North Korea's nuclear and missile advances, China's militarization of the South China Sea, Taiwan's widening ideological distance from the mainland, and Japan's accelerating re-armament. The party congress was a highly visible display of Chinese power and self-confidence, in which Xi broke with the past to suggest that China is moving into "center stage" in the world. Xi not only reaffirmed state-led growth but also emphasized that China's foreign policy assertiveness is here to stay over the long run. This is a poignant reminder of our long-term investment theme of global multipolarity. The United States is not likely to relinquish global or even regional leadership easily. So while relations may be pacified in the short term, the risk of conflict, whether economic or military, is rising over time (Chart 13). Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China's Nineteenth Party Congress: A Primer," dated September 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Two Factions, One Party," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Popular unrest was boiling up due to grievances over corrupt officials, mismanagement of internal migration, local government land seizures, a weak justice system, and a host of labor disputes and environmental incidents. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013. 6 The arrest and excommunication of Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai in 2012 epitomizes the regional and institutional challenge, since Bo had a network of alliances that fell under Xi Jinping's anti-corruption dragnet and sprawled across the energy sector and public security agencies. The regional problem was highlighted again this year when one of Bo's successors, Chongqing Party Secretary Sun Zhengcai, was ousted for allegedly failing to extirpate Bo's influence. Meanwhile, the People's Liberation Army became more vocal and independent in ways that raised concerns among foreign observers, such as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who suggested that the PLA took China's civilian leadership by surprise when it conducted a test flight of its stealth J-20 fifth generation fighter during Gates's visit to Beijing in January 2011. 7 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade," dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 8 For the military reshuffle, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The most important reform was the loosening of the one-child policy, which was a social change with long-term economic benefits. Reforms to household registration, land rights, the property sector, SOEs, fiscal policy, private property, and the judicial system have moved slowly. 10 The PSC has a three-way balance of sorts, with two representatives of each faction (Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping), plus Xi presiding over all. Please see Cheng Li, "The Paradoxical Outcome Of China's 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 26, 2017. Our own analysis of the 2017 result, drawing on Cheng Li's work, shows that the party bureaucracy, state bureaucracy and the military are represented at roughly the same levels as before on the 25-member Politburo. Further, the profile of the PSC members is relatively continuous with the previous PSC profiles. Namely, the relatively high share of leaders who have spent their careers ruling the provinces, or who have mostly worked in central government, is no higher than it was before, while the relatively low share of leaders who served on the military or managed state-owned enterprises is no lower than it was before. The division between rural and urban regions on the PSC is also the same as before. Thus, the only substantial change in the character profile of the PSC is the fact that China's leaders are increasingly coming from an educational background in the "soft sciences" rather than the "hard sciences": which is to be expected as the society evolves from manufacturing and construction to a services-oriented economy, even though it also suggests growing ideological orthodoxy. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see "China: A Preemptive Dodd-Frank," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see note 15 above. See also Barry Naughton, “The General Secretary’s Extended Reach: Xi Jinping Combines Economics And Politics,” dated September 11, 2017, available at www.hoover.org. 19 Please see "China To Launch Nationwide Inspection On Commercial Housing Sales," Xinhua, October 25, 2017, available at www.chinadaily.com. 20 Supervisory commissions will be created at every level of administration in all regions to ensure that the anti-corruption campaign is enforced across all government, not only within the Communist Party. The commissions will be based on experiences gained from trial programs in Beijing, Zhejiang, and Shanxi. Please see Viola Zhou, "Super anti-graft agency pilot schemes extended across China," South China Morning Post, October 30, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 21 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Policy Mistakes And Silver Linings," dated October 7, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Understanding China's Master Plan," dated November 20, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Xi Jinping has shed domestic political constraints that have been in place since 2012; The lack of constraints suggests his reform agenda will intensify over the next 12 months; The use of anti-corruption agencies to enforce economic policy suggests that reform implementation will become more effective; Chinese politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets. Feature Chart 1Stability Continues After Party Congress? China's nineteenth National Party Congress concluded on October 25 with the new top seven leaders - the members of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) - taking the stage in the Great Hall of the People. The party congress is a five-year leadership reshuffle that, in this case, marks the halfway point of President Xi Jinping's term in office.1 President Xi was the center of attention throughout the event. It is widely perceived that he is the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. The Communist Party chose to elevate his personal power in conspicuous ways that raises political uncertainties about the succession in 2022 as well as about the future trajectory of Chinese policy, including economic policy. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has awaited this transition since 2012, when President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang took over the top two positions in China.2 While we are inherently skeptical of Xi's grandiose reform agenda, we are also deeply aware of the importance of political constraints in determining economic policy outcomes - and Xi has just overcome significant domestic constraints. If Xi accelerates and intensifies his reforms next year - particularly deleveraging and industrial restructuring - he will add volatility to Chinese risk assets and create a drag on Chinese growth. Xi's personal concentration of power could be an enabling factor in driving reforms. But it will certainly be a source of higher political uncertainty over the next five years (Chart 1), especially as the 2022 succession approaches. Therefore a lack of reform would be a noxious combination. Finally, China's ascendancy increases the phenomenon of global multipolarity - it is a challenge to the U.S.-led system and will eventually produce a reaction, most likely a negative one.3 In short, Chinese political and geopolitical risk is understated. This situation presents a range of risks and opportunities for investors, but it is broadly a headwind for global growth and EM assets. A Chinese "policy mistake" is also a risk to our House View of being overweight equities and underweight bonds for the next 12 months. Back To 2012 When Xi rose to power in 2012, it was widely known that China's economy had reached a pivotal moment. Exports were declining as a share of GDP in the wake of the Great Recession and end of the U.S. "debt super-cycle," and investment was weakening as the country's massive fiscal and credit stimulus wore off (Chart 2). Meanwhile the Communist Party faced a crisis of legitimacy, with an emergent middle class making ever greater demands on the system (Chart 3). The rapid rise in household income over preceding years, combined with high income inequality and poor quality of life, raised the prospect of serious socio-political challenges to single-party rule.4 President Hu Jintao searched for ways to strengthen state control over an increasingly restless society, while outgoing Premier Wen Jiabao warned openly that China's economy was unsustainable and imbalanced and that political reform would be an "urgent task." Hu Jintao's farewell address at the eighteenth party congress (2012) reflected the party's grave concerns. His successor, Xi Jinping, was in charge of drafting the report. This relationship highlighted an important degree of party consensus. The report called for fighting corruption and disciplining the party, while doing more to protect households from the negative externalities of the past decade's rapid growth, including pollution (Chart 4). Chart 2Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Chart 3The Communist Party's Newest Constraint Chart 4Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks It also outlined China's hopes of becoming a more consequential global player through acquiring naval power and forging a new, peer relationship with the United States. The overriding imperative was to win back support and legitimacy for the party, lest it fall victim to the fate of the world's other Marxist-Leninist regimes - i.e. internal socio-economic sclerosis and external pressure from the U.S.-led, democratic-capitalist world order. Xi Jinping took over at this juncture, using the 2012 work report as his guideline for an ambitious policy agenda. Xi's main goals centered on power: namely, ensuring regime survival at home and increasing China's international clout abroad. Specifically, the Xi administration sought to (1) centralize political control so that difficult choices could be made and implemented effectively; (2) improve governance so that public discontent could be mitigated over the long run; and (3) restructure the economy so that productivity growth could remain robust in the face of sharply declining labor force growth, thus stabilizing the potential GDP growth rate.5 Obviously there was no guarantee that Xi would be successful. China's response to the Global Financial Crisis had required a large-scale decentralization of control: local governments, banks, state-owned enterprises and shadow lenders were encouraged to lever up and grow amid the global collapse (Chart 5). This created imbalances and liabilities for the central leadership while also creating new economic (and hence political) centers of power outside Beijing. Chart 5aLocal Government Spending Unleashed... Chart 5b...And Shadow Lending Too The central leadership also seemed to be losing control of the provinces: regional and institutional powerbrokers had emerged, challenging the party's hierarchy, and there was even reason to believe that the armed forces were deviating from central leadership.6 Without control of the local governments and other key institutions, any reform agenda would get bogged down. Finally, the political cycle was not particularly favorable to Xi. While the line-up of the all-powerful PSC looked favorable from 2012-17, the next crop of Communist leaders set to move up the ladder in 2017 seemed likely to constrain him. Moreover, the previous two presidents had chosen Xi's successors for 2022, according to party norms. Xi had very little room for maneuver - and this was negative for his policy outlook overall. As such, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy poured cold water on the more enthusiastic forecasts of economic reforms throughout Xi's first term. Our assessment was that he would focus on anti-corruption and governance reforms first and only attempt genuine economic reforms once his political capital grew significantly. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping faced major obstacles to his policy agenda of centralization, governance and economic reform in 2012. He faced a large and restless middle class, the difficulty of reining in local governments and state institutions, and the likelihood that China's previous top leaders would constrain his maneuverability in 2017 and 2022. Xi's First Term A lot has changed over the past five years. First, both global demand for Chinese goods and Chinese domestic demand have held up rather well, giving China a badly needed cushion during its economic transition. Steady consumption growth has partially offset the blow from declining investment, while Chinese exports have grown well, often faster than global trade (Chart 6).7 Second, Xi has consolidated power extensively within the party, the army, and other institutions. He executed the most aggressive purge that the party has seen in decades, enabling him to rebuild some public trust among a middle class worn out by corruption, as well as to remove political rivals (Chart 7). He also launched an extensive restructuring of the People's Liberation Army, its organizational structure and personnel, ensuring that "the party controls the gun."8 And he intensified social control, particularly in the online realm. Chart 6Changing The Economic Model Chart 7Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Symbolically, Xi was anointed the "core" of the Communist Party by the political elite in late 2016. Economic reform, however, has been compromised by Xi's focus on consolidating political power. True, he and Premier Li Keqiang tinkered with various policies to cut red tape, simplify domestic taxes, attract foreign investment, and encourage better SOE management, but none of the reforms launched over the past five years were painful and thus none were significant.9 Nowhere was this more apparent than during 2015-16, when economic and financial instability caused the Xi administration to delay reform initiatives and focus on reforming the economy. Beijing increased infrastructure spending, bailed out the local governments, depreciated the RMB, and imposed capital controls (Chart 8). "Old China," state-owned China, was the primary beneficiary. The stimulus-fueled rebound helped stabilize the global economy in 2016-17, particularly commodity-producing emerging markets, but it exacerbated China's internal problems - slow productivity growth, excessive debt creation, weak private sector investment, and waning foreign investment (Chart 9). Chart 8State Interventions In 2015-16 Chart 9Economic Reforms Still Needed The upside, however, was stability, which enabled Xi to approach the nineteenth National Party Congress from a position of strength. Now that the party congress has concluded, we can say that Xi has notched a series of significant "victories" and that his political capital is overflowing: Xi Jinping Thought: The congress voted to enshrine Xi's name into its constitution (Table 1), with a phrasing that echoes "Mao Zedong Thought," hence elevating Xi to immense moral authority within the party. The name of Xi's philosophy, "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era," makes a slight adjustment to Deng Xiaoping's market-friendly philosophy. In other words, Xi's authority stems from his providing a synthesis of the regime's greatest two leaders: Mao's single-party Communist rule is being reaffirmed, but Deng's attention to economic reality and the need for pragmatic policies has also been preserved. As we have argued, this constitutional change is a reflection of the fact that Xi has already positioned himself to be the most influential leader well into the 2020s. Table 1Xi Jinping Thought Xi removes his successors: Xi managed to exclude any of China's "sixth generation" of leaders from the Politburo Standing Committee. He thus broke a very important (albeit informal) party norm. The norm was created under Deng Xiaoping to ensure a smooth transition of power, unlike the power struggle that occurred upon Mao's death. Now Xi will have a greater hand in choosing his successor, or even staying in power beyond 2022. This aids in the process of centralization, but it may well prove a step backwards in terms of governance and reform - that remains to be seen. It is a source of higher political uncertainty going forward. Xi dominates the Politburo: Xi prevented his predecessor Hu Jintao's loyalists from gaining a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, as they seemed lined up to do in 2012. The line-up of the new Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee broadly indicates that Xi and his faction are the dominant force (Table 2). Taken with Xi's personal power, this is significant political capital with which the new administration can push its priorities, whatever they may be. Xi gets a new inquisitor: The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CDIC) is the party's internal watchdog. It has taken the leading role in the sweeping party purge and anti-corruption campaign over the past five years. Xi removed its chief, the hugely influential Wang Qishan, by reinforcing the retirement age and two-term PSC limit - a notable case of institutional norms being upheld. He put one of his loyalists, Zhao Leji, in this role instead. The CDIC will have a huge role over the next five years, and a market-relevant one, as we discuss below. Table 2The Magnificent Seven: China's New Politburo Standing Committee The above conclusions raise the possibility that Xi has become excessively powerful, that political institutions in China are being eroded by personal rule, and that political risks are set to explode upward in the near future. However, it is too soon to declare that Xi has staged a Maoist "power grab." There are reasons to think that Xi's accumulation of power has not overturned the delicate internal balances within the top leadership bodies.10 The result is in keeping with what we expected in our Strategic Outlook last December: Xi Jinping has amassed formidable political capital, but he has not destabilized the Chinese political system.11 He is a strongman leader within the established political system of an authoritarian state - he is not a tyrant seizing power in a bloodless revolution. (At least, not yet.) This is broadly positive for China's policy continuity and political framework - and in this sense it is also broadly market-positive, being an outgrowth of the status quo rather than a disruptive break from it. China's leaders continue to be career politicians, trained in law or economics, with considerable executive experience in governing and limited business or military experience, all unified in the name of regime preservation (Chart 10). Over the long run, this suggests that China's "Socialist Put" remains intact, i.e. that the state will intervene to prevent a crash landing.12 Nevertheless, an important corollary of the above is that Xi holds the balance, and hence there are no longer any major domestic political or governmental constraints to prevent him from pursuing his policy agenda - especially over the next 12 months, when his political capital is still fresh and the economic backdrop is favorable. The fact that Xi emphasized "sustainable and sound" growth, deliberately excluded GDP growth targets beyond 2021, and altered the definition of the Communist Party's so-called "principal contradiction" in order to prioritize quality-of-life improvements, suggests that the reform agenda is about to get rebooted. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has consolidated power extensively, but he has not staged a silent coup d' état or overthrown the balance of power within the Communist Party. This suggests that Xi's policies and reforms will intensify over the next year. Chart 10Characteristics Of Chinese Rulers Mostly Unchanged Since 2012 Xi's Second Term: What To Expect Instead of playing it safe in the lead-up to the all-important party congress over the past twelve months, Xi surprised the markets with a series of regulatory actions designed to tamp down the property bubble, regulate the financial markets, punish speculation, and reduce industrial overcapacity and pollution (Chart 11).13 This tightening of policy strongly signaled that Xi's appetite for political risk is rising in keeping with his growing political capital. Beijing is signaling that it aims to continue with tougher financial, industrial and environmental reforms in the aftermath of the party congress. In particular, systemic financial risk has been identified as a risk to the state's overall stability. Of course, China is unlikely to sharply reduce the ratio of total debt-to-GDP out of an ill-advised, self-imposed bout of austerity. But the Xi administration is likely to suppress its growth rate (Chart 12), as well as to continue cracking down on specific institutions and financial practices deemed to be excessively risky or under-regulated, as has occurred this year in insurance and shadow lending.14 Chart 11China's Borrowing Costs Rising Chart 12Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls This financial focus is clear from top-level appointments and meetings in 2017, including a special Politburo meeting on financial risks in April and the once-in-five-years Central Financial Work Conference in July.15 The latter declared new regulatory powers for the central bank that will be put into place in the coming 12 months. The head of the new Financial Stability and Development Committee to oversee this work will likely be named, along with a replacement for the long-serving People's Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan. This change will initiate a new generation of leadership in the central bank, and one ostensibly directed at overseeing stricter macro-prudential controls.16 Another outcome of the financial conference was the warning that, going forward, local government officials will be held accountable over the course of their entire lives if they allow excessive financial risks and debt to build up under their watch.17 These developments suggest that policy will become a headwind to growth next year. We would expect downside risks to China's implicit 6.5% growth target. Why should the new deleveraging campaign have any more effect than similar efforts in the past? Aside from Xi's stronger position to enforce policies - explained above - the nineteenth party congress reinforced an important trend in policy implementation. The Xi administration has been using the CDIC, the party's anti-corruption unit, as a political tool to ensure broader policy enforcement. We have observed this trend over the past year both in the financial regulatory crackdown and the anti-pollution and overcapacity crackdown.18 Anti-corruption officials can compel more serious implementation from local governments, SOE managers, and others because they threaten to impose job losses or jail time, rather than mere fines. The CDIC appointed two new officials to oversee its operations in China's financial regulators just as the party congress was getting underway. Moreover, on the final day of the party congress, officials have announced that corruption investigations will be conducted into the commercial housing sector.19 The message is that the regulatory storm will expand - and will have teeth. Xi went a step further at the party congress by declaring the creation of a National Supervisory Commission, which will oversee the next phase of the anti-corruption campaign.20 This commission will expand the campaign outside the ranks of the Communist Party - where it has operated so far - to the government as a whole, i.e. the state administration and bureaucracy. It implies that every official from China's top ministries down to its lowest-level governments will be subjected to new forces of scrutiny. If this effort resembles the CDIC's role in hastening compliance in other areas of economic policy, then it will be a powerful tool for the Xi administration as it attempts to engineer a top-down restructuring of China's governance and economy. An aggressive new regulatory push, with the threat of corruption charges, in China's financial and industrial sectors would create a powerful drag on economic growth. It could easily send a chill down the spines of government officials, prompting them to cut or delay key investment decisions, as the initial anti-corruption campaign did in 2013-14.21 China's leaders will eventually attempt to offset any disorderly slowdown from reform measures with additional stimulus. However, given that the deleveraging campaign cuts to the heart of the financial sector, and that sharp new tools are being put to use, we would think that the probability of a "policy mistake" is going up. Bottom Line: Risks to Chinese economy and assets are rising as politics shifts from being a tailwind to a headwind. Xi Jinping faces few policy constraints and has shown appetite for greater political risk in the pursuit of his reform agenda. His administration has signaled that China's financial imbalances pose a threat to overall stability and require tougher regulation. New enforcement mechanisms - particularly those connected with anti-corruption efforts - threaten to bring the financial sector, as well as local government debt, under the spotlight and to create a chilling-effect among local officials. Investment Conclusions On one hand, any genuine attempt to hasten the transition of China's economy to consumer-led growth, de-emphasize GDP growth targets, and pare back overbuilt and heavy-polluting industry is highly consequential and will redistribute global growth.22 Table 3Post-Party Congress Scenarios And Probabilities Broadly speaking, the transition is negative for Chinese growth in the short term, but positive in the long term, as productivity trends would improve. It is negative for China's heavy industry, yet positive for technology, health and education; negative for commodities tied to the old economy (e.g. coal, iron ore, and diesel), but positive for commodities tied to consumers (oil/gasoline, aluminum, nickel, and zinc); negative for emerging markets that are commodity- and export-reliant and China-exposed, yet positive for domestic-oriented and/or China-insulated EMs. On the other hand, there is no longer a convincing excuse for poor implementation of central government policies. If China does not take concrete steps in pursuit of Xi's reform agenda - an agenda of "supply-side reform" that is now enshrined in the party's constitution - then it follows that Xi himself is unwilling to practice what he preaches. The first big test will be whether, when the economy starts to wobble, policymakers stimulate the "old economy" with the usual fervor, or whether they hold true to a course of re-ordering the economy and concentrating any stimulative credit flows more heavily into the social safety net and consumer-led industries and services. Given Xi's and China's rare opportunity, a failure to undertake difficult reforms in the coming months and years would be a clear sign that China will never pursue significant reforms of its own accord. It would have to be forced to do so by an internal or external crisis. This would mean that China's potential GDP would continue to decline for the foreseeable future (Table 3). Chart 13China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. If that were the case, declining potential GDP growth would combine with political uncertainty over Xi's 2022 succession to create a noxious brew of social malaise. A final and very important consideration is China's relationship with the United States and its allies, given the ongoing strains over U.S.-China trade, North Korea's nuclear and missile advances, China's militarization of the South China Sea, Taiwan's widening ideological distance from the mainland, and Japan's accelerating re-armament. The party congress was a highly visible display of Chinese power and self-confidence, in which Xi broke with the past to suggest that China is moving into "center stage" in the world. Xi not only reaffirmed state-led growth but also emphasized that China's foreign policy assertiveness is here to stay over the long run. This is a poignant reminder of our long-term investment theme of global multipolarity. The United States is not likely to relinquish global or even regional leadership easily. So while relations may be pacified in the short term, the risk of conflict, whether economic or military, is rising over time (Chart 13). Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China's Nineteenth Party Congress: A Primer," dated September 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Two Factions, One Party," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Popular unrest was boiling up due to grievances over corrupt officials, mismanagement of internal migration, local government land seizures, a weak justice system, and a host of labor disputes and environmental incidents. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013. 6 The arrest and excommunication of Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai in 2012 epitomizes the regional and institutional challenge, since Bo had a network of alliances that fell under Xi Jinping's anti-corruption dragnet and sprawled across the energy sector and public security agencies. The regional problem was highlighted again this year when one of Bo's successors, Chongqing Party Secretary Sun Zhengcai, was ousted for allegedly failing to extirpate Bo's influence. Meanwhile, the People's Liberation Army became more vocal and independent in ways that raised concerns among foreign observers, such as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who suggested that the PLA took China's civilian leadership by surprise when it conducted a test flight of its stealth J-20 fifth generation fighter during Gates's visit to Beijing in January 2011. 7 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade," dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 8 For the military reshuffle, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The most important reform was the loosening of the one-child policy, which was a social change with long-term economic benefits. Reforms to household registration, land rights, the property sector, SOEs, fiscal policy, private property, and the judicial system have moved slowly. 10 The PSC has a three-way balance of sorts, with two representatives of each faction (Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping), plus Xi presiding over all. Please see Cheng Li, "The Paradoxical Outcome Of China's 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 26, 2017. Our own analysis of the 2017 result, drawing on Cheng Li's work, shows that the party bureaucracy, state bureaucracy and the military are represented at roughly the same levels as before on the 25-member Politburo. Further, the profile of the PSC members is relatively continuous with the previous PSC profiles. Namely, the relatively high share of leaders who have spent their careers ruling the provinces, or who have mostly worked in central government, is no higher than it was before, while the relatively low share of leaders who served on the military or managed state-owned enterprises is no lower than it was before. The division between rural and urban regions on the PSC is also the same as before. Thus, the only substantial change in the character profile of the PSC is the fact that China's leaders are increasingly coming from an educational background in the "soft sciences" rather than the "hard sciences": which is to be expected as the society evolves from manufacturing and construction to a services-oriented economy, even though it also suggests growing ideological orthodoxy. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see "China: A Preemptive Dodd-Frank," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see note 15 above. See also Barry Naughton, “The General Secretary’s Extended Reach: Xi Jinping Combines Economics And Politics,” dated September 11, 2017, available at www.hoover.org. 19 Please see "China To Launch Nationwide Inspection On Commercial Housing Sales," Xinhua, October 25, 2017, available at www.chinadaily.com. 20 Supervisory commissions will be created at every level of administration in all regions to ensure that the anti-corruption campaign is enforced across all government, not only within the Communist Party. The commissions will be based on experiences gained from trial programs in Beijing, Zhejiang, and Shanxi. Please see Viola Zhou, "Super anti-graft agency pilot schemes extended across China," South China Morning Post, October 30, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 21 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Policy Mistakes And Silver Linings," dated October 7, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Understanding China's Master Plan," dated November 20, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

Highlights Three factors point to stable or narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: the improving health of global banks, the end of the adjustment to the regulatory change affecting prime-money market funds, and the relaxation to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio rules by the U.S. Treasury. Four factors point to wider basis swap spreads: BCA's forecast that U.S. loan growth will pick up, our view on U.S. inflation, the coming decline in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and the potential for U.S. repatriation. We expect USD basis swap spreads to widen again, which suggests increasing FX vol. This would hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar bloc currencies. Feature Three factors point to stable or narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: the improving health of global banks, the end of the adjustment to the regulatory change affecting prime-money market funds, and the relaxation to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio rules by the U.S. Treasury. Four factors point to wider basis swap spreads: BCA's forecast that U.S. loan growth will pick up, our view on U.S. inflation, the coming decline in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and the potential for U.S. repatriation. We expect USD basis swap spreads to widen again, which suggests increasing FX vol. This would hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar bloc currencies. The rather arcane topic of cross-currency basis swap spreads has periodically surfaced in the news in the past few years. The widening in cross-currency basis swap spreads has been highlighted as one of the key factors explaining why covered interest rate parity relationships (the link between the price of FX forward, spot prices and interest rate differentials) have not held as closely after the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) as before. The widening of cross-currency basis swap spreads has also been highlighted as a factor behind the strength in the U.S. dollar in 2014 and 2015. Similarly, the recent narrowing in the cross-currency basis swap spread has been highlighted as a factor behind the weakness in the USD this year. This week we delve a little deeper into what cross-currency basis swap spread measures, and what some of its major determinants are. We ultimately expect the USD cross-currency basis swap spread to widen again, which should contribute to a stronger dollar and increased global FX volatility. What Is A Cross-Currency Basis Swap? To examine what drives cross-currency basis swap spreads, one first needs to understand what these instruments are. Let's begin with a regular FX swap. An FX swap in EUR/USD is a contract through which two counterparties agree to exchange EURs for USDs today, with a reversal of that exchange at the maturity of the contract - a reversal set at a predetermined exchange rate simply equal to the forward value of the EUR/USD. So, if counterparty A lends X million EURs to counterparty B, the former receives in U.S. dollars the equivalent of X million EURs times the prevalent EUR/USD spot rate from counterparty B today. The transaction does not end there. Simultaneously, the FX swap forces B to give back the X million EURs to counterparty A at maturity, while counterparty A gives back X million EUR times the EUR/USD forward rate in U.S. dollars to counterparty B. This forward rate is the rate prevalent when the contract was agreed upon. The transactions are illustrated in the top panel of Chart 1. Chart 1FX Swaps Vs. Cross Currency Basis Swaps The problem with regular FX swaps is that they offer little liquidity at extended maturities. If market players want to hedge long-term liabilities and assets, they tend to do so using a cross-currency basis swap, where much more liquidity is available at long maturities. Chart 2A Bigger Funding Gap = ##br##A Wider Basis Swap Spread A EUR/USD cross currency basis swap begins in the same way as a regular FX swap: counterparty A lends X million EURs to counterparty B, and the former receives in U.S. dollars the equivalent of X million EURs times the prevalent EUR/USD spot rate from counterparty B today. However, this is where the similarities end. A cross-currency basis swap has exchanges of cash flows through its term. Counterparty B, which provided USDs to counterparty A, receives 3-month USD Libor, while counterparty A, which provided EURs to counterparty B, received 3-month EUR Libor + a (alpha being the cross-currency basis swap spread). At the maturity of the contract, counterparty A and B both receive their regular intermediary cash flows, and also re-exchange their respective principal - but this time at the same spot rate as the one that existed at the entry of the contract (Chart 1, bottom panel). In both regular FX and cross-currency basis swaps, counterparties have removed their FX risks, except that in the latter, the interest differentials have been paid during the life of the contract instead of being factored through the forward premium/discount. This is fine and dandy, but it leaves a unexplained. The cross currency basis swap spread (a), is a direct function of the relative supply and demand for each currency. If investors demand a lot of EUR in the swap market relative to its supply, a will be positive. If they demand more USDs, a will be negative. A good example of this dynamic is the funding gap of banks. Let's take the Japanese example. Japanese banks have a surplus of domestic deposits (thanks to the massive savings of the Japanese corporate sector) relative to their yen lending. As a result, they have large dollar lending operations. To hedge their dollar assets, Japanese banks borrow USD in large quantities in the cross-currency swap market. This tends to result in a negative swap spread in the yen (Chart 2). This is particularly true if both the banking sector and the other actors in the economy (institutional investors and non-financial firms) also borrow dollars in the swap market to hedge dollar assets, which is the case in Japan (Chart 3). Chart 3Japanese Investors Are Accumulating Assets Abroad Additionally, if there are perceived solvency risks in the European banking sector, this should further weigh on the cross-currency basis swap spread, pushing it deeper into negative territory, as the viability of the main EUR counterparties becomes at risk. The same dance is true for any currency pair. Chart 4The Structural Gap In The Basis Swap Spread##br## Reflects Regulation The other factor that affects USD cross-currency basis swap spreads is the supply of U.S. dollars, especially the room on large banks' balance sheets to service these markets. The cross-currency basis swap spread could be close to zero if large arbitrageurs take offsetting positions to arbitrage the spread away, doing so until the spread disappears. However, with the imposition of Basel III and Dodd-Franks, banks have been constrained in their capacity to do this. Indeed, increased leverage ratio requirements (now banks need to post more capital behind repo transactions as well as collateralized lending and other derivatives) mean that arbitraging cross-currency basis swap spreads and deviations from covered interest rate parity has become much more expensive. Furthermore, the increase in Tier 1 capital ratios associated with these regulations has forced banks to de-lever; however, engaging in arbitrage activities still requires plenty of leverage (Chart 4). Economic Factors Driving The Spread The factors that we look at essentially relate to the supply of USD available for lending in offshore markets, as well as determinants of relative counterparty risks between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Factors Arguing For Narrower Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads Global Banks Health The price-to-book ratio of global banks outside the U.S. has been largely correlated with USD cross-currency swap spreads. When global banks get de-rated, spreads widen, and it becomes more expensive to hedge USD positions in the swap market (Chart 5). This is because as investors perceive the solvency of global banks deteriorating, they impose a penalty as the Herstatt risk increases. Additionally, solvency problems can force banks to scramble to access USD funding, prompting deeper spreads. Chart 5Banks Perceived Health Determines ##br##Basis Swap Spreads BCA is positive on global financials and sees continued improvement in European NPLs. This means that solvency risk concerns are likely to remain on the backburner for now, pointing to narrower basis swap spreads. Supplementary Leverage Ratio Changes In June, the U.S. Treasury announced a relaxation of some of its rules on supplementary leverage ratios, lowering the amount of capital required to support activity in the repo market behind initial margins for centrally cleared derivatives, and behind holdings of Treasurys. This means that commercial banks in the U.S. can have bigger balance sheets and more room to engage in arbitrage activity, implying a greater supply of dollars in the USD cross-currency basis swap market. In response to last June's proposal, basis swap spreads narrowed by 11 basis points. BCA believes these changes will continue to support dollar liquidity, and will further help in narrowing cross-currency basis swap spreads. Prime Money-Market Funds Debacle Is Over Chart 6More Expensive Bank Funding Equals ##br##Wider Basis Swap Spreads In October 2016, regulatory changes were implemented that allowed prime money market funds to have fluctuating net asset values. Obviously, this meant that prime money-market funds would be not-so-prime anymore. As a result, to remain the ultra-safe vehicles that they once were, prime money-market funds de-risked. As a result, they cut their exposure to risky activities in anticipation of these changes. In practice, a key source of short-term funding for banks evaporated from the market, putting upward pressure on bank financing costs. As the LIBOR-OIS spread increased, so did basis-swap spreads (Chart 6): as it became more expensive for banks to finance themselves, they had to curtail the supply of USDs provided to the swap market, an activity normally requiring intense demand on banks' balance sheets. This adjustment is now over, suggesting limited potential widening in USD basis swap spreads. Factors Arguing For Wider Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads 1. U.S. Loan Growth When U.S. banks increase their loan formation activity, USD cross-currency basis swap spreads widen (Chart 7). As banks increase their extension of credit through loans, they decrease the amount of securities they hold on their balance sheets (Chart 8). This means there is less supply of liquidity available for balance sheet activities, particularly providing dollar funding in the offshore market. In the Basel III / Dodd-Frank world, less-liquid bank balance sheets are synonymous with wider USD basis-swap spreads. As we argued last week, increasing U.S. capex, easing lending standards for firms and rising household income levels should result in increasing loan growth in the U.S. which will result in lower abundance of liquid assets and a widening basis swap spreads.1 Chart 7More Bank Loans Lead To Wider Swap Spreads Chart 8More Debt Equals Less Securities In Bank Credit 2. U.S. Inflation There is a fairly close relationship between U.S. inflation and the USD basis swap spread, where a higher core CPI tends to lead to a wider spread (Chart 9). The fall in U.S. inflation this year likely contributed to the narrowing in basis swap spreads. Our take on this is that as inflation falls, it gives an incentive for banks to hold low-yielding liquidity on their balance sheets as real returns on cash improve. This fuels a gigantic carry trade through the basis-swap market. We expect inflation to pick up meaningfully by mid-2018, which should widen cross-currency basis swap spreads.2 3. Central Bank Balance Sheets When the Federal Reserve increases the size of its balance sheet relative to other balance sheets, this tends to lead to a narrowing of the USD basis swap spread as the global supply of dollars relative to other currencies increases. The opposite is also true. This relationship did not work after late 2016 (Chart 10). However, during that episode, as the change in prime money-market funds caused a dislocation in banks' funding, commercial banks exhibited cautious behavior and increased their reserves with the Fed. As Chart 11 illustrates, there is a tight relationship between the change in commercial banks' reserves held at the Fed and cross-currency basis swap spreads. Going forward, as the Fed lets it balance sheet run off, we expect to see a decrease in commercial banks' excess reserves. This could contribute to upward movement in the basis swap spread. Chart 9When U.S. Inflation Increases, ##br##Swap Spreads Widen Chart 10Smaller Fed Balance Sheet Leads To##br## Wider Basis Swap Spreads Chart 11Fed Runoff Could##br## Widen Basis Swap Spreads 4. U.S. Repatriations The most revealing relationship unearthed in our study was that when U.S. entities repatriate funds at home, this tends to put strong widening pressure on the USD cross-currency basis swap spread (Chart 12). U.S. businesses hold large cash piles abroad - by some estimates more than US$2.5 trillion. However, most of these funds are held in highly liquid, high-quality U.S.-dollar assets offshore. These assets are perfect collaterals for various transactions in the interbank market. The funds held abroad by U.S. firms are a source of supply for U.S. dollars in the offshore markets. When U.S. entities bring assets back home, the widening in the basis swap spread essentially reflects a decline in the supply of USD in offshore markets, and vice versa when Americans export capital abroad. Chart 12U.s. Repatriations Support Wider Basis Swap Spreads BCA's base case is that tax cuts are likely to hit the U.S. economy in 2018, even if the growing feud between Trump and the establishment Republican party members is a growing risk. BCA still views a tax repatriation as a higher-likelihood event, as it is the easiest way for the U.S. government to bring funds into its coffers. The 2004 tax repatriation under former President George W. Bush did result in substantial fund repatriation in the U.S. This time will not be different. We expect any such tax repatriation to cause a potentially large deficit of supply in the USD offshore markets, which could create a strong widening basis on the cross-currency basis swap spread in favor of the dollar. Bottom Line: Three factors argue for USD cross-currency basis swap spreads to stay at current levels, or even narrow further. These factors are the health of global banks, the easing in U.S. supplementary leverage ratios and the end of the adjustment of U.S. bank funding to new regulations affecting prime money-market funds. On the other hand four factors points to wider USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: BCA's positive outlook for U.S. credit growth; BCA's positive outlook on U.S. inflation; the run-off of the Fed's balance sheet; and the potential for U.S. entities repatriating funds from abroad. Potential Direction And Investment Implications We anticipate USD cross-currency basis swap spreads to widen over the coming 12 months. We think the easing in the Supplementary Leverage Ratios rules by the U.S. Treasury is the most important factor pointing to narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads. However, Basel III rules and most of Dodd-Frank are still in place, which suggest there remains large constraints on the balance-sheet activities of global banks, which will limit the potential for a narrowing of the USD basis swap spread as U.S. banks will remain constrained in their ability to supply U.S. dollars in the offshore market. On the other hand many factors support wider USD cross-currency basis swap spreads, most important of which is the potential for more credit growth. This is in our view a very strong force as it requires banks to ration the use of their balance sheets, limiting their activity in the offshore market. Moreover, we do foresee a high probability of tax repatriation, which would put strong widening pressure on the swap spreads. In terms of implications, wider USD basis swap spreads tend to be associated with rising FX vols (Chart 13). As we highlighted in a Special Report last year, higher FX vols are poison for carry trades.3 As such, we think that widening swap spreads could spur a period of trouble for traditional carry currencies. This means EM and dollar-block currencies are likely to suffer in this environment. Chart 13Wider Basis Swap Spreads Equals Higher Vol Additionally, in China, Xi Jinping is consolidating power and has taken control of the Politburo. This implies he now has more room to implement reforms. Removal of growth targets after 2020, removal of growth as a criterion for grading local officials, a focus on balanced growth, and a focus on combatting pollution all suggest that Chinese growth is unlikely to follow the same debt-fueled, capex-led model.4 This will weigh on Chinese imports of raw materials, and hurt export volumes and prices for many EM countries and commodities producers. This means these policies represent a headwind for many carry currencies. Moreover, historically, wider USD funding costs have been associated with a stronger dollar, as it makes it more expensive to hedge dollar assets. Thus, in an environment where U.S. interest rates are rising relative to the rest of the world - making U.S. assets attractive - wider basis swap spreads are an additional factor that could lift the dollar. Bottom Line: We anticipate the USD cross-currency basis swap spread to widen over the next 12 months. This will be associated with higher FX vols, which hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar-block currencies. Chinese reforms will reinforce these risks. Additionally, wider basis swap spreads will create support for the USD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "All About Credit", dated October 20, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Conflicting Forces For The Dollar", dated September 8, 2017, and "Is The Dollar Expensive?", dated October 13, 2017. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything", dated October 25, 2017 and Special Report, titled "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech", dated October 18, 2017.

Highlights The macro environment remains positive for risk assets. Nonetheless, the shadow of the '87 stock market crash is a reminder that major market corrections can occur even when the earnings and economic growth backdrop is upbeat. Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of easier financial conditions and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should overweight Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments). High-yield relative value is decent after accounting for the favorable default outlook. It is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late cycle phase. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. The risk of disappointment is therefore elevated. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons and provide dry powder to boost exposure after the correction. Feature The October anniversary of the '87 stock market crash was a reminder to investors that major market corrections can arrive out of the blue. With hindsight, there were some warning signs evident before the crash. Nonetheless, the speed and viciousness of the correction caught the vast majority of investors by surprise, in large part because the economy was performing well (outside of some yawning imbalances such as the U.S. current account deficit). Many worried that the 20% drop in the S&P 500 would trigger a recession, but the economy did not skip a beat and it was not long before the equity market recouped the losses. We view the '87 crash as a correction rather than a bear market. BCA's definition of a bear market is a combination of magnitude (at least a 15% decline) and duration (lasting at least for six months). Bear markets are usually associated with economic recessions. Corrections tend to be short-lived because they are not associated with an economic downturn. None of our forward-looking indicators suggest that a recession is in the cards in the near term for any of the major economies. Even the risk of a financial accident or economic pothole in China has diminished in our view. As discussed below, the global economy is firing on almost all cylinders. Chart I-1Valuation Today Is Very Stretched Vs. 1987 Nonetheless, there are some parallels today with the mid-1980s. A Special Report sent to all BCA clients in October provides a retrospective on the '87 crash.1 One concern is that the proliferation of financial computer algorithms and derivatives is a parallel to the popularity of portfolio insurance in the 1980s, which was blamed for turbocharging the selling pressure when the market downturn gathered pace in October. My colleague Doug Peta downplays the risks inherent in the ETF market in the Special Report, but argues that automatic selling will again reinforce the fall in prices once it starts. It is also worrying that equity valuation is much more stretched than was the case in the summer of 1987 based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE, Chart I-1). The CAPE is currently at levels only previously reached ahead of the 1929 and 2000 peaks. In contrast, the CAPE was close to its long-term average in 1987. Quantitative easing and extremely low interest rates have pulled forward much of the bond and stock markets' future returns. It has also contributed to today's extremely low readings on implied volatility. The fact that the Fed is slowly taking away the punchbowl and that the ECB is dialing back its asset purchase program only add to the risk of a sharp correction. The Good News For now though, investors are focusing on the improving global growth backdrop and the still-solid earnings picture. While the S&P 500 again made new highs in October, it was the Nikkei that stole the show among the major countries. Impressively, the surge in the Japanese stock market was not on the back of a significantly weaker yen. As we highlighted last month, risk assets are being supported by the three legged stool of robust earnings growth, low volatility and yield levels in government bonds, and the view that inflation will remain quiescent for the foreseeable future. The fact that the global growth impulse is broadly-based is icing on the cake because it reduces lingering fears of secular stagnation. Even emerging economies have joined the growth party, while a weak U.S. dollar has tempered fears of a financial accident in this space. Our forward-looking growth indicators are upbeat (Chart I-2). Our demand indicators in the major economies remain quite bullish, especially for capital spending (not shown). Animal spirits are beginning to stir. Moreover, financial conditions remain growth-friendly, especially in the U.S., and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously for those that are tightening or tapering. The global PMI broke to a new high in October, and the economic surprise index for the major economies has surged in recent months. Our global LEI remains in a strong uptrend and its diffusion index shifted back into positive territory, having experiencing a worrisome dip into negative territory earlier this year. We expect the global growth upturn will persist for at least the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, although this should not occur until 2019. It is thus too early to expect the equity market to begin to anticipate the associated downturn in profit growth. Earnings: Japan A Star Performer It is still early days in the Q3 earnings season, but the mini cyclical rebound from the 2015/16 profit recession in the major economies is still playing out. The bright spots at the global level outside of energy are industrials, materials, technology and consumer staples (Chart I-3). All four are benefitting from strengthening top line growth and rising operating margins. Chart I-2Upbeat Global Economic Indicators Chart I-3Global Earnings By Sector The U.S. is further advanced in the mini-cycle and EPS growth is near its peak on a 4-quarter moving total basis. The expected topping out in profit growth is more a reflection of challenging year-on-year comparisons than a deterioration in the underlying fundamentals. The hurricanes will take a bite out of third quarter earnings, but this effect will be temporary. Moreover, oil prices are turbocharging earnings in the energy patch and we expect this to continue. Our commodity strategists recently lifted their 2018 target price for both Brent and WTI to $65/bbl and $63/bbl, respectively. The global uptick in GDP growth, along with continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 are the principal drivers of our revised outlook. We expect the fortuitous combination of fundamentals to accelerate the drawdown in oil inventories globally, which also will be supportive for prices. While U.S. financials stocks have cheered the prospects that Congress may pass a tax bill sometime in early 2018, sell-side analysts have been brutally downgrading financial sector EPS estimates. This has dealt a blow to net earnings revisions in the sector. Expected hurricane-related losses are probably the main culprit, especially in the insurance sector. Nonetheless, our equity sector strategists argue that such indiscriminate downgrades are unwarranted, and we would lean against such pessimism.2 Recent profit results corroborate our positive sector bias, although we are still early in the earnings season. European profits will suffer to some extent in the third quarter due to the lagged effects of previous euro strength. The same will be true in the fourth quarter, although we expect this headwind to diminish early in 2018. That leaves Japan as the star profit performer among the majors in the near term. The recent surge in foreign flows into the Japanese market suggests that global investors are beginning to embrace the upbeat EPS story. Abe's election win in October means that the current monetary stance will remain in place. The ruling LDP's shift away from austerity (e.g. abandoning the primary balance target) may also be lifting growth expectations. A Return To The Great Moderation? Chart I-4Market Correlation And The ERP A lot of the good news is already discounted in equity prices. The depressed level of the VIX and the drop in risk asset correlations this year signal significant complacency. Large institutional investors are reportedly selling volatility and thus dampening vol across asset classes. But there is surely more to it. It appears that investors believe we have returned to the pre-Lehman period between 1995 and 2006 when the Great Moderation in macro volatility contributed to low correlations among stocks within the equity market (Chart I-4). The idea is that low perceived macroeconomic volatility during that period had diminished the dispersion of growth and inflation forecasts, thereby trimming the variance of interest rate projections. This allowed equity investors to focus on alpha rather than beta, given less uncertainty about the macro outlook. Of course, the Great Recession and financial market crisis brought the Great Moderation to a crashing end. Correlations rocketed up and investors demanded a higher equity risk premium to hold stocks. Today, dispersion in the outlooks for growth and interest rates have fallen back to pre-Lehman levels, helping to explain the low levels of implied volatility and correlation in the equity market (Chart I-5). Some of this can be justified by fundamentals. The onset of a broadly-based global expansion phase has likely calmed lingering fears that the global economy is constantly teetering on the edge of the abyss. Investor uncertainty regarding economic policy has moderated as well (bottom panel). Historically, implied volatility tended to fall during previous periods when global industrial production was strong and global earnings were rising across a broad swath of countries (Chart I-6). Our U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service points out that, during the later stages of the cycle, equity sector correlations tend to fall as earnings fundamentals become more important performance drivers and sector differentiation generates alpha, as the broad market enters the last stage of the bull market. Similarly, the VIX can fluctuate at low levels for an extended period when global growth is broadly based. Chart I-5A Less Uncertain Macro Outlook? Chart I-6Broad-Based Growth Lower Implied Volatility Still, current levels of equity market correlation and the VIX are unnerving given a plethora of potential geopolitical crises and the pending unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. Moreover, any meaningful pickup in inflation would upset the 'low vol' applecart. Table I-1 shows the drop in the S&P 500 index during non-recession periods when the VIX surges by more than 10% in a 13-week period. The equity price index fell by an average of 7% during the nine episodes, with a range of -3.6 to -18.1%. Table I-1Episodes When VIX Spiked The Equity Risk Premium Chart I-7Still Some Value In High-Yield On a positive note, the equity risk premium (ERP) is not overly depressed. There are many ways to define the ERP, but we present it as the 12-month forward earnings yield minus the 10-year Treasury yield in Chart I-4. It has fallen from about 760 basis points in 2011 to 310 basis points today. We do not believe that the ERP can return to the extremely low levels of 1990-2000. At best, the ERP may converge with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003-2007 (about 200 basis points). The current forward earnings yield is 550 basis points and the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.4%. The ERP would need to fall by 110 basis points to get back to the 2% equilibrium. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or higher bond yield. If the 10-year yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3% (our base case), then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 50 basis points. This would boost the forward earnings multiple from 18 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We are not betting on any further multiple expansion but the point is that stocks at least have some padding in the event that bond yields adjust higher in a gradual way. It is the same story for speculative-grade bonds, which are not as expensive as they seem on the surface. The average index OAS is currently 326 bps, only about 100 bps above its all-time low. However, junk value appears much more attractive once the low default rate is taken into account. Chart I-7 presents the ex-post default-adjusted spreads, along with our forecast based on unchanged spreads and our projection for net default losses over the next year. The spread padding offered by the high-yield sector is actually reasonably good by historical standards, assuming there is no recession over the next year. We are not banking on much spread tightening from here, which means that high-yield is largely a carry trade now. Nonetheless, given a forecast for the default and recovery rate, we expect U.S. high-yield excess returns to be in the range of 2% and 5% (annualized) over the next 6-12 months. The bottom line is that the positive growth backdrop does not rule out a correction in risk assets, especially given rich valuations. But at least the profit, default and growth figures will remain a tailwind in the near term. The main risk is a breakout in inflation, which financial markets are not priced for. Inflation And Hidden Slack The September CPI report did little to buttress the FOMC's view that this year's inflation pullback is temporary. The report disappointed expectations again with core CPI rising only 0.13% month-over-month. For context, an environment where inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target would be consistent with core CPI prints of 0.2% every month, roughly 2.4% annualized. The inflation debate continues to rage inside and outside the Fed as to whether the previous relationship between inflation and growth have permanently changed, whether low inflation simply reflects long lags, or whether it will require tighter labor markets in this business cycle to fuel wage and price pressures. We back the latter two of these three explanations but, admittedly, predicting exactly when inflation will pick up is extremely difficult and we must keep an open mind. A Special Report in the October IMF World Economic Outlook sheds some light on this vexing issue.3 Their work suggests that the deceleration in wage growth in the post-Lehman period in the OECD countries can largely be explained by traditional macro factors: weak productivity growth, lower inflation expectations and labor market slack. The disappointing productivity figures alone account for two-thirds of the drop in wage growth. However, a key point of the research is that the headline unemployment figures are not as good a measure of labor market slack as they once were. This is because declining unemployment rates partly reflect workers that have been forced into part-time jobs, referred to as involuntary part-time employment (IPT). The rise in IPT employment could be associated with automation, the growing importance of the service sector, and a diminished and more uncertain growth outlook that is keeping firms cautious. The IMF's statistical analysis suggests that the number of involuntary part-time workers as a share of total employment (IPT ratio) is an important measure of slack that adds information when explaining the decline in wage growth. Historically, each one percentage point rise in the IPT ratio trimmed wage growth by 0.3 percentage points. Chart I-8 and Chart I-9 compare the unemployment rate gap (unemployment rate less the full-employment estimate) with the deviation in the IPT ratio from its 2007 level. The fact that the IPT ratio has had an upward trend since 2000 in many countries makes it difficult to identify a level that is consistent with full employment. Nonetheless, the change in this ratio since 2007 provides a sense of how much "hidden slack" the Great Recession generated due to forced part-time employment. Chart I-8Measures Of Labor Market Slack (I) Chart I-9Measures Of Labor Market Slack (II) For the OECD as a whole, labor market slack has been fully absorbed based on the unemployment gap. However, the IPT ratio was still elevated at the end of 2016 (latest data available), helping to explain why wage growth has remained so depressed across most countries. The IPT ratio is still above its 2007 level in three-quarters of the OECD countries. Of course, there is dispersion across countries. Japan has no labor market slack by either measure. In the U.S., the unemployment gap has fallen into negative territory, but only about half of the post-2007 rise in the IPT ratio has been unwound. For the Eurozone, the U.K. and Canada, the unemployment gap is close to zero (or well into negative territory in the U.K.). Nonetheless, little of the under-employment problem in these economies has been absorbed based on the IPT ratio. Our discussion in last month's report highlighted the importance of the global output gap in driving inflation in individual countries. Consistent with this, the IMF finds that there have been important spillover effects related to labor market slack, especially since 2007. This means that wage growth can be held down even in countries where slack has disappeared because of the existence of a surplus of available labor in their trading partners. Phillips Curve Is Not Dead That said, we still believe that the U.S. is at a point in the cycle when inflationary pressures should begin to build, even in the face of persisting labor market slack at the global level. Chart I-10 shows the ECI and the Atlanta Fed wage tracker, which are the best measures of wages because they are less affected by composition effects. Both have moved higher along with measures of labor market tightness. Wage and consumer price inflation have ebbed this year, but when we step back and look at it over a longer timeframe, the Phillips curve still appears to be broadly operating. Moreover, inflation is a lagging indicator. Table I-2 splits the post-war U.S. business cycles into short, medium, and long buckets based on the length of the expansion phase. It presents the number of months from when full employment was reached to the turning point for consumer price inflation in each expansion. There was a wide variation in this lag in the short- and medium-length expansions, but the lags were short on average. Chart I-10Phillips Curve Still (Weakly) Operating Table I-2Inflation Reacts With A Lag It is a different story for long expansions, where the lag averaged more than two years. We have pointed out in the past that it takes longer for inflation pressures to reveal themselves when the economy approaches full employment gradually, in contrast to shorter expansions when momentum is so strong the demand crashes into supply constraints. The fact that U.S. unemployment rate has only been below the estimate of full employment for eight months in this expansion suggests that perhaps we and the Fed are just being too impatient in waiting for the inflection point. Turning to Europe, the IPT ratio confirms the ECB's view that there is an abundance of under-employment, despite the relatively low unemployment rate. This suggests that the Eurozone remains behind the U.S. in the economic cycle. As expected, the ECB announced a tapering in its asset purchase program to take place next year. While policymakers are backing away from QE in the face of healthy growth and a shrinking pool of bonds to purchase, they will continue to emphasize that rate hikes are a long way off in order to avoid a surge in the euro and an associated tightening in financial conditions. U.S./Eurozone bond yield spreads are still quite wide by historical standards and thus it is popular to bet on spread narrowing and a stronger euro/weaker dollar. However, some narrowing in short-term rate spreads is already discounted based on the OIS forward curve (Chart I-11). The real 5-year, 5-year forward OIS spread - the market's expectation of how much higher U.S. real 5-year rates will be in five years' time relative to the euro area - stands at about 70 basis points. This spread is not wide by historical standards, and thus has room to widen again if market expectations for the fed funds rate moves up toward the Fed's 'dot plot' over the next 6-12 months. While market pricing for the ECB policy rate path appears about right in our view, market expectations for rate hikes in the U.S. are too complacent. This implies that long-term spreads could widen in favor of the U.S. dollar over the coming months, especially if U.S. growth accelerates while euro area growth cools off a bit. The fact the U.S. economic surprise index has turned positive is early evidence that this process may have already begun. Moreover, the starting point is that the dollar has been weaker than interest rate differentials warrant, such that there is some room for the dollar to 'catch up', even if interest rate differentials do not move (Chart I-12). We see EUR/USD falling to 1.15 by the end of the year. Chart I-11Room For U.S./Eurozone Spreads To Widen... Chart I-12...Giving The Dollar A Lift A New Fed Chair? Our forecast for yield spreads and currencies is not overly affected by the choice of Fed Chair for next year. President Trump's meeting with academic John Taylor reportedly went well, but we think the President will prefer someone with a less hawkish bent. Keeping Chair Yellen is an option, but she has strong views on financial sector regulation that Trump does not like. The prevailing wisdom is that Jerome Powell is a moderate who is only slightly more hawkish than Yellen. But the truth is that we don't really know where he stands because he has no academic publication record and has generally steered clear of taking bold views on monetary policy. In any event, the organizational structure of the Fed makes it impossible for the chair to run roughshod over other FOMC members. This suggests that no matter who is selected, the general thrust of monetary policy will not change radically next year. As discussed above, uncertainty is elevated, but our base case sees inflation rising enough in the coming months for the Fed to maintain their 'dot plot' forecast. The market and the Fed are correct to 'look through' the near-term growth hit from the hurricanes, to the rebound that always follows the destruction. The U.S. housing sector is a little more worrying because some softness was evident even before the hurricanes hit. Since the early 1960s, a crest in housing led the broader economic downturn by an average of seven quarters. Nonetheless, we continue to expect that the housing soft patch does not represent a peak for this cycle. Residential investment should provide fuel to the economy for at least the next two years as pent up demand is worked off, related to depressed household formation since the 2008 financial crisis. Affordability will still be favorable even if mortgage rates were to rise by another 100 basis points (Chart I-13). Robust sentiment in the homebuilder sector in October confirms that the hurricane setback in housing starts is temporary. China And Base Metals Turning to China, economic momentum is on the upswing. Real-time measures of economic activity such as electricity production, excavator sales, and railway freight traffic are all growing at double-digit rates, albeit down from recent peak levels (Chart I-14). Various price indexes also reveal a fairly broadly-based inflation pickup to levels that will unnerve the authorities. Growth will likely slow in 2018 as policymakers continue to pare back stimulus. We do not foresee a substantial growth dip next year, but it could be hard on base metals prices. Chart I-13Housing Affordability Outlook Housing ##br##Affordability Under Various Rate Assumptions Chart I-14China: Healthy ##br##Growth Indicators Policy shifts discussed in Chinese President Xi's speech in October to the Party Congress are also negative for metals prices in the medium term. The speech provided a broad outline of goals to be followed by concrete policy initiatives at the National People's Congress (NPC) in March 2018. He emphasized that policy will tackle inequality, high debt levels, overcapacity and pollution. Globalization will also remain a priority of the government. The supply side reforms required to meet these goals will be positive in the long run, but negative for growth in the short run. Restructuring industry, deleveraging the financial sector and fighting smog will all have growth ramifications. The government could use fiscal stimulus to offset the short-term hit to growth. However, while overall growth may not slow much, the shift away from an investment-heavy, deeply polluting growth model, will undermine the demand for base metals. Our commodity strategists also highlight the supply backdrop for most base metals is not supportive of an extended rally in prices. The implication is that investors who are long base metals should treat it as a trade rather than a strategic position. Despite our expectation that policy will continue to tighten, we believe that investors should overweight Chinese stocks relative to other EM markets. Investment Conclusions: Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of the easing in U.S. financial conditions that has taken place this year and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. The U.S. Congress has drawn closer to approving a budget resolution for fiscal 2018 that would pave the way for tax legislation to reach President Donald Trump's desk by the end of the first quarter of next year. Surveys show that investors have all but given up on the prospect of tax cuts, which means that it will be a positive surprise if it finally arrives (as we expect). Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should favor Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments) in the major developed fixed-income markets. Our base-case outlook implies that it is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late-cycle phase. Calm macro readings and still-easy monetary policy have generated signs of froth. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Upside inflation surprises would destabilize the three-legged stool supporting risk assets, especially at a time when the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet. Black Monday is a reminder that major market pullbacks can occur even when the economic outlook is bright. Thus, investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons, and to ensure that they have dry powder to exploit them when they materialize. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 26, 2017 Next Report: November 20, 2017 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "Black Monday, Thirty Years On: Revisiting The First Modern Global Financial Crisis," October 19, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Banks Hold The Key," October 24, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 Recent Wage Dynamics In Advanced Economies: Drivers And Implications. Chapter 2, IMF World Economic Outlook. October 2017. II. Three Demographic Megatrends Dear Client, This month's Special Report is written by my colleague, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist. Peter highlights three key demographic trends that will shape financial markets in the coming decades. His non-consensus conclusions include the idea that demographic trends will be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul, in part because the trends are inflationary. Moreover, continuing social fragmentation will not be good for business. Mark McClellan Megatrend #1: Population Aging. Aging has been deflationary over the past few decades, but will become inflationary over the coming years. Megatrend #2: Global Migration. International migration has the potential to lift millions out of poverty while boosting global productivity. However, if left unmanaged, it poses serious risks to economic stability. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation. Rising inequality, cultural self-segregation, and political polarization are imperilling democracy and threatening free-market institutions. On balance, these trends are likely to be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul. In today's increasingly short-term oriented world, it is easy to lose track of megatrends that are slowly shifting the ground under investors' feet. In this report, we tackle three key social/demographic trends. Chart II-1Our Aging World Megatrend #1: Population Aging Fertility rates have fallen below replacement levels across much of the planet. This has resulted in aging populations and slower labor force growth (Chart II-1). In the standard neoclassical growth model, a decline in labor force growth pushes down the real neutral rate of interest, r*. This happens because slower labor force growth causes the capital stock to increase relative to the number of workers, resulting in a lower rate of return on capital.1 The problem with this model is that it treats the saving rate as fixed.2 In reality, the saving rate is likely to adjust to changes in the age composition of the workforce. Initially, as the median age of the population rises, aggregate savings will increase as more people move into their peak saving years (ages 30 to 50). This will put even further downward pressure on the neutral rate of interest. Eventually, however, savings will fall as these very same people enter retirement. This, in turn, will lead to a higher neutral rate of interest. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in r*, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up, leading to higher long-term nominal bond yields. Contrary to popular belief, spending actually increases later in life once health care costs are included in the tally (Chart II-2). And despite all the happy talk about how people will work much longer in the future, the unfortunate fact is that the percentage of American 65 year-olds who are unable to lead active lives because of health care problems has risen from 8.8% to 12.5% over the past 10 years (Chart II-3). Cognitive skills among 65 year-olds have also declined over this period. We are approaching the inflection point where demographic trends will morph from being deflationary to being inflationary. Globally, the ratio of workers-to-consumers - the so-called "support ratio" - has peaked after a forty-year ascent (Chart II-4). As the support ratio declines, global savings will fall. To say that global saving rates will decline is the same as saying that there will be more spending for every dollar of income. Since global income must sum to global GDP, this implies that global spending will rise relative to production. That is likely to be inflationary. Chart II-2Savings Over The Life Cycle Chart II-3Climbing Those Stairs Is ##br##Getting More And More Difficult Chart II-4The Ratio Of Workers To ##br##Consumers Has Peaked The projected evolution of support ratios varies across countries. The most dramatic change will happen in China. China's support ratio peaked a few years ago and will fall sharply during the coming decade. Nearly one billion Chinese workers entered the global labor force during the 1980s and 1990s as the country opened up to the rest of the world. According to the UN, China will lose over 400 million workers over the remainder of the century (Chart II-5). If the addition of millions of Chinese workers to the global labor force was deflationary in the past, their withdrawal will be inflationary in the future. The fabled "Chinese savings glut" will eventually dry up. Chart II-5China On Course To Lose More ##br##Than 400 Million Workers Rising female labor force participation rates have blunted the effect of population aging in Europe and Japan. This has allowed the share of the population that is employed to increase over the past few decades. However, as female participation stabilizes and more people enter retirement, both regions will also see a rapid decline in saving rates. This could lead to a deterioration in their current account balances, with potential negative implications for the yen and the euro. Population aging is generally bad news for equities. The slower expansion in the labor force will reduce the trend GDP growth. This will curb revenue growth, and by extension, earnings growth. To make matter worse, to the extent that lower savings rates lead to higher real interest rates, population aging could reduce the price-earnings multiple at which stocks trade. This could be further exacerbated by the need for households to run down their wealth as they age, which presumably would include the sale of equities. Megatrend #2: Global Migration Economist Michael Clemens once characterized the free movement of people across national boundaries as a "trillion-dollar bill" just waiting to be picked up from the sidewalk.3 Millions of workers toil away in poor countries where corruption is rife and opportunities for gainful employment are limited. Global productivity levels would rise if they could move to rich countries where they could better utilize their talents. Academic studies suggest that less restrictive immigration policies would do much more to raise global output than freer trade policies. In fact, several studies have concluded that the removal of all barriers to labor mobility would more than double global GDP (Table II-1). The problem is that many migrants today are poorly skilled. While they can produce more in rich countries than they can back home, they still tend to be less productive than the average native-born worker. This can be especially detrimental to less-skilled workers in rich countries who have to face greater competition - and ultimately, lower wages - for their labor. Chart II-6 shows that the share of U.S. income accruing to the top one percent of households has closely tracked the foreign-born share of the population. Table II-1Economic Benefits Of Open Borders Chart II-6Immigration Versus Income Distribution Low-skilled migration can also place significant strains on social safety nets. These concerns are especially pronounced in Europe. The employment rate among immigrants in a number of European countries is substantially lower than for the native-born population (Chart II-7). For example, in Sweden, the employment rate for immigrant men is about 10 percentage points lower than for native-born men. For women, the gap is 17 points. The OECD reckons that a typical 21-year old immigrant to Europe will contribute €87,000 less to public coffers in the form of lower taxes and higher welfare benefits than a non-immigrant of the same age (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Low Levels Of Immigrant Labor Participation In Parts Of Europe Chart II-8Immigration Is Straining Generous ##br##European Welfare States All of this would matter little if the children of today's immigrants converged towards the national average in terms of income and educational attainment, as has usually occurred with past immigration waves. However, the evidence that this is happening is mixed. While there is a huge amount of variation within specific immigrant communities, on average, some groups have fared better than others. The children of Asian immigrants to the U.S. have tended to excel in school, whereas college completion rates among third-generation-and-higher, self-identified Hispanics are still only half that of native-born non-Hispanic whites (Chart II-9). Across the OECD, second generation immigrant children tend to lag behind non-immigrant students, often by substantial margins (Chart II-10). Chart II-9Hispanic Educational Attainment Lags Behind Chart II-10Worries About Immigrant Assimilation Immigration policies that place emphasis on attracting skilled migrants would mitigate these concerns. While such policies have been adopted in a number of countries, they have often been opposed by right-leaning business groups that benefit from cheap and abundant labor and left-leaning political parties that want the votes that immigrants and their descendants provide. Humanitarian concerns also make it difficult to curtail migration, especially when it is coming from war-torn regions. Chart II-11The Projected Expansion ##br##In Sub-Saharan Population Europe's migration crisis has ebbed in recent months but could flare up at any time. In 2004, the United Nations estimated that sub-Saharan Africa's population will increase to 2 billion by the end of the century, up from one billion at present. In its 2017 revision, the UN doubled its projection to 4 billion. Nigeria's population is expected to rise to nearly 800 million by 2100; Congo's will soar to 370 million; Ethiopia's will hit 250 million (Chart II-11). And even that may be too conservative because the UN assumes that the average number of births per woman in sub-Saharan Africa will fall from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period. For investors, the possibility that migration flows could become disorderly raises significant risks. For one, low-skill migration could also cause fiscal balances to deteriorate, leading to higher interest rates. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, it could propel more populist parties into power. This is a particularly significant worry for Europe, where populist parties have often pursued business-sceptic, anti-EU agendas. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation In his book "Bowling Alone," Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam documented the breakdown of social capital across America, famously exemplified by the decline in bowling leagues.4 There is no single explanation for why communal ties appear to be fraying. Those on the left cite rising income and wealth inequality. Those on the right blame the welfare state and government policies that prioritize multiculturalism over assimilation. Conservative commentators also argue that today's cultural elites are no longer interested in instilling the rest of society with middle-class values. As a result, behaviours that were once only associated with the underclass have gone mainstream.5 Technological trends are exacerbating social fragmentation. Instead of bringing people together, the internet has allowed like-minded people to self-segregate into echo chambers where members of the community simply reinforce what others already believe. It is thus no surprise that political polarization has grown by leaps and bounds (Chart II-12). When people can no longer see eye to eye, established institutions lose legitimacy. Chart II-13 shows that trust in the media has collapsed, especially among right-leaning voters. Perhaps most worrying, support for democracy itself has dwindled around the world (Chart II-14). Chart II-12U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart Chart II-13The Erosion Of Trust In Media It would be naïve to think that the public's rejection of the political establishment will not be mirrored in a loss of support for the business establishment. The Democrats "Better Deal" moves the party to the left on many economic issues. Nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters believe that corporations make "too much profit," up from about 60% in the 1990s (Chart II-15). Chart II-14Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? Chart II-15People Versus Companies The share of Republican voters who think corporations are undertaxed has stayed stable in the low-40s, but this may not last much longer. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the rest of the corporate establishment tend to lean liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones - the exact opposite of a typical Trump voter. If Trump voters abandon corporate America, this will leave the U.S. without any major party actively pushing a pro-business agenda. That can't be good for profit margins. The fact that social fragmentation is on the rise casts doubt on much of the boilerplate, feel-good commentary written about the "sharing economy." For starters, the term is absurd. Uber drivers are not sharing their vehicles. They are using them to make money. Both passengers and drivers can see one another's ratings before they meet. This reduces the need for trust. As trust falls, crime rises. The U.S. homicide rate surged by 20% between 2014 and 2016 according to a recent FBI report.6 In Chicago, the murder rate jumped by 86%. In Baltimore, it spiked by 52%. Chart II-16 shows that violent crime in Baltimore has remained elevated ever since riots gripped the city in April 2015. The number of homicides in New York, whose residents tend to support more liberal policing standards for cities other than their own, has remained flat, but that is unlikely to stay the case if crime is rising elsewhere. The multi-century decline in European homicide rates also appears to have ended (Table II-2). Much has been written about how millennials are flocking to cities to enjoy the benefits of urban life. But this trend emerged during a period when urban crime rates were falling. If that era has ended, urban real estate prices could suffer tremendously. It is perhaps not surprising that the increase in crime rates starting in the 1960s was mirrored in rising inflation (Chart II-17). If governments cannot even maintain law and order, how can they be trusted to do what it takes to preserve the value of fiat money? The implication is that greater social instability in the future is likely to lead to lower bond prices and a higher equity risk premium. Chart II-16Do You Still Want To Move Downtown? Table II-2Crime Rates Are Creeping Higher In Europe Chart II-17Homicides And Inflation Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 2 Another problem with the neoclassical model is that it assumes perfectly flexible wages and prices. This ensures that the economy is always at full employment. Thus, if the saving rate rises, investment is assumed to increase to fully fill the void left by the decline in consumption. In the real world, the opposite tends to happen: When households reduce consumption, firms invest less, not more, in new capacity. One of the advantages of the traditional Keynesian framework is that it captures this reality. And interestingly, it also predicts that aging will be deflationary at first, but will eventually become inflationary. Initially, slower population growth reduces the need for firm to expand capacity, causing investment demand to fall. Aggregate savings also rises, as more people move into their peak saving years. Globally, savings must equal investment. If desired investment falls and desired savings rises, real rates will increase. At the margin, higher real rates will discourage investment and encourage saving, thus ensuring that the global savings-investment identity is satisfied. As savings ultimately begins to decline as more people retire, the equilibrium real rate of interest will rise again. 3 Michael A. Clemens, "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 25, no.3, pp. 83-106 (Summer 2011). 4 Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: The Collapse And Revival Of American Community," Simon and Schuster, 2001. 5 Charles Murray has been a leading proponent of this argument. Please see "Coming Apart: The State Of White America, 1960-2010," Three Rivers Press, 2013. 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime In The United States 2016" (Accessed October 25, 2017). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Global equity markets partied in October on solid earnings and economic growth figures, and the rising chances of a tax cut in the U.S. among other bullish developments. The Nikkei has been particularly strong in local currency terms following the re-election of Abe. Our equity indicators remain upbeat on the whole, although the rally is looking stretched by some measures. The BCA monetary indicator is hovering at a benign level. Implied equity volatility is very low, investor sentiment is frothy and our Speculation Indicator is elevated. These suggest that a lot of good news is already discounted. Our valuation indicator is also closing in on the threshold of overvaluation at one standard deviation. Our technical indicator is rolling over, although it needs to fall below the zero line to send a 'sell' signal. On a constructive note, the solid rise in earnings-per-share is likely to continue in the near term, based on positive earnings surprises and the net revisions ratio. Moreover, our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in September for the third consecutive month. We introduced the RPI in the July report. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks in the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. and European WTPs rose in October after a brief sideways move in previous months, suggesting that equity flows have turned more constructive. But the Japanese WTP is outshining the others. Given that the Japanese WTP is rising from a low level, it suggests that there is more 'dry powder' available to purchase Japanese stocks, especially relative to the U.S. market. We favor Japanese stocks relative to the other two markets in local currency terms, as highlighted in the Overview section. Oversold conditions for the U.S. dollar have now been absorbed based on our technical indicator, but there is plenty of upside for the currency before technical headwinds begin to bite. The greenback looks expensive based on PPP, but is less so on other measures. We are positive in the near term. Our composite technical indicator for U.S. Treasurys has moved above the zero line, but has not reached oversold territory. Bond valuation is close to fair value based on our long-standing valuation model. These factors suggest that yields have more upside potential before meeting resistance. Other models that specifically incorporate global economic factors suggest that the 10-year Treasury is still about 20 basis points on the expensive side. Stay below benchmark in duration. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The potential for wrongheaded reform initiatives will be a key policy risk to monitor when judging the likely stability of the Chinese economy over the coming 6-12 months. Brash reform efforts without offsetting fiscal stimulus are unlikely, but this possibility bears monitoring. Chinese export growth will likely moderate over the coming year, but the absence of severe dislocations in the commodity and currency markets, like what occurred in 2015, will be an important factor supporting a stable deceleration in exports. Chinese stocks are outperforming the EM and global benchmarks, even after excluding the high-flying tech sector. Stay overweight. Feature China's 19th Party Congress has concluded, following yesterday's announcement of the new members of the Politburo Standing Committee. We will be providing investors will a full "postmortem" on the Party Congress and what it means for investors next week in a joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy Service, but for now we have a few brief observations. The Congress has confirmed that President Xi has greatly increased his political capital, and that the implementation of his policy directives over the coming years will be greatly aided by this increase in influence. But the principle contradiction highlighted by Xi looms large for investors, as it remains unclear how he plans on managing the dual goal of further increasing living standards and shifting the country's growth model to one that is more environmentally and economically sustainable. Our view remains that brash reform efforts without offsetting fiscal stimulus are unlikely, as they would risk a major policy mistake that could undermine overall stability. But the risk of wrongheaded (and now largely unencumbered) reform initiatives from the President will be a key policy risk to monitor when judging the likely stability of the Chinese economy over the coming 6-12 months. Turning to this week's research topic, today's report is the first of two parts examining the key differences facing China today from what prevailed in mid-2015, when the Chinese economy operated below what investors and market participants considered to be a "stable" pace of growth. In part I we focus on trade, and provide answers to the following questions: What were the root causes of the extremely weak external demand environment that China faced in 2015, and should investors expect these conditions to return? Why has Chinese export growth disappointed over the past several years relative to what BCA's export model would have predicted? Are Chinese exports likely to accelerate or decelerate over the coming year, and does this outlook suggest that China's will experience a gradual or sharp deceleration in economic growth? Revisiting China's External Demand Environment In 2015 Before judging the outlook for China's export sector, it is important to revisit the dynamics of global trade since the global financial crisis. As we will illustrate below, the weak external demand environment faced by China in 2015 was a function of severe dislocations in the commodity and currency markets that are unlikely to occur again over the coming 6-12 months. While Chinese export growth will likely moderate over the coming year, the absence of these shocks is an important factor supporting a stable deceleration. Chart 1 presents the trend in global import volume over the past decade, as well as its emerging market (EM) and developed market (DM) subcomponents. From 2007 until late-2011, the coincident nature of global trade is clearly evident: EM and DM import volume growth rose and fell in lockstep with each other, with the former growing at a consistently higher rate than the latter over the period. Chart 1In 2015, China's Export Sector Suffered From A Synchronized Global Slowdown Starting in 2012, however, regional import volume growth trend began to decouple. DM import volume growth continued to decelerate in 2012 and 2013 following the end of the V-shaped post-recession recovery, largely driven by the negative economic impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis. While euro area imports were the most affected by the crisis within the DM world, Japanese and U.S. import volume growth also eventually contracted (albeit only modestly in the case of the U.S.). Conversely, EM import volume accelerated materially during this period, boosted by material liquidity easing by Chinese policymakers. The impact of liquidity easing in China appeared very clearly in the total social financing data (excluding equity issuance), which, from mid-2012 to mid-2013, accelerated from 16 to 22%. From a global perspective, the rise in EM import volume growth from 2012 to 2013 successfully offset demand weakness in DM economies, which kept global import volume growth within a low but stable range of 1-3%. Growth in real global imports rose to the high-end of this range by mid-2014, as DM economies recovered from the end of the acute phase of the euro area crisis. The massive collapse in oil prices that began in June 2014 was clearly the trigger for a relapse in global trade from 2014 to early-2016 (which led to very weak export growth for China), but there is a particular aspect of U.S. import volume weakness during this period that is crucial to understand. Using conventional market narratives, a textbook reading of the combined U.S. dollar / oil shock of 2014 would have predicted a rise in real DM imports, which would have at least somewhat offset a decline in EM import demand (a reversal of the dynamics that were at play in 2012/2013). Lower oil prices represent a tax cut for net oil importing nations, and a higher dollar reduces the relative price (and thus increased the attractiveness) of goods imported into the U.S. Instead, however, real U.S. import growth fell in response to the dollar / oil shock, followed, with a lag, by weakness in euro area demand (Chart 2). Underestimating the importance of the oil & gas sector in the U.S. largely accounts for the failure of the textbook prediction: after having risen significantly during the expansion, real U.S. investment in mining exploration, shafts, and wells fell 63% from its peak, which caused an outright contraction in total real U.S. nonresidential fixed investment (Chart 3). The sharpness of the decline in the sector, coupled with the rise in the dollar, led to a broad-based slowdown in U.S. employment growth. Chart 2Lower Oil Prices And A Higher Dollar##br## Did Not Bolster DM Import Demand Chart 3A Collapse In U.S. Oil Productionr##br## Had A Significant Effect On Growth But Chart 4 highlights another important contributor to China's export weakness to the U.S. (and more generally) during the dollar/oil shock period: China's exports are not simply a play on consumer demand. The chart shows that U.S. capital goods imports from China have risen materially as a share of total goods imports, highlighting that the days of China exporting predominantly low value consumer goods are behind it. China's growing investment-oriented exports underscore why the sharp decline in oil prices failed to provide a net reflationary effect for the global economy from the dollar/oil shock, even if households and oil-consuming firms did in fact benefit from lower energy costs. Chart 4China's Exports Are Increasingly##br## Investment-Oriented Looking Forward Chart 5 highlights why China's export outlook over the coming year is unlikely to be buffeted from the sizeable commodity & currency market dislocations that began in 2014. Panel 1 illustrates that the global "oil bill" has fallen modestly below its long-term average from what had been the highest level since the late-1970s, implying that significant further downside for oil prices is likely limited. In fact, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service recently upgraded their oil price forecasts for 2018.1 In addition, the potential for a further sharp move higher in the U.S. dollar would also appear to have low odds, given that it has moved back to its long-term average versus major currencies and is at the high end of its range in broad trade-weighted terms (panel 2). Does this imply that China's export growth is set to stabilize at current levels, or even accelerate? At first blush, our export model would appear to support the latter conclusion, given that the model is currently predicting export growth on the order of 25%. But our model has consistently over-predicted Chinese export growth since mid-2011, and a breakdown of the causes of this gap help explain why a gradual deceleration in export growth is likely over the coming year. Using a method similar to DuPont analysis of Return on Equity, Chart 6 illustrates that China's export growth can be broken down into three component factors: Chart 5The 2015 Shock To China's Export Sector##br## Is Unlikely To Reoccur Chart 6Lower Global Import Intensity Is A Structural Anchor On China's Exports Global industrial production (IP) The import intensity of global IP, and Imports from China as a share of total global imports The chart shows that the gap between China's export growth and our model's prediction can largely be explained by the reversal of the decade-long rise in global import intensity, and more recently by a modest decline in China's share of global imports. Our measure of global import intensity is clearly impacted by fluctuations in global export prices (which are dominated by changes in commodity prices), but the end of rising global import intensity is also clear when imports are measured in real terms. A detailed examination of the causes of flat real global import intensity are beyond the scope of this report, but over the coming 6-12 months, we do not believe that either of the factors that have structurally depressed Chinese export growth over the past six years are likely to act as a major drag on China's export sector. Barring significant trade action from the Trump administration, real global import intensity in unlikely to change materially, and the recent decline in China's share of global imports appears to have been caused by prior strength in the RMB (Chart 7). The RMB has recently been strong against the dollar, but remains 8-9% below its 2015 peak in trade-weighted terms. As such, our analysis suggests that China's export outlook over the coming year will be largely determined by a single, cyclical factor: the trend in global industrial production, which should accelerate slightly over the coming months (Chart 8). While this would result in a moderation of Chinese export growth from current levels (as exports are currently growing faster than IP), the decline would be relatively modest in size and would not negatively impact Chinese domestic demand (panel 2). Chart 7The RMB-Driven Decline In China's Share ##br##Of Global Imports Is Over Chart 8A Modest Decline In Export Growth Is Likely,##br## But Nowhere Near Like 2015 Investment Conclusions We noted in our October 12 Weekly Report that the economic momentum of China's "mini-cycle" appears to have peaked earlier this year, and presented three possible scenarios for the coming year: 1) a re-acceleration of the economy and a continuation of the V-shaped rebound profile, 2) a benign, controlled deceleration and settling of growth into a stable growth range, and 3) an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy that threatens a return to the conditions that prevailed in early-2015 (or worse). The key takeaway for investors is that a modest decline in Chinese export growth to the current level of global IP growth is consistent with scenario 2, as it would be a far cry from the outright contraction of exports that occurred in 2015 and 2016. Importantly, a benign, controlled deceleration of Chinese economic growth should continue to support the relative performance of Chinese equities; Chart 9 shows that the MSCI China Free index is now in a relative uptrend vs. both emerging markets and the global benchmark, even after excluding this year's significant outperformance of the Chinese technology sector. As such, we continue to favor an overweight stance towards Chinese stocks relative to the EM benchmark, and within a "Greater China" equity universe.2 Chart 9China Is Outperforming, ##br##Even Excluding The Technology Sector Finally, a brief note on scheduling: We highlighted above that next week's report will be a joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy Service, which will provide a summary "postmortem" on the Party Congress and what it means for investors. Part II of our examination of the Chinese economy today vs. mid-2015 will follow on November 9, which will focus on China's monetary policy stance. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten", dated October 19, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 In last week's joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy Service (GPS), it should be noted that the investment conclusions section related to recommendations that have been made by the GPS team, rather than this publication. Specifically, China Investment Strategy's recommendation on Chinese equities continues to be an overweight stance on the MSCI China Free index vs the emerging markets benchmark, and was not adjusted to include only H-Shares as our GPS team has chosen to do. We apologize for any confusion that this may have caused. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Our out-of-consensus call on oil prices - Brent and WTI are expected to trade to $65 and $63/bbl, respectively, next year - has the most upside risk from unplanned production outages in Iraq and Venezuela. The potential for export losses from Libya, while not as acute, remains high. Downside price risks - e.g., a meaningful softening of demand, or sharply higher U.S. shale-oil production - are not as elevated as upside price risks, in our view. Favorable global macro conditions will continue to support the synchronized global upturn in GDP, keeping oil demand growth on track. The strained balance sheets of many U.S. shale-oil producers and deepwater-producing Majors likely will limit their ability to fund drilling, as recent earnings calls from oil-services companies attest.1 We continue to monitor global monetary conditions, particularly in the U.S. With global oil markets tightening as supply contracts and demand expands, the broad trade-weighted USD will become more of a factor in oil-price determination next year. Energy: Overweight. Our long $55/bbl WTI calls vs. short $60/bbl WTI call spreads in Jul/18 and Dec/18 recommended last week are up 9.3% and 5.8%, respectively. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper has been well bid, and is up 8.5% since the beginning of the month. The proximate cause of the price strength is investor optimism regarding global growth, particularly in China. However, following their biannual meeting earlier this week, the International Copper Study Group kept its projected 2017 deficit unchanged, and downgraded their 2018 projection to 105k MT, from 170k MT. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is under pressure as markets weigh the possibility President Trump will appoint a more hawkish Fed Chair to succeed Janet Yellen. Ags/Softs: Neutral. Following a backlash from Midwestern politicians, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) abandoned proposed changes to the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard. The EPA also will keep 2018 renewable fuel volume mandates at or above current proposed levels. Corn gained 2.4% since this announcement last week. Our corn-vs.-wheat spread is up 1.6% since inception. Feature Our out-of-consensus call on Brent and WTI prices for next year has a significant amount of daylight between the prices we expect - $65 and $63/bbl for Brent and WTI, respectively - and price estimates we derive using the U.S. EIA's supply, demand and inventory expectations, which are $15.1 and $13.8/bbl lower (Chart of the week). Chart of the WeekPrices Derived Using BCA And EIA##BR##Global Balance Estimates Our bullish oil price call is predicated on stronger global demand growth than EIA and other forecasters' estimates (Chart 2 & Table 1), and an extension of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts to end-June 2018 (Chart 3).2 These fundamentals combine to sustain a supply deficit for the better part of 2018 (Chart 4), which results in stronger inventory draws in the OECD (Chart 5). Net, we expect OECD stocks to fall below their five-year average level by year-end 2018. Chart 2Stronger Global Demand Growth ... Chart 3...And Continued OPEC 2.0 Discipline... Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Chart 4...Produce A Supply Deficit For Most Of 2018... Chart 5...Leading To OECD Inventory Normalization Upside Price Risks Dominate In 2018 In assessing the "known unknown" risks to our call, those on the upside clearly dominate in 2018. Chief among these risks are unplanned production outages, which have been somewhat under control versus the past two years (Chart 6). Nonetheless, we believe the risk of unplanned outages within OPEC - in Iraq and Venezuela, in particular - are elevated. The potential for export losses from Libya, while not as acute, remains high (Chart 7). Chart 6Unplanned Outages Are Down ... Chart 7...But Key States Are At Risk The risk of unplanned outages is highest in Iraq, where production is running at ~ 4.5mm b/d in 3Q17 (Chart 7, panel 1). Exports on the Ceyhan pipeline from Iraq's northern Kurdish region through Turkey to the Mediterranean fell by more than half to as low as 225k b/d, following a non-binding independence referendum in Iraq's restive Kurdistan region at the end of September. This led to armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish forces.3 Independence for the semi-autonomous region was supported by more than 90% of Iraqi Kurds. However, the Iraqi government in Baghdad, along with its neighbors in Turkey and Iran, opposed the referendum, as did the U.S. This lack of support likely prompted the Kurdistan Regional Government's (KRG) offer to "freeze" the referendum this week, and to seek immediate cease-fire talks with Baghdad. Export flows from Kirkuk and the Kurdish region have been restored this week to ~ 300k b/d, or half of the volumes exported prior to the referendum, according to Bloomberg.4 Even with the offer to freeze the referendum - presumably, this means the semi-autonomous Kurdish government will abstain from pressing for independence if its offer is accepted and Baghdad agrees to negotiate an immediate cease-fire - this issue is far from settled. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy noted last month, the critical issue for the oil market remains sustained conflict between the Iraqi central government and the KRG. The question that cannot be answered yet is what "would (a conflict) do to future efforts to boost Iraqi production. Iraq is the last major oil play on the planet that can cheaply and easily, with 1920s technologies, access significant new production. If a major war breaks out in the country, it is difficult to see how Iraq would sustain the necessary FDI inflows to develop its fields to boost production, even if the majority of production is far from the Kurdish region. Given steady global oil demand, the world is counting on Iraq to fill the gap with cheap oil. If it cannot, higher oil prices will have to incentivize tight-oil and off-shore production."5 A huge "known unknown" resides in Venezuela, where we have production running at ~ 1.96mm b/d in 3Q17, sharply down from 2.4mm b/d during 2011-2015. The state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, SA, or PDVSA, is struggling to amass enough cash to meet critical near-term international interest and debt payment obligations, and can no longer afford to buy the chemicals and equipment required to make the country's heavy oil suitable for refining. This lack of cash is causing oil quality from Venezuela to deteriorate, as more exports are showing up with high levels of water, salt or metals. This is raising the odds refiners from the U.S. to China could turn barrels away in the near future unless the situation is reversed.6 Indeed, Reuters reported Phillips 66, a U.S. refiner, cancelled "at least eight crude cargoes because of poor oil quality in the first half of the year and demanded discounts on other deliveries, according to ... PDVSA documents and employees from both firms. The cancelled shipments - amounting at 4.4 million barrels of oil - had a market value of nearly $200 million." Venezuela's financial condition has steadily worsened following the collapse of oil prices at the end of 2014. Production is at its lowest level in 30 years, and banks have stopped extending letters of credit, which are critical to trading in the international oil market, in the wake of U.S. sanctions ordered by President Trump, as Reuters notes. In addition, PDVSA has been denied access to storage facilities in St. Eustatius terminal, because it owes the owner of the facility, Texas-based NuStar Energy, some $26 million in fees.7 Markets will be watching closely to see if Venezuela performs on $2 billion in USD-denominated bond payments, one of which is due tomorrow, and the other due next week (November 2). Venezuela missed debt coupon payments of some $350mm earlier this month, and has a total outstanding obligation for this year of $3.4 billion.8 In all likelihood, Venezuela will once again turn to Russia for additional financial support, which has stepped in as a "lender of last resort" replacing China.9 Venezuela owes Russia some $17 billion. Of this, Rosneft Oil Co., a Russian oil company, has loaned PDVSA $6 billion.10 In Libya, where we have production at 910k b/d in 3Q17 (Chart 7, panel 3), the risk of unplanned production outages is not as acute as the risks in Iraq and Venezuela, but important nonetheless. As a failed and fractured state, Libya faces particular challenges in maintaining production. Wood Mackenzie believes Libyan production likely has plateaued. The oil consultancy believes Libya's max production is limited to 1.25 million b/d.11 However, "Reaching this would be quite an achievement, given ongoing challenges, including international oil companies' reluctance to recommit capital and expertise, a national oil company starved of funding - and, not least, the propensity for violence to flare up and armed groups to hinder oil output." Downside Price Risks Less Daunting In 2018 Chart 8The USD Will Become More Important##BR##As Oil Markets Tighten Next Year Downside price risks - e.g., a meaningful softening of demand, or sharply higher U.S. shale-oil production - are not as elevated as risks to the upside, in our view. The favorable global macro conditions we discussed in last week's forecast will continue to support the synchronized global upturn in GDP. This will keep global oil demand growing at ~ 1.67mm b/d on average in 2017 and 2018, based on our estimates. We expect U.S. shale production to increase to 5.17 mm b/d in 2017 and to 6.09 mm b/d next year, as higher prices incentivize renewed drilling activity. However, the strained balance sheets of many shale-oil producers and a renewed - although perhaps only temporary - push from equity investors for shale producers to focus on improving economic returns rather than merely pursuing maximal production growth, likely will limit their ability to fund drilling, as recent earnings calls from oil-services companies attest. Away from fundamentals, we are monitoring U.S. monetary policy closely, given the potential for the USD to become a headwind once again for commodity prices generally, and oil prices in particular. As we noted last week, we expect the tightening of oil markets globally to restore the linkage between the USD and oil prices - i.e., the inverse correlation between them (a stronger USD is bearish for crude oil prices, and vice versa). The transitory noise surrounding the next Fed Chair will dissipate within the next few weeks, allowing the U.S. central bank and markets to focus on the evolution of monetary policy next year, following a widely expected rate hike in December. During the transitional phase the oil market is currently passing through - falling supply and stout demand are tightening the market globally - the USD's importance will increase as a determinant of oil prices (Chart 8). Bottom Line: Our oil-price call for next year - $65/bbl for Brent and $63/bbl for WTI - is predicated on stronger global demand growth, and an extension of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts to end-June 2018. These fundamentals will produce stronger inventory draws in the OECD, and bring stocks below their five-year average by year-end 2018. In our view, upside price risks clearly dominate in 2018. Chief among these risks are unplanned production outages in key OPEC states - Iraq, Venezuela and Libya - which account for ~ 7.4mm b/d of production at present. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report "Oilfield Service Quarterly Update: U.S. Stagnation," published October 25, 2017. It is available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 2 OPEC 2.0 is the producer coalition lead by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. Please see last week's feature article in Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten," for a discussion of our assumptions, models and estimates. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "Update 2 - Iraqi Kurdistan faces first major oil outage since referendum," published by uk.reuters.com October 18, 2017. See also "Iraq's NOC vows to maintain Kirkuk oil flows after ousting Kurds," published by S&P Global Platts October 17, 2017, for additional background. 4 Please see "Iraqi Kurds Offer To Freeze Independence Referendum Results," published October 25, 2017, by Bloomberg.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Iraq: An Emergent Risk," p. 23 in the September 20, 2017 issue. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "Venezuela's deteriorating oil quality riles major refiners," published by reuters.com October 18, 2017. 7 Please see "Exclusive: PDVSA blocked from using NuStar terminal over unpaid bills," published by uk.reuters.com October 20, 2017. 8 Please see "Venezuela is blowing debt payments ahead of a huge, make-or-break bill," published by cnbc.com on October 20, 2017. 9 Please see "Special Report: Vladimir's Venezuela - Leveraging loans to Caracas, Moscow snaps up oil assets," published by reuters.com on August 11, 2017. 10 Rosneft's majority owner is the Russian government. See "Glencore sells down stake in Russia's Rosneft," published by telegraph.co.uk on September 8, 2017. Glencore's 14.6% stake in Rosneft was sold to CEFC China Energy, according to the Telegraph. 11 Please see "WoodMac: Libya's oil production might have reached near-term potential," in the October 20, 2017, issue of Oil & Gas Journal. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Please note that in addition to today's abbreviated Weekly Bulletin, we are also publishing a Special Report on Argentina. Feature Regarding recent financial market dynamics, it appears that the high-yielding EM currencies are breaking down as U.S. bond yields march higher. Several EM exchange rates have formed a tapering wedge pattern, as shown in Chart I-1. Such patterns eventually lead a major break out or break down. Our bias remains that we are witnessing a major breakdown in several EM high-yielding currencies. If this transpires, it would be a precursor for a wider selloff in EM risk assets. Below we discuss interesting dynamics that have emerged in India's onshore fixed-income market lately, and their implications for the nation's equity market. India Several signals tentatively indicate that the price of liquidity has risen at the margin in India. Onshore BBB corporate bond yields have increased and their respective credit spreads have widened (Chart I-2). In addition, the yield curve has steepened modestly. Chart I-1A Tapering Wedge: ##br##A Breakout Or Breakdown? Chart I-2India: Onshore BBB Corporate Bond ##br##Yields And Spreads Have Spiked Rising corporate bond yields and widening corporate credit spreads have been negative for share prices in the past (Chart I-3). Similarly, steepening yield curves have been associated with a pullback in equity prices in recent years (Chart I-4). Note that yields, spreads and the yield curve are shown inverted on Charts I-3 and I-4. Chart I-3India: Corporate Bond Yields ##br##And Spreads Versus Stocks Chart I-4India: Yield Curve ##br##And Share Prices Why has the market price of liquidity risen in India? In our opinion, it has to do with both the domestic and external environments. On the domestic side, the fiscal deficit has widened, implying that borrowing requirements by central and state governments have risen (Chart I-5). Increased demand for credit from the government would not have been a problem had the commercial banks accommodated for it by creating enough new money. Yet, broad money supply growth remains depressed (Chart I-6). Chart I-5India: Ballooning Fiscal Deficits ##br##And Weak Money Creation Chart I-6Indian Money Growth: ##br##New Record Low As a result, the diminished amount of new money relative to demand for money, among other reasons, pushed marginal borrowing costs higher. Chart I-7 shows our proxy for new money available to the private sector has dipped into negative territory. On the external side, the recent rise in U.S. bond yields and the rebound in the U.S. dollar against several EM currencies might have also contributed to higher borrowing costs in India. We expect this U.S. dollar rebound versus EM currencies to persist and U.S. Treasury yields to continue drifting higher. Hence, the global backdrop heralds marginally higher bond yields in India. Although the onshore corporate bond market - and its BBB segment - is not very large, investors should heed to its signals because it reflects the cost of borrowing for the marginal corporate borrower. Besides, its signals have worked quite well in the past as shown in previous Chart I-3 on page 2. Some commentators might argue that the mild rise in government bond yields has been driven by a rise in inflation and growth expectations. We will not disagree with that, but both economic growth and inflation variables are still muted. Chart I-8 shows economic activity is lukewarm at best. Chart I-7India: Proxy For New Money ##br##Available To Private Sector Chart I-8India's Growth Is ##br##Lukewarm At Best On the inflation outlook, the picture is mixed as well. Consumer price inflation, especially core measures, might have bottomed (Chart I-9). Critically, the government approved a draft bill in July that allows the central government to set minimum wages across all sectors and states. The central government is currently reviewing the formula used to set minimum wage and the new formula might lead to significant increases in minimum wages. These policy changes come on top of the pay raises that public sector workers saw earlier this year. Importantly, if consumer demand accelerates while capital spending remains in the doldrums, inflationary pressures will mount. Chart I-10 shows that since 2012 consumer spending has outpaced investment by a large margin. Chart I-9India: Consumer Inflation ##br##Might Be Bottoming Chart I-10India: Consumer Spending ##br##Has Outpaced Investment Provided India has been, and remains, an underinvested economy, if this gap persists, it will produce either inflation or a widening current account deficit. Rising consumption without an equal increase in the supply of goods and services will either lead to higher prices or mushrooming consumer goods imports. Both scenarios bode ill for the macro dynamics, the currency, and ultimately equity multiples. As to financial markets, the Indian bourse is one of the most expensive in the EM space, so it is not very surprising that share prices could react negatively to marginally higher interest rates. For dedicated EM equity investors, we downgraded India from overweight to neutral on August 23, and this stance remains intact. While near-term underperformance cannot be ruled out, the medium-term outlook for relative performance warrants a neutral stance. Bottom Line: There are signals that liquidity is tightening on the margin in India's fixed-income markets due to domestic and external reasons. This will likely hurt share prices. Dedicated EM equity investors should keep a neutral allocation on India's bourse. Mexico: Close Currency, Rates, And Credit Overweights NAFTA risks to Mexico are escalating again. According to our Geopolitical Strategy team, there is non-trivial probability that the NAFTA negotiations will become negative for Mexican financial markets. The recent relapse in Mexico's financial markets will likely endure. We are closing the following positions: long MXN / short BRL; long MXN / short ZAR; receive Mexican 2-year / pay 2-year swap rates as well as overweight positions in Mexican sovereign credit versus Colombia and Indonesia. Dedicated equity investors should stay neutral on this bourse. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations