Equities

Highlights Recommended Allocation The sweet spot of non-inflationary accelerating growth is likely to continue. European politics will fade as a risk, and Trump should still be able to get tax cuts through. We continue to be positive on risk assets on a one-year horizon, though returns are unlikely to be as good as in the past 12 months and there is a risk of the next recession arriving in 2019. Our portfolio tilts are generally pro-risk and pro-cyclical. We are overweight equities versus fixed income. We move overweight euro area equities, which should benefit from inexpensive valuations, higher beta and a falling political risk premium. Within fixed income, we prefer credit over government bonds, and raise high-yield debt to overweight on improved valuations. We expect the dollar to appreciate further, which makes us cautious on emerging market assets and industrial commodities. Feature Overview No Reasons To Turn Cautious Markets have paused for breath following the reflation trade that began a year ago and that was given an extra boost by the election of Donald Trump in November. Since the turn of the year, the dollar, U.S. 10-year Treasury yields, credit spreads and (to a degree) equities have all eased back a little (Chart 1). We don't think the risk-on rally is over, but the going will undoubtedly get tougher from here. The momentum of global growth cannot continue to rise at the same pace, with the Global PMI already at its highest level since 2011 (Chart 2). Global equities, therefore, are unlikely to return the 16% over the next 12 months, that they have over the past 12. Chart 1A Pause For Breath Chart 2Growth Momentum Must Slow From Here Nonetheless, we see nothing that is likely to stop risk assets continuing to outperform over the one-year horizon: Growth is likely to rise further. While the initial pick-up was in "soft" data such as consumer sentiment and business confidence, signs are emerging that "hard" data such as household spending and production are now also improving (Chart 3). Models developed by our colleagues on The Bank Credit Analyst indicate that real GDP growth in the U.S. this year will come in above 3% and in the euro area above 2% (Chart 4),1 compared to consensus forecasts of 2.2% and 1.6% respectively. Chart 3Hard Data Also Not Picking Up Chart 4GDP Growth Could Beat Consensus For now, this growth is unlikely to prove inflationary. In the U.S. the diffusion index for PCE inflation shows more prices in the basket falling than rising; in the eurozone, the rise to 2% in headline inflation in January was temporary, mainly because of higher oil prices, and core inflation remains at only 0.7%. The U.S. output gap will close soon, but the eurozone's is still deeply negative (Chart 5). We see the Fed raising rates twice more this year, in line with its dots, though it may have to accelerate the pace next year if the Trump administration succeeds in passing fiscal stimulus. The ECB, however, is unlikely to raise rates until 2019 and will taper asset purchases only slowly.2 Misplaced worries that it will tighten more quickly than this have recently dragged on European equities and strengthened the euro. We think the market is wrong to price out the probability of a tax cut in the U.S. just because of the Trump administration's failure to reform healthcare. Our Geopolitical strategists argue that Republicans in Congress (even the Freedom Caucus) are united behind the idea of cutting taxes, even if these are not funded by tax reforms or spending cuts (they can be justified on the grounds of "dynamic scoring").3 We see a cut in corporate and personal taxes passing before year-end to take effect in 2018. And Trump has not abandoned the idea of infrastructure spending. The market no longer expects any of this: the prices of stocks that would most benefit from lower corporate taxes or from government spending have reverted to their pre-election levels. European political risk is likely to wane. The market continues to worry about the possibility of Marine Le Pen winning the French Presidential election, as shown in the spread of OATs over Bunds (which has widened to 60-80 bp from 20 bp last summer). We think this very unlikely: polls show her consistently at least 20 points behind Emmanuel Macron in the second round of voting (Chart 6). While Italian politics remain a risk, the parliamentary election there is unlikely to take place until March 2018. Brexit is a threat to the U.K., but should have minimal impact on the eurozone. We retain, therefore, our pro-cyclical and pro-risk tilts on a 12-month time horizon. We have even added a little more beta to our recommended portfolio by raising high-yield bonds to overweight (since their valuations now look more attractive after a recent sell-off) and by going overweight eurozone stocks (paid for by notching down our double-overweight in U.S. stocks). The eurozone has consistently been a higher beta (Chart 7), more cyclical equity market than the U.S. and, once the political risks (at least temporarily) subside, should be able to outperform for a while. Chart 5Eurozone Output Gap Still Very Negative Chart 6Can Le Pen Really Win From Here? Chart 7Eurozone Is A High Beta Stock Market But we warn that the good times may not last for long. Tax cuts in the U.S. would add stimulus to an economy already at full capacity. The Fed might have to raise rates sharply next year (although the timing might depend on how President Trump tries to affect monetary policy, for example whom he appoints as Fed chair to replace Janet Yellen next February). U.S. recessions have typically come two or three years after the output gap turns positive (Chart 5). As Martin Barnes, BCA's chief economist, recently wrote,4 that may point to next recession arriving as soon as 2019. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking Chart 8Expensive, But Not At An Extreme Aren't You Worried About U.S. Equity Valuations? Valuation is a poor timing tool in the short term but, when it reaches extremes, it has historically added value. The valuation metrics we watch show that U.S. equities are expensive, but not at the extreme levels that have historically warranted an outright sell or underweight. First, according to MSCI, U.S. equities are currently trading at 24.4 times 12-month trailing earnings, and 25.7 times 10-year cyclically-adjusted earnings; both measures are about one standard deviation from their 10-year averages. Second, U.S. equities are trading at a premium to global equities, but the premium to the developed markets is in line with the 10-year average (Chart 8, panel 1), while the premium to emerging markets is about 1.5 standard deviations from the 10-year average (panel 2). Third, equities are cheap compared to fixed income: the earnings yield is still higher than the yields on both 10-year government bonds and investment grade corporate bonds, and the yield gaps are currently only slightly lower (more expensive) than their respective 10-year averages (panels 3 and 4). In the long run, the 10-year cyclically-adjusted PE (CAPE) has had relatively good forecasting power for 10 year forward returns. Currently, the regression indicates 143% (9.3% annualized) total returns over the next 10 years. This could be on the optimistic side given that we are no longer in an environment of declining bond yields and margins are elevated compared to the 1990s. That said, we have cut our U.S. equity overweight by half, partly due to valuation concerns. Is EM Debt Attractive? Chart 9Avoid EM Debt Emerging market debt has continued its run from last year, with sovereign and local currency debt providing YTD returns of 3% and 2% respectively. Over long periods, EM debt has displayed the ability to provide substantial returns while also providing robust diversification benefits to a 50/50 DM equity/bond portfolio, even more so than EM equities.5 However, over the cyclical horizon, we remain bearish on EM debt both in absolute terms and relative to global equities. EM fixed income markets have been able to defy deteriorating fundamentals for some time, but this is unsustainable. After years of leveraging, credit excesses will need to be unwound. Decelerating credit growth will be enough to dampen economic growth and damage emerging markets' ability to service their debt. Risks in EM sovereign debt markets are high. Historical returns have shown negative skewness and fat tails, suggesting high vulnerability to large downswings. This is particularly concerning given that yields are one standard deviation lower than their long-term average (Chart 9). While EM local currency debt is more fairly priced and has a more favorable risk/return profile than its sovereign debt counterpart, local currency debt returns are even more heavily influenced by their currencies. Above-trend growth in the U.S. leading to additional rate hikes, as well as rising U.S. bond yields and softer commodity prices will add further downward pressure to EM currencies. For EM dedicated investors, we suggest overweight positions in low beta/defensive markets. Regions that are less susceptible to currency weakness with high yields and low foreign funding requirements include Russia, India and Indonesia. How Will The Fed Shrink Its Balance Sheet, And Does It Matter? After the Fed's third rate hike, attention is turning to when it will begin to reduce its balance sheet. This has grown to $4.5 trillion, up from $900 billion before the Global Financial Crisis. Assets currently include $2.5 trillion of Treasury securities and $1.8 trillion of mortgage-related securities. Since asset purchases ended in October 2014, the Fed has rolled over maturing bonds to maintain the size of the balance sheet. The FOMC statement last December committed to maintaining this policy "until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way". The market takes this to mean 1-1.5%, a level likely to be reached by year-end. The view of BCA's fixed income team6 is that the Fed will start by ceasing reinvestment of Agency bonds and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in 2018, at the same time reducing excess bank reserves on the liability side of the balance sheet (Chart 10). This will worry markets to a degree and the Fed will need to be careful how it communicates the policy: for example what size it thinks its balance sheet should ultimately be. It may also need to skip a rate hike or two in the first months of the shrinkage. The MBS market is likely to suffer from the increased supply. But the only historical precedent - the BoJ's unwinding of its 2000-3 QE - is reassuring: this had no discernible effect on rates or the yen (Chart 11). Chart 10Fed Will Cut MBSs First Chart 11Nobody Noticed The BoJ Taper When Will ECB Taper? Chart 12Recovery Not Permanent Euro area growth is recovering and headline inflation has hit the ECB's 2% target (Chart 12). Investors are wondering how rapidly the ECB will taper its asset purchases and when it will raise rates. Our view is that the ECB will move only slowly. The pickup in inflation is mostly driven by the base effect and by the rise in energy prices. The failure of core inflation, which remains below 1%, to pick up appreciably suggests that underlying price pressures are weak. The current program has the ECB purchasing EUR 60 Bn of assets each month until December 2017. Markets have recently become more hawkish with regards to the likely path of policy: currently futures are pricing in the first hike only 19 months away versus an expectations in January of 44 months. We expect the ECB to remain more dovish than that, given weak underlying inflation, political uncertainty, and banking system troubles. We think the ECB will announce around September this year a taper of its asset purchases in 2018. However, it is not clear whether it will cut them to, say EUR 30 Bn a month, or whether it will reduce the amount steadily each month or quarter. But we don't see an interest rate hike soon, since the euro area economy is not expected to reach full employment until 2019. Ewald Novotny, president of the Austrian central bank, spooked markets by suggesting a hike before complete withdrawal of asset purchases but, in our view, that would will send a confusing signal to investors. Nowotny has long been hawkish and we think his view is untypical of ECB council members. If our analysis is correct, ECB policy should be positive for euro area equities and bearish for the euro over the next 12 months. Will REIT Underperformance Continue? Chart 13Underweight REITs Relative REIT performance has continued its downtrend, underperforming the broad index by 5% YTD. While valuations have become more attractive and rental income is still robust, we expect the decline to continue given unsupportive macro factors. We previously argued that real estate is in a sweet spot, where economic growth was sufficient to generate sustainable tenant demand without triggering a new supply cycle.7 This is no longer the case. Office completions increased substantially over the past quarter and apartment completions remain in an uptrend. As we expect growth to remain robust in the U.S., the likelihood is that these two trends remain in place. REIT relative performance peaked at the beginning of August, shortly after long-term interest rates bottomed. REITs have historically outperformed when yields are falling and inflation is low (Chart 13). However, long-term rates should continue to rise over the cyclical horizon, primarily due to higher inflation expectations. Additionally, REITs typically benefit from increasing central bank asset purchases, as increased liquidity and lower interest rates boost real estate values. With the Fed clearly in tightening mode and the strong likelihood of ECB tapering next year, slowing asset purchases will be a considerable headwind to REIT performance. Within REITs, we maintain our sector tilts. Continue to favor Industrials, which will benefit in a rising USD environment and provide considerable income. Maintain underweight position in Apartments, due to rising completions and a low absorption ratio. Additionally, we continue to favor trophy over non-trophy markets given more stable rent growth as well as geopolitical risks in Europe and potential Washington disappointments. Global Economy Overview: The global economy has continued to recover from its intra-cycle slowdown in late 2015 and early 2016. Economic surprise indexes have everywhere surprised significantly on the upside since mid-2016 (Chart 14, panel 1). Although "hard" data (consumption, production etc.) have lagged "soft" data (consumer sentiment, business confidence), the former also have begun to recover recently. Although there are few negative indicators, it will get harder to beat expectations. U.S.: Lead indicators continue to improve, with the manufacturing ISM at 57.7 and new orders at 65.1. Sentiment quickly turned bullish after the presidential election, and hard data has now started to follow, with personal consumption expenditure rising 4.7% year on year and capital goods orders (+2.7% YoY in February) growing for the first time since 2014. With steady wage growth, continuing employment improvements, and a likely pick-up in capex, we expect 2017 GDP growth to beat the current consensus expectations of 2.2%. For now inflation remains quiescent, with core PCE inflation stuck at around 1.8%, below the Fed's 2% target. Euro Area: Leading indicators, such as PMIs, have rebounded in Europe too (Chart 15), suggesting that the consensus 2017 GDP forecast of 1.6% is achievable. Inflation has picked up, with the headline CPI 2.0% for the Eurozone in January, but core inflation remains low at 0.7% and headline fell back to 1.5% in February. However, the recent slowdown in bank loan growth (new credit creation is 36% below the level six months ago) suggests that continuing weakness in the banking sector is likely to keep growth sluggish. Chart 14How Long Can Growth Continue To Surprise? Chart 15A Synchronized Global Growth Rebound Japan is a tale of two segments. International-oriented data have recovered, with IP up 3.7% (Chart 15, panel 2) and exports +5.4% year on year. But domestic demand remains weak: wages are rising only 0.5% YoY (despite a tight labor market), which is holding back household spending (-1.2% YoY in January). Core inflation has shown the first signs of picking up, but remains very low at 0.1% YoY. Emerging Markets: The effects of China's reflationary policies from early 2016 continue to boost activity (Chart 15, panel 3). But the excess liquidity they triggered worries the authorities, who have clamped down on real estate purchases and capital outflows, slowed fiscal spending, and tightened monetary policy. China will prioritize stability until the Party Congress in the fall, but the impact of reflation on commodity prices and on other emerging markets will fade. Interest rates: The Fed is likely to hike twice more this year in line with its "dot plot", unless inflation surprises significantly to the upside. This, plus an acceleration of nominal GDP growth to 4.5-5%, should push the 10-year bond yield above 3% by year end. The ECB will not be as hawkish as the market expects (futures markets indicate a rate hike by end-2018), since Mario Draghi expects headline inflation to fall back once the oil price stabilizes and is concerned about political risk especially in Italy. Consequently, rates are unlikely to rise as quickly as in the U.S. The Bank of Japan will keep its 0% yield target for 10-year JGB for the foreseeable future. Global Equities Global equities continued to make impressive gains in Q1 2017, after a strong 2016. The price appreciation since the low in February 2016 has been driven by both multiple expansion and earnings growth, roughly in equal proportion, as shown in Chart 16, panel 1. Chart 16Earnings Improving But Valuation Stretched Equity valuation is expensive by historical standards but, as an asset class, equities are still attractively valued compared to bonds (see the "What Our Clients Are Asking" section on page 6). In this "TINA" (There Is No Alternative) world, we remain overweight equities versus bonds. Within equities, we maintain our call of favoring DM equities versus EM equities despite of the 6% EM outperformance in Q1, which was supported by attractive valuations. About half of that outperformance came from the appreciation of EM currencies versus the USD. Our house view is that the USD will strengthen further versus the EM currencies. Within EM, we have been more positive on China and remain so on a 6-9 month horizon. The only adjustment we make now is to upgrade euro area equities to overweight by reducing half of our large overweight in the U.S. so that now we are equally overweight the U.S. and euro area (see details on the next page). In terms of global sector positioning, we maintain a pro-cyclical tilt. Our largest overweight in Healthcare panned out very well in Q1 but the overweight in Energy did not, due to the drop in oil prices. Our Energy strategists believe this was caused by one-off technical factors on the supply side, and argue that the oil price will soon revert to $55 a barrel. Euro Area Equities: A Cheaper Alternative To The U.S. Political risks related to elections in some eurozone countries are receding. The ECB is likely to maintain its easy monetary policies, while the Fed is on track to normalize interest rates in the U.S. We have had a large overweight of 6 percentage points (ppts) on U.S. equities while being neutral on the euro area. We upgrade the eurozone to overweight by 3 ppts, so that we are now equally overweight the U.S. and the euro area. The following are the reasons: First, the relative performance of total returns between eurozone and the U.S. equities is at its lowest since 1987. Since April 2015, when the most recent brief period of eurozone outperformance ended, eurozone equities have underperformed the U.S. by over 16% in common currency terms (Chart 17, panel 1), while the euro lost only about 4% versus the USD over the same period. Second, eurozone equities are trading at a 22% discount to the U.S., compared to the five-year average discount of 17% (panel 3). Third, eurozone equities have lower margins than the U.S., but the profit margin in the eurozone has been improving (panel 2). Lastly, the PMIs in the euro area have been improving (panel 4) and this improvement is faster than the global aggregate PMI (panel 5), which implies - based on the close correlation between PMIs and earnings growth - that profitability in the eurozone should improve at a faster pace than the global average. Sector Allocation: We have had a relatively pro-cyclical tilt in our global sector positioning, overweight three cyclical sectors (Energy, Industrials and Info Tech) plus Healthcare, while underweight three defensive sectors (Consumer Staples, Telecoms and Utilities) as well as Consumer Discretionary. We have been neutral on Financials and Materials. After very strong performance in 2016, cyclical sectors underperformed in Q1 2017 (Chart 18, panel 1). The underperformance of cyclicals versus defensives can be largely attributed to the polar-opposite performance of Energy and Healthcare (Chart 19). Going forward, we maintain our current sector positioning for the following reasons: Chart 17Earnings Growth At Lower Valuation Chart 18Maintain The Cyclical Tilt Chart 19Global Sector Performance First, Energy was the only sector which fell in Q1, largely due to the decline in oil prices. BCA's Energy and Commodity Strategy attributes the oil price weakness to inventory buildup related to the production rush before the OPEC agreement to cut production, and therefore expects the WTI oil price to return to the $50-55 range. Energy stocks should benefit once oil prices turn back up. Chart 20Relative Factor Performance Second, the relative profitability between cyclicals and defensives is underpinned by global economic conditions, as represented by the global PMI. The PMI is on track to recover further, which bodes well for the profit outlook for cyclicals versus defensives. Third, our pro-cyclical tilt in sector positioning is hedged by an overweight in Healthcare (a defensive sector) and underweight in Consumer Discretionary (a cyclical). Smart Beta Update: No Style Bet Q1 2017 saw some significant performance reversals in the five most enduring factors: quality, minimum volatility, momentum, value, and size (Chart 20, panels 2-6). Quality and Momentum performed the best, outperforming the global benchmark by over 200 bps in Q1. The star performer in 2016, the Value factor, performed the worst, underperforming by 190 bps. According to the findings in our Special Report,8 recent factor performance seems to be pricing in a "Goldilocks" environment in which growth is rising and inflation falling. We have shown that it is very difficult to time the shift in factor performance cycles and so have advocated an equal weight in the five factors (Chart 20, panel 1) for long-term investors. We reiterate this view. Government Bonds Maintain slight underweight duration. Our 2-factor model made up of global PMI and U.S. dollar sentiment indicates the current fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.4% (Chart 21). While this suggests bonds are currently correctly priced, we still expect that long-term yields will rise over a cyclical horizon. The long end should grind higher given improving growth, rising equity prices and renewed "animal spirits." Additionally, large net short positions have been unwound, allowing for another leg higher in yields. Overweight TIPS vs. Treasuries. Diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI inflation shifted into negative territory, suggesting realized inflation will soften in the near term. Nevertheless, with headline and core CPI readings of 2.7% and 2.2% respectively, U.S. inflation has clearly bottomed for the cycle (Chart 22). This trend should continue as a result of cost-push inflation driven by faster wage growth. Very gradual Fed hikes will not be enough to derail the upward momentum in consumer prices. Euro area growth is stable, but expectations of a rate hike from the ECB are premature (Chart 23). While the central bank opened the door slightly to a less-accommodative policy stance, it is unlikely that the ECB will hike until full employment is reached. Our expectation is for a tapering of asset purchases to occur in 2018. Once tapering is complete, rate hikes will follow by approximately 6-12 months. The implication is upward pressure on European bond yields and wider spreads for peripheral government debt. Chart 2110-Year Treasury Fair Value Model Chart 22Inflation Has Bottomed Chart 23Will the ECB Hike Soon? Corporate Bonds The BCA Corporate Health Monitor remains deeply in "Deteriorating Health" territory, indicating weakness within corporate balance sheets (Chart 24). Over the last quarter, the indicator worsened, as profit margins, return-on-capital and liquidity declined. However, leverage did improve slightly. The trend toward weaker corporate health has been firmly established over the past 12 quarters. This is consistent with the very late stages of past credit cycles. Maintain overweight to Investment Grade debt. The U.S. is in a self-reinforcing, low-inflation recovery. Economic growth should accelerate throughout 2017, with strong consumer spending, rising capex intentions, and still accommodative monetary policy. The potential sell-off from rate hikes this year should be fairly mild given that the market is already close to pricing in three. Additionally, credit has historically outperformed in the early stages of the Fed tightening cycle. Expect low but positive excess returns (Chart 25). Shift to overweight in high-yield debt. Our default model is showing improvement due to elevated interest coverage, a robust PMI reading, declining job cut announcements, softening lending standards and a rising sales/inventory ratio. The recent backup in yields has made junk bond valuations more attractive. The default adjusted spread, calculated by subtracting an ex-ante estimate of default losses from the average spread, is now approximately 220bps (Chart 26). Chart 24Balance Sheets Deteriorating Chart 25A Supportive Backdrop Chart 26High Yield: Valuations Becoming More Attractive Commodities Chart 27Upside To Resource Prices Limited Secular Perspective: Bearish A slowdown in Chinese activity, led by its transition to a services economy, coupled with unfavorable global demographics, will continue to constrain demand for commodities. This slack in demand coupled with excess capacity will continue to limit the upside in resource prices and prolong the commodities bear market which began in 2012 (Chart 27). Cyclical Perspective: Neutral Energy markets have moved from excess supply to excess demand, and so we remain positive on oil. But, with the impact of Chinese fiscal stimulus waning, excess supply in the metals market will persist, putting downward pressure on prices. Our divergent outlook for energy vs metals gives us an overall neutral view for commodities over the cyclical horizon. Energy: With a synchronized upturn in global growth and inflation, both OECD and non-OECD demand will remain strong. Following Saudi Arabia's production cuts, we expect the OPEC agreement to be honored by all members, including Russia. With strengthening demand and falling production, storage should draw through the year. We expect the oil-USD divergence to persist as improving fundamentals override the stronger dollar. Base Metals: With Chinese government spending slowing from 24% growth year on year in January 2016 to only 4%, the country's fiscal impulse has ended. Tightening in Chinese liquidity conditions have led to higher borrowing rates for the real estate sector, which is dampening its demand for materials. At the same time, inventories for key metals such as copper and steel have risen. We expect metals prices to correct over the coming months. Precious Metals: Gold has rallied 10% from last December, and another 4% following the Fed's March rate hike. These were responses to the dovish nature of the hike and continuing political risk. We expect the Fed to turn more hawkish in coming weeks, sending the dollar and real yields higher, thereby holding back the gold price from rising much further. Currencies Chart 28Return Of The Dollar USD: The last Fed meeting resulted in a dovish hike, as evidenced by the subsequent fall in the dollar. However, as the U.S. economy nears full employment, we expect a more hawkish tone from FOMC members in the coming weeks which will push the dollar up (Chart 28). The Fed continues to be data dependent, and sees the recent synchronized global upturn as an opportunity to deliver hikes in line with market expectations. Euro: As the economy stabilizes, as evidenced by rising headline inflation, stronger retail sales and improving PMI numbers, the ECB has opened the window for reducing monetary accommodation. However, since the economy is expected to reach full employment only in 2019, we expect rates to be kept low even after the tapering of ECB asset purchases starts next year. This will add further downward pressure on the euro. Yen: The Bank of Japan will continue its highly accommodative monetary policy, centered on its 0% yield target for 10-year government bonds, because Japanese growth and inflation is lagging the global upturn. Japan is benefitting from global growth, as seen in the improvement in its manufacturing PMI, but domestic demand remains weak as consumer confidence and retail sales stagnate. Continued downward pressure on relative interest rates will drive the only reliable source of inflation: a weaker yen. EM: A more hawkish Fed and rising bond yields will tighten global liquidity conditions, making it difficult for emerging nations that run current account deficits. The rising threat of protectionism could affect EM exports and create a new wave of deflationary pressure, forcing central banks to engineer currency devaluation. The fact that commodity prices have risen, yet EM currencies have remained weak, is a clear indications that EM fundamentals are weak. Alternatives Overweight private equity / underweight hedge funds. Leading indicators suggest that global growth continues to improve. In the absence of a recession, private equity typically outperforms as the illiquidity premium should provide a boost to returns. Additionally, surveys suggest that managers are planning on increasing their allocation percentage toward private equity over the rest of the year. Hedge funds, on the other hand, have displayed a negative correlation with global growth. Historically, they have outperformed private equity only during recessions or periods of high credit market stress (Chart 29). Overweight direct real estate / underweight commodity futures. Demand for commercial real estate (CRE) assets remains robust but the increase in completions is worrying. Favor Industrials for its income potential and Retail given resilient consumer spending. Overweight trophy markets, as demand remains robust given multiple macro risks. Commodities have bounced, but remain in a secular bear market caused by a supply glut and exacerbated by a market-share war (Chart 30). Overweight farmland & timberland / underweight structured products. The potential for trade wars, geopolitical risk in Europe and concerns over an equity market correction have increased the importance of volatility reduction. Favor farmland & timberland. Substantial portfolio diversification benefits, resulting from low correlations with traditional assets, coupled with a positive skew, make these assets highly attractive. As the most bond-like alternative, the end of the 35-year bull market in bonds presents a substantial headwind. Structured products also tend to outperform during recessions, which is not our base case (Chart 31). Chart 29PE: Tied To Real Growth Chart 30Commodities: A Secular Bear Market Chart 31Structured Products Outperform In Recessions Risks To Our View Our pro-cyclical pro-risk tilts are based on the premise that global growth will remain strong over the next 12 months. We do not see many risks to this view: leading indicators suggest that consumption and capex are likely to continue to rebound. The one major indicator that suggests downside risk is loan growth. In the U.S., loans to firms have slowed to 5.4% from over 10% last summer, and in the euro area the meager pickup in corporate loan growth seems to have faltered (Chart 32). There may be some special factors: oil companies that borrowed in early 2016 when in difficulty no longer need to tap credit lines, and U.S. companies may be holding back to see details of tax cuts. But loan growth needs to be watched closely. More granularly, our country and sector preferences - in particular, our cautious views on Emerging Markets and industrial commodities - are based partly on the expectation that the U.S. dollar will appreciate further. If the global expansion remains highly synchronized (Chart 33) this might instigate all G7 central banks to tighten, allowing the Fed to raise rates without appreciating the dollar. However, we expect continuing divergences in growth and monetary policy to push the dollar up further. Finally, some indicators suggest that investors have become too positive on the outlook for stocks (Chart 34). Sentiment has in the past not been a reliable indicator of stock market peaks, but excess euphoria could trigger a short-term correction. Chart 32Why Is Bank Loan Growth Slowing? Chart 33Could Synchronized Growth Push Down USD? Chart 34Are Investors Too Euphoric? 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, March 2017, page 33, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking: When Will The ECB Taper? on page 9 of this report for a full explanation of why we think this. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was", dated March 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Special Report titled "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession", dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "EM Asset Allocation: Is There Any Reason To Own Stocks?," dated November 27, 2012, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet," dated February 28, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "REITs Vs. Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?," dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of March 31, 2017. The model has not made significant changes compared to previous month as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, Level 2 model ( the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. DM countries) sharply outperformed its benchmark by 338 basis points (bps) in March, largely a result from the overweight of Spain and Italy versus underweight in Japan and Canada. Level 1 model, the allocation between U.S. and non-U.S., underperformed by 27 bps in March due to the large overweight in the U.S. Overall, the aggregate GAA model outperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 71 bps in March and by 117 bps since going live. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model". http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of March 31, 2017. Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live Chart 4Overall Model Performance The momentum component has shifted Materials from overweight to underweight and Consumer Discretionary from underweight to overweight. The growth component has become less optimistic on global growth given the weakness in metals prices. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Highlights With the labor market near full employment and the economy growing modestly, the U.S. economy is not in dire need of a "shot in the arm" from fiscal stimulus. Stocks may dip temporarily out of disappointment, but the economy will be fine even if Congress fails to boost infrastructure spending and/or cut taxes. Our view is that the market will adjust up expectations toward the Fed's view for 2018. The timing of this convergence will depend critically on the path of realized inflation and inflation expectations. If the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate rises above a level that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. That would signal that investors fear the Fed is falling behind the inflation curve. Our view remains that U.S. equities will continue to outperform U.S. Treasury bond market in 2017, although that view is as much about the poor prospective returns in the bond market as it is about our bullish view on stocks. Much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years. Feature With the labor market near full employment and the economy growing modestly, the U.S. economy is not in dire need of a "shot in the arm" from fiscal stimulus (Chart 1). The situation is very different from the early 1980s, early 2000s and during the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the fall of 2008. In early 2009, when the Congress and President Obama passed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the economy was in the midst of the Great Recession and was still reeling from the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the freezing up of credit markets. Chart 1Trump Inheriting Best Economy For A New President In Decades Similarly, the economy was still struggling from the aftermath of the bursting of the technology, telecom and media bubble in 2000, when President Bush and an all-Republican Congress passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001. When President Reagan and a split Congress passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) in August 1981, the economy had entered the second recession in as many years. While the economic expansion since the end of the Great Recession has been sluggish, and has not benefited all Americans the same way, the U.S. economy today is in much better shape than any of the three periods listed above. Monetary policy remains stimulative, financial conditions are easy and none of our forward-looking indicators warn of an economic downturn. Longer term, many of the policy proposals rattling around the Trump Administration may help to boost productivity and, ultimately, growth over the coming years. These include: simplifying the tax code; reducing regulation; and enacting legislation to enhance the nation's infrastructure. In the short term, however, some of those proposals may create uncertainty and thereby spark an economic soft patch (for example, the "border adjustment tax" or repealing Obama Care without immediately replacing it). Nonetheless, our main point is that the U.S. economy doesn't need a shot in the arm from fiscal policy to "rescue it" as was the case in decades past. The bottom line is that stocks may dip temporarily out of disappointment, but the economy will be fine even if Congress fails to boost infrastructure spending and/or cut taxes. Resetting The Stage The odds of a recession this year remain low, as there are few excesses in the system that typically lead to economic downturns. Just because the economic expansion that began in mid-2009 will turn eight years old later this quarter, that doesn't mean that a recession is imminent. We will continue to carefully monitor the economy for signs that excesses are building. But for now, our view remains that modest economic growth will continue, even without a boost from fiscal stimulus. The market has long questioned the pace of Fed rate hikes contained in the FOMC's 'dot plot'. Expectations for 2017 have converged on two more quarter-point hikes this year (Chart 2). It's a different story for 2018 and 2019, where the Fed sees 3 more hikes in 2018 and 4 more in 2019, but the market is pricing in just 2 and 1. Our view is that the market will adjust up expectations toward the Fed's view for 2018. The timing of this convergence will depend critically on the path of realized inflation and inflation expectations. A Tale Of Two Halves Headline inflation is likely to remain elevated and above the Fed's 2% target in 1H 2017, before fading modestly in the second half of the year as we pass the anniversary of the low in oil prices. That may cause markets to temporarily roll back the outlook for Fed tightening in 2018. Nonetheless, a continuing upward march in wage growth will keep pressure on core PCE inflation. The FOMC will likely 'look through' any softening in the headline rate that is simply due to oil prices. Notably, service sector inflation, which accounts for 2/3 of CPI, has been accelerating for 7 years and is above 3% (Chart 3). Chart 2Connected In 2017 And Disconnected After Chart 3Service Inflation Accelerating Rising short-term interest rates should not be a major headwind for the equity market to the extent that it is reflective of robust growth rather than surging inflation. Inflation expectations are only creeping higher at the moment according to market-based measures (Chart 4). Risk assets could run into trouble if the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate rises above a level that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target, at 2.4-2.5%. That would signal that investors fear the Fed is falling behind the inflation curve and will have to crank up the pace of tightening. The so-called 'Trump trades' are under pressure following the failure to reform Obamacare, at a time when U.S. equity valuations are stretched and some measures of equity sentiment are elevated. Nonetheless, we do not believe it is time to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar. A lack of progress on a meaningful tax package and infrastructure plan may well end up being the catalyst for the first U.S. equity market correction of more than 5% in the Trump era. Nonetheless, the lack of excesses in the economy, general agreement between the Fed and the market on the path of rates for this year and rising, but still modest, inflation are likely to make any pullback in U.S. stocks a buying opportunity for investors. In fact, one could argue that fiscal stimulus at this point in the cycle would truncate the expansion because the Fed would have to respond more aggressively if the stimulus boosted inflation pressures. Fed Chair Yellen has made this point in recent public appearances. The failure to pass a tax reform package might undermine the long-term productivity story, but it could actually extend the length of this expansion and the equity bull market by delaying aggressive Fed rate hikes. Our view remains that U.S. equities will continue to outperform the U.S. Treasury bond market in 2017, although that view is as much about the poor prospective returns in the bond market as it is about our bullish view on stocks (Chart 5). Chart 4Inflation Expectations##br## Well Contained Chart 5Equities Continue To ##br##Outperform Bonds This Year The remainder of this week's publication focuses on the forces behind the continuing drop in risk asset correlations, and the implications for a mean-reversion in the equity risk premium. Correlation, ERP And Hurdle Rates Elevated financial market correlations have been a hallmark of this expansion, making life difficult for traders and for investors searching for diversification (Chart 6). Correlations have been higher than normal across assets, across regions and within asset classes. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the past 6 months. A drop in asset correlations is important for diversification reasons and because it provides a better backdrop for those seeking alpha. But the reasons behind the decline in correlations may have broader financial and economic implications. One can only speculate on the underlying cause of the surge in asset correlations in the first place. Our theory has been that the large global output gap lingered because of the sub-par recovery that followed the most damaging macroeconomic shock since the Great Depression. The growth headwinds were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged solely on the success or failure of radical monetary policy. Either policy would "work", the output gap will gradually close, the deflation threat would be extinguished and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail, and risk assets would be dragged down as the economy fell back into recession. Thus, risk assets fluctuated along with violent swings in investor sentiment in what appeared to be a binary economic environment. In the March 2017 Quarterly Review, the Bank for International Settlements described it this way: "In a global environment devoid of growth but plentiful in liquidity, central bank decisions appear to draw investors into common, successive phases of buying or selling risk." In previous research, we developed a model that helps to explain the historical movements in correlations. We chose to focus on the correlation of individual stocks within the S&P 500 (Chart 7). The two explanatory variables are: (1) the equity risk premium (ERP; the difference between the S&P 500 forward earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield); and (2) rolling 1-year realized downside volatility.1 The logic behind the model is that a higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. Conversely, a lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. Chart 6Market Correlations Are Shifting Chart 7Market Correlation And The ERP A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious include an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Volatility is included to explain the cyclical variation of correlations, but we use only below-average returns in the calculation because we are more concerned about the risk of equity market declines. It makes sense that perceptions of downside "tail risk" should affect investors' appetite for risk. The model almost completely explains the trend in stock price correlations over the past decade, highlighting the importance of the ERP in driving the structural change in correlations (Chart 8). But why was the ERP so elevated after 2007? The preceding moderation in risk premia in the 1990s was likely due to a decline in macroeconomic volatility, a phenomenon that began in the early 1980s and has since been dubbed "The Great Moderation". A waning in the volatility of global inflation and growth contributed to a decline in the volatility of interest rates, which are used to discount future cash flows. This also reduced the perceived riskiness of investing in securities that are leveraged to economic growth, thus causing investors to trim their required excess returns to equities. Unfortunately, the Great Moderation contributed to complacency and bubbles in tech stocks and, later, housing.2 The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble brought the Great Moderation to a crushing end, ushering in an era of rolling financial crises and monetary extremism. Our measure of downside volatility soon returned to normal levels after the recession-driven spike. However, the ERP continued to fluctuate at a higher average level, which helps to explain the strong correlation among risk asset prices in the years since the recession. The ERP And Capital Spending An elevated equity risk premium is consistent with the view that investors demanded a more generous premium to take risk in a post-Lehman world. This may also help to explain the disappointing rate of capital spending growth in the major countries in recent years. Firms demanded a fat "hurdle rate" when evaluating new investment projects. Sir John Cunliffe, a member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, recently cited survey evidence related to the dismal U.K. capital spending record since the recession.3 The main culprits were bank lending issues, the high cost of capital and elevated hurdle rates. Eighty percent of publically-owned firms in the survey agreed that financial market pressure for short-term returns to shareholders had been an obstacle to investment. This short-termism makes sense if investors feared that the recovery could turn to bust at any moment. The survey highlighted that market pressure, together with macro uncertainty among CEOs, kept the hurdle rate applied to new investment projects at close to 12%, despite the major drop in market interest rates. In other words, the gap between the required rate-of-return on new projects and the risk-free rate or corporate borrowing rates surged (Chart 9). Chart 8Modeling The Stock Price ##br##Correlation Within The S&P 500 Chart 9Capex Hurdle Rates ##br##Never Came Down J.P. Morgan concluded that hurdle rates have also been sticky at around 12% in the U.S.4 This study blamed uncertainty over the cash-flow outlook (macro risk) and the fact that CEOs believed that low borrowing rates are temporary. It is rational for a firm to hold cash and buy back stock if perceptions of downside tail risk remain lofty. The bottom line is that uncertainty and higher risk aversion related to macro volatility kept the ERP elevated, curtailing animal spirits and lifting correlation among risk asset prices. Chart 10Forward Multiple Scenarios The good news is that the situation appears to have changed since the U.S. election. Measures of market correlation have dropped sharply across asset classes, within asset classes and across regions. Animal spirits also appear to be reviving given the jump in consumer and business confidence in the major countries. We are not making the case that all risks have dissipated. The military situation in North Korea and upcoming European elections are just two on a long list. Our point is that, absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside tail risk and a binary economic future should wane further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can now focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Does The ERP Have More Downside? It is difficult to determine the equilibrium equity risk premium, but back-of-the-envelope estimates can provide a ballpark figure. Let us assume that the ERP is not going back into negative territory, as was the case from 1980-2000. A more reasonable assumption is that the ERP instead converges with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003 to 2007 (about +200 basis points). The ERP is currently 3.2, which is equal to the forward earnings yield of 5.6 minus the 10-year yield of 2.4% (Chart 10). The ERP would need to fall by 120 basis points to get back to the 2% average yield of 2003-2007. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or a higher bond yield. If the 10-year Treasury yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3%, then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 60 basis points. This would boost the earnings multiple from 17.8 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We lean to the latter scenario for bonds, although it will take some time for the bond bear phase to play out. In the meantime, an equity overshoot is possible. The bottom line is that much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years, although that will be much better than the (likely negative) returns in the bond market. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Downside volatility is calculated in a fashion similar to standard deviation, except only using below-average returns. 2 Of course, the Great Moderation was not the only factor that contributed to the financial market bubbles. 3 Are Firms Underinvesting - And If So Why? Speech by Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor Financial Stability and Member of the Monetary Policy Committee. Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. February 8, 2017. 4 It's Time to Reassess Your Hurdle Rates. J.P. Morgan, November 2016.

Highlights Economic Outlook: The global economy is in a reflationary window that will stay open until mid-2018. Growth will then slow, culminating in a recession in 2019. While the recession is likely to be mild, the policy response will be dramatic. This will set the stage for a period of stagflation beginning in the early 2020s. Overall Strategy: Investors should overweight equities and high-yield credit during the next 12 months, while underweighting safe-haven government bonds and cash. However, be prepared to scale back risk next spring. Fixed Income: For now, stay underweight U.S. Treasurys within a global fixed-income portfolio; remain neutral on the euro area and the U.K.; and overweight Japan. Bonds will rally in the second half of 2018 as growth begins to slow, but then begin a protracted bear market. Equities: Favor higher-beta developed markets such as Europe and Japan relative to the U.S. in local-currency terms over the next 12 months. Emerging markets will benefit from the reflationary tailwind, but deep structural problems will drag down returns. Currencies: The broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 10% before peaking in mid-2018. The yen still has considerable downside against the dollar. The euro will grind lower, as will the Chinese yuan. The pound is close to a bottom. Commodities: Favor energy over metals. Gold will move higher once the dollar peaks in the middle of next year. Feature Reflation, Recession, And Then Stagflation The investment outlook over the next five years can be best described as a three-act play: First Act: "Reflation" (The present until mid-2018) Second Act: "Recession" (2019) Third Act: "Stagflation" (2021 onwards) Investors who remain a few steps ahead of the herd will prosper. All others will struggle to stay afloat. Let us lift the curtain and begin the play. Act 1: Reflation Reflation Continues If there is one chart that best encapsulates the reflation theme, Chart 1 is it. It shows the sum of the Citibank global economic and inflation surprise indices. The combined series currently stands at the highest level in the 14-year history of the survey. Consistent with the surprise indices, Goldman's global Current Activity Indicator (CAI) has risen to the strongest level in three years. The 3-month average for developed markets stands at a 6-year high (Chart 2). Chart 1The Reflation Trade In One Chart Chart 2Current Activity Indicators Have Perked Up What accounts for the acceleration in economic growth that began in earnest in mid-2016? A number of factors stand out: The drag on global growth from the plunge in commodity sector investment finally ran its course. U.S. energy sector capex, for example, tumbled by 70% between Q2 of 2014 and Q3 of 2016, knocking 0.7% off the level of U.S. real GDP. The fallout for commodity-exporting EMs such as Brazil and Russia was considerably more severe. The global economy emerged from a protracted inventory destocking cycle (Chart 3). In the U.S., inventories made a negative contribution to growth for five straight quarters starting in Q2 of 2015, the longest streak since the 1950s. The U.K., Germany, and Japan also saw notable inventory corrections. Fears of a hard landing in China and a disorderly devaluation of the RMB subsided as the Chinese government ramped up fiscal stimulus. The era of fiscal austerity ended. Chart 4 shows that the fiscal thrust in developed economies turned positive in 2016 for the first time since 2010. Financial conditions eased in most economies, delivering an impulse to growth that is still being felt. In the U.S., for example, junk bond yields dropped from a peak of 10.2% in February 2016 to 6.3% at present (Chart 5). A surging stock market and rising home prices also helped buoy consumer and business sentiment. Chart 3Inventory Destocking Was A Drag On Growth Chart 4The End Of Fiscal Austerity? Chart 5Corporate Borrowing Costs Have Fallen Fine For Now... Looking out, global growth should stay reasonably firm over the next 12 months. Our global Leading Economic Indicator remains in a solid uptrend. Burgeoning animal spirits are powering a recovery in business spending, as evidenced by the jump in factory orders and capex intentions (Chart 6). The lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions over the past 12 months should help support activity. Chart 7 shows that the 12-month change in our U.S. Financial Conditions Index leads the business cycle by 6-to-9 months. The current message from the index is that U.S. growth will remain sturdy for the remainder of 2017. Chart 6Global Growth Will Stay Strong In The Near Term Chart 7Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity ... But Storm Clouds Are Forming Home prices cannot rise faster than rents or incomes indefinitely; nor can equity prices rise faster than earnings. Corporate spreads also cannot keep falling. As the equity and housing markets cool, and borrowing costs start climbing on the back of higher government bond yields, the tailwind from easier financial conditions will dissipate. When that happens - most likely, sometime next year - GDP growth will slow. In and of itself, somewhat weaker growth would not be much of a problem. After all, the economy is currently expanding at an above-trend pace and the Fed wants to tighten financial conditions to some extent - it would not be raising rates if it didn't! The problem is that trend growth is much lower now than in the past - only 1.8% according to the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections. Living in a world of slow trend growth could prove to be challenging. The U.S. corporate sector has been feasting on credit for the past four years (Chart 8). Household balance sheets are still in reasonably good shape, but even here, there are areas of concern. Student debt is going through the roof and auto loans are nearly back to pre-recession levels as a share of disposable income (Chart 9). Together, these two categories account for over two-thirds of non-housing related consumer liabilities. Chart 8U.S. Corporate Sector Has Been Feasting On Credit Chart 9U.S. Household Balance Sheets Are In Good Shape, But Auto And Student Loans Are A Potential Problem The risk is that defaults will rise if GDP growth falls below 2%, a pace that has often been described as "stall speed." This could set in motion a vicious cycle where slower growth causes firms to pare back debt, leading to even slower growth and greater pressure on corporate balance sheets - in other words, a recipe for recession. Act 2: Recession Redefining "Tight Money" "Expansions do not die of old age," Rudi Dornbusch once remarked, "They are killed by the Fed." On the face of it, this may not seem like much of a concern. If the Fed raises rates in line with the median "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections, the funds rate will only be about 2.5% by mid-2019 (Chart 10). That may not sound like much, but keep in mind that the so-called neutral rate - the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - may be a lot lower now than in the past. Also keep in mind that it can take up to 18 months before the impact of tighter financial conditions take their full effect on the economy. Thus, by the time the Fed has realized that it has tightened monetary policy by too much, it may be too late. As we have argued in the past, a variety of forces have pushed down the neutral rate over time.1 For example, the amount of investment that firms need to undertake in a slow-growing economy has fallen by nearly 2% of GDP since the late-1990s (Chart 11). And getting firms to take on even this meager amount of investment may require a lower interest rate since modern production techniques rely more on human capital than physical capital. Chart 10Will The Fed's 'Gradual' Rate Hikes End Up Being Too Much? Chart 11Less Investment Required Rising inequality has also reduced aggregate demand by shifting income towards households with high marginal propensities to save (Chart 12). This has forced central banks to lower interest rates in order to prop up spending. From this perspective, it is not too surprising that income inequality and debt levels have been positively correlated over time (Chart 13). Chart 12Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Chart 13U.S.: Positive Correlation Between Income Inequality And Debt-To-GDP Then there is the issue of the dollar. The broad real trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 19% since mid-2014 (Chart 14). According to the New York Fed's trade model, this has reduced the level of real GDP by nearly 2% relative to what it would have otherwise been. Standard "Taylor Rule" equations suggest that interest rates would need to fall by around 1%-to-2% in order to offset a loss of demand of this magnitude. This means that if the economy could withstand interest rates of 4% when the dollar was cheap, it can only withstand interest rates of 2%-to-3% today. And even that may be too high. Consider the message from Chart 15. It shows that real rates have been trending lower since 1980. The real funds rate averaged only 1% during the 2001-2007 business cycle, a period when demand was being buoyed by a massive, debt-fueled housing bubble; fiscal stimulus in the form of the two Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a weakening dollar; and by a very benign global backdrop where emerging markets were recovering and Europe was doing well. Chart 14The Dollar Is In The Midst Of Its Third Great Bull Market Chart 15The Neutral Rate Has Fallen Today, the external backdrop is fragile, the dollar has been strengthening rather than weakening, and households have become more frugal (Chart 16). And while President Trump has promised plenty of fiscal largess, the reality may turn out to be a lot more sobering than the rhetoric. Chart 16Return To Thrift End Of The Trump Trade? Not Yet The failure to replace the Affordable Care Act has cast doubt in the eyes of many observers about the ability of Congress to pass other parts of Trump's agenda. As a consequence, the "Trump Trade" has gone into reverse over the past few weeks, pushing down the dollar and Treasury yields in the process. We agree that the "Trump Trade" will eventually fizzle out. However, this is likely to be more of a story for 2018 than this year. If anything, last week's fiasco may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the Republicans. Opinion polls suggest that the GOP would have gone down in flames if the American Health Care Act had been signed into law (Table 1). Table 1Passing The American Health Care Act Could Have Cost The Republicans Dearly The GOP's proposed legislation would have reduced federal government spending on health care by $1.2 trillion over ten years. Sixty-four year-olds with incomes of $26,500 would have seen their annual premiums soar from $1,700 to $14,600. Even if one includes the tax cuts in the proposed bill, the net effect would have been a major tightening in fiscal policy. That would have warranted lower bond yields and a weaker dollar. The failure to pass an Obamacare replacement serves as a reminder that comprehensive tax reform will be more difficult to achieve than many had hoped. However, even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. Worries that tax cuts will lead to larger budget deficits will be brushed aside on the grounds that they will "pay for themselves" through faster growth (dynamic scoring!). Throw some infrastructure spending into the mix, and it will not take much for the "Trump Trade" to return with a vengeance. Trump's Fiscal Fantasy Where the disappointment will appear is not during the legislative process, but afterwards. The highly profitable companies that will benefit the most from corporate tax cuts are the ones who least need them. In many cases, these companies have plenty of cash and easy access to external financing. As a consequence, much of the corporate tax cuts may simply be hoarded or used to finance equity buybacks or dividend payments. A large share of personal tax cuts will also be saved, given that they will mostly accrue to higher income earners. Chart 17From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic The amount of infrastructure spending that actually takes place will likely be a tiny fraction of the headline amount. This is not just because of the dearth of "shovel ready" projects. It is also because the public-private partnership structure the GOP is touting will severely limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Indeed, the bill could turn out to be little more than a boondoggle for privatizing existing public infrastructure projects, rather than investing in new ones. Chart 18Euro Area Credit Impulse Will Fade In The Second Half Of 2018 Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing large cuts to nondefense discretionary expenditures that go above and beyond the draconian ones that are already enshrined into current law (Chart 17). As such, the risk to the economy beyond the next 12 months is that markets push up the dollar and long-term interest rates in anticipation of continued strong growth and lavish fiscal stimulus only to get neither. Euro Area: A 12-Month Window For Growth The outlook for the euro area over the next 12 months is reasonably bright, but just as in the U.S., the picture could darken later next year. Euro area private sector credit growth reached 2.5% earlier this year. This may not sound like a lot, but that is the fastest pace of growth since July 2009. A further acceleration is probable over the coming months, given rising business confidence, firm loan demand, and declining nonperforming loans. Conceptually, it is the change in credit growth that drives GDP growth. Thus, as credit growth levels off next year, the euro area's credit impulse will fall back towards zero, setting the stage for a period of slower GDP growth (Chart 18). In contrast to the U.S., the ECB is likely to resist the urge to raise the repo rate before growth slows. That's the good news. The bad news is that the market could price in some tightening in monetary policy anyway, leading to a "bund tantrum" later this year. As in the past, the ECB will be able to defuse the situation. Unfortunately, what Draghi cannot do much about is the low level of the neutral rate in the euro area. If the neutral rate is low in the U.S., it is probably even lower in the euro area, reflecting the region's worse demographics and higher debt burdens. The anti-growth features of the common currency - namely, the inability to devalue one's currency in response to an adverse economic shock, as well as the austerity bias that comes from not having a central bank that can act as a lender of last resort to solvent but illiquid governments - also imply a lower neutral rate. Chart 19Anti-Euro Sentiment Is High In Italy Indeed, it is entirely possible that the neutral rate is negative in the euro area, even in nominal terms. If that's the case, the ECB will find it difficult to keep inflation from falling once the economy begins to slow late next year. The U.K.: And Now The Hard Part The U.K. fared better than most pundits expected in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that the Brexit vote has not cast a pall over the economy. The pound has depreciated by 11% against the euro and 16% against the dollar since that fateful day, while gilt yields have fallen across the board. Had it not been for this easing in financial conditions, the economic outcome would have been far worse. As the tailwind from the pound's devaluation begins to recede next year, the U.K. economy could suffer. Slower growth in continental Europe and the rest of the world could also exacerbate matters. The severity of the slowdown will hinge on the outcome of Brexit negotiations. On the one hand, the EU has an interest in taking a hardline stance to discourage separatist forces elsewhere, particularly in Italy where pro-euro sentiment is tumbling (Chart 19). On the other hand, the EU still needs the U.K. as both a trade partner and a geopolitical ally. Investors may therefore be surprised by the relatively muted negotiations that transpire over the coming months. In fact, news reports indicate that Brussels has already offered the U.K. a three year transitional deal that will give London plenty of time to conclude a free trade agreement with the EU. In addition, the EU has dangled the carrot of revocability, suggesting that the U.K. would be welcomed back with open arms if enough British voters were to change their minds. Whatever the path, our geopolitical service believes that political risk actually bottomed with the January 17 Theresa May speech.2 If that turns out to be the case, the pound is unlikely to weaken much from current levels. China And EM: The Calm Before The Storm? The Chinese economy should continue to perform well over the coming months. The Purchasing Manager Index for manufacturing remains in expansionary territory and BCA's China Leading Economic Indicator is in a clear uptrend (Charts 20 and 21). Chart 20Bright Spots In The Chinese Economy Chart 21Improving LEI Points To Further Growth Acceleration Moreover, there has been a dramatic increase in the sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators, with growth rates matching levels last seen during the boom years before the global financial crisis. Historically, construction machinery sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 22). Reflecting this reflationary trend, the producer price index rose by nearly 8% year-over-year in February, a 14-point swing from the decline of 6% experienced in late-2015. Historically, rising producer prices have resulted in higher corporate profits and increased capital expenditures, especially among private enterprises (Chart 23). Chart 22An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 23Higher Producer Prices Boosting Profits The key question is how long the good news will last. As in the rest of the world, our guess is that the Chinese economy will slow late next year, setting the stage for a major growth disappointment in 2019. Weaker growth abroad will be partly to blame, but domestic factors will also play a role. The Chinese housing market has been on a tear. The authorities are increasingly worried about a property bubble and have begun to tighten the screws on the sector. The full effect of these measures should become apparent sometime next year. Fiscal policy is also likely to be tightened at the margin. The IMF estimates that China benefited from a positive fiscal thrust of 2.2% of GDP between 2014 and 2016. The fiscal thrust is likely to be close to zero in 2017 and turn negative to the tune of nearly 1% of GDP in 2018 and 2019. The growth outlook for other emerging markets is likely to mirror China's. The IMF expects real GDP in emerging and developing economies to rise by 5.1% in Q4 of 2017 relative to the same quarter a year earlier, up from 4.2% in 2016 (Table 2). The biggest acceleration is expected to occur in Brazil, where the economy is projected to grow by 1.4% in 2017 after having contracted by 1.9% in 2016. Russia and India should also see better growth numbers. Table 2World Economic Outlook: Global Growth Projections We do not see any major reason to challenge these numbers for this year, but think the IMF's projections will turn out to be too rosy for 2018, and especially, 2019. As BCA's Emerging Market Strategy service has documented, the lack of structural reforms in EMs over the past few years has depressed productivity growth. High debt levels also cloud the picture. Chart 24 shows that debt levels have continued to grow as a share of GDP in most emerging markets. In EMs such as China, where banks benefit from a fiscal backstop, the likelihood of a financial crisis is low. In others such as Brazil, where government finances are in precarious shape, the chances of another major crisis remains uncomfortable high. Japan: The End Of Deflation? If there is one thing investors are certain about it is that deflationary forces in Japan are here to stay. Despite a modest increase in inflation expectations since July 2016, CPI swaps are still pricing in inflation of only 0.6% over the next two decades, nowhere close to the Bank of Japan's 2% target. But could the market be wrong? We think so. Many of the forces that have exacerbated deflation in Japan, such as corporate deleveraging and falling property prices, have run their course (Chart 25). The population continues to age, but the impact that this is having on inflation may have reached an inflection point. Over the past quarter century, slow population growth depressed aggregate demand by reducing the incentive for companies to build out new capacity. This generated a surfeit of savings relative to investment, helping to fuel deflation. Now, however, as an ever-rising share of the population enters retirement, the overabundance of savings is disappearing. The household saving rate currently stands at only 2.8% - down from 14% in the early 1990s - while the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has soared to a 25-year high (Chart 26). Chart 24What EM Deleveraging? Chart 25Japan: Easing Deflationary Forces Chart 26Japan: Low Household Saving Rate And A Tightening Labor Market Government policy is finally doing its part to slay the deflationary dragon. The Abe government shot itself in the foot by tightening fiscal policy by 3% of GDP between 2013 and 2015. It won't make the same mistake again. The Bank of Japan's efforts to pin the 10-year yield to zero also seems to be bearing fruit. As bond yields in other economies have trended higher, this has made Japanese bonds less attractive. That, in turn, has pushed down the yen, ushering in a virtuous cycle where a falling yen props up economic activity, leading to higher inflation expectations, lower real yields, and an even weaker yen. Unfortunately, external events could conspire to sabotage Japan's escape from deflation. If the global economy slows in late-2018 - leading to a recession in 2019 - Japan will be hard hit, given the highly cyclical nature of its economy. And this could cause Japanese policymakers to throw the proverbial kitchen sink at the problem, including doing something that they have so far resisted: introducing a "helicopter money" financed fiscal stimulus program. Against the backdrop of weak potential GDP growth and a shrinking reservoir of domestic savings, the government may get a lot more inflation than it bargained for. Act 3: Stagflation Who Remembers The 70s Anymore? By historical standards, the 2019 recession will be a mild one for most countries, especially in the developed world. This is simply because the excesses that preceded the subprime crisis in 2007 and, to a lesser extent the tech bust in 2000, are likely to be less severe going into the next global downturn than they were back then. The policy response may turn out to be anything but mild, however. Memories of the Great Recession are still very much vivid in most peoples' minds. No one wants to live through that again. In contrast, memories of the inflationary 1970s are fading. A recent NBER paper documented that age plays a big role in determining whether central bankers turn out to be dovish or hawkish.3 Those who experienced stagflation in the 1970s as adults are much more likely to express a hawkish bias than those who were still in their diapers back then. The implication is the future generation of central bankers is likely to see the world through more dovish eyes than their predecessors. Even if one takes the generational mix out of the equation, there are good reasons to aim for higher inflation in today's environment. For one thing, debt is high. The simplest way to reduce real debt burdens is by letting inflation accelerate. In addition, the zero bound is less likely to be a problem if inflation were higher. After all, if inflation were running at 1% going into a recession, real rates would not be able to fall much below -1%. But if inflation were running at 3%, real rates could fall to as low as -3%. The Politics Of Inflation Political developments will also facilitate the transition to higher inflation. In the U.S., the presidential election campaign will start coming into focus in 2019. If the economy enters a recession then, Donald Trump will go ballistic. The infrastructure program that Republicans in Congress are downplaying now will be greatly expanded. Gold-plated hotels and casinos will be built across the country. Of course, several years could pass between when an infrastructure bill is passed and when most new projects break ground. By that time, the economy will already be recovering. This will help fuel inflation. As the economy turns down in 2019, the Fed will also be forced to play ball. The market's current obsession over whether President Trump wants a "dove" or a "hawk" as Fed chair misses the point. He wants neither. He wants someone who will do what they are told. This means that the next Fed chair will likely be a "really smart" business executive with little-to-no-experience in central banking and even less interest in maintaining the Federal Reserve's institutional independence. The empirical evidence strongly suggests that inflation tends to be higher in countries that lack independent central banks (Chart 27). This may be the fate of the U.S. Chart 27Inflation Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Europe's Populists: Down But Not Out Whether something similar happens in Europe will also depend on political developments. For the next 18 months at least, the populists will be held at bay (Chart 28). Le Pen currently trails Macron by 24 percentage points in a head-to-head contest. It is highly unlikely that she will be able to close this gap between now and May 7th, the date of the second round of the Presidential contest. In Germany, support for the europhile Social Democratic Party is soaring, as is support for the common currency itself. For the time being, euro area risk assets will be able to climb the proverbial political "wall of worry." However, if the European economy turns down in 2019, all this may change. Chart 29 shows the strong correlation between unemployment rates in various French départements and support for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Should French unemployment rise, her support will rise as well. The same goes for other European countries. Chart 28France And Germany: Populists Held At Bay For Now Chart 29Higher Unemployment Would Benefit Le Pen Meanwhile, there is a high probability that the migrant crisis will intensify at some point over the next few years. Several large states neighboring Europe are barely holding together - Egypt being a prime example - and could erupt at any time. Furthermore, demographic trends in Africa portend that the supply of migrants will only increase. In 2005, 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 2015 revision, the UN doubled its estimate to 4 billion. And even that may be too conservative because it assumes that the average number of births per woman falls from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period (Chart 30). Chart 30Population Pressures In Africa The existing European political order is not well equipped to deal with large-scale migration, as the hapless reaction to the Syrian refugee crisis demonstrates. This implies that an increasing share of the public may seek out a "new order" that is more attuned to their preferences. European history is fraught with regime shifts, and we may see yet another one in the 2020s. The eventual success of anti-establishment politicians on both sides of the Atlantic suggests that open border immigration policies and free trade - the two central features of globalization - will come under attack. Consequently, an inherently deflationary force, globalization, will give way to an inherently inflationary one: populism. The Productivity Curse Just as the "flation" part of stagflation will become more noticeable as the global economy emerges from the 2019 recession, so will the "stag." Chart 31 shows that productivity growth has fallen across almost all countries and regions. There is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.4 Cyclical factors have played some role. Weak investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock. This means that today's workers have not benefited from the same improvement in the quality and quantity of capital as they did in previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. Most prominently, the gains from the IT revolution have leveled off. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than on businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. Human capital accumulation has also decelerated, dragging productivity growth down with it. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart 32). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart 33).5 Given that test scores are extremely low in most countries with rapidly growing populations, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart 31Productivity Growth Has Slowed In Most Major Economies Chart 32The Contribution To Growth From Rising Human Capital Is Falling Chart 33Math Skills Around The World Productivity And Inflation The slowdown in potential GDP growth tends to be deflationary at the outset, but becomes inflationary later on (Chart 34). Initially, lower productivity growth reduces investment, pushing down aggregate demand. Lower productivity growth also curtails consumption, as households react to the prospect of smaller real wage gains. Chart 34A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Eventually, however, economies that suffer from chronically weak productivity growth tend to find themselves rubbing up against supply-side constraints. This leads to higher inflation.6 One only needs to look at the history of low-productivity economies in Africa and Latin America to see this point - or, for that matter, the U.S. in the 1970s, a decade during which productivity growth slowed and inflation accelerated. Financial Markets Overall Strategy Risk assets have enjoyed a strong rally since late last year, and a modest correction is long overdue. Still, as long as the global economy continues to grow at a robust pace, the cyclical outlook for risk assets will remain bullish. As such, investors with a 12-month horizon should stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit at the expense of government bonds and cash. Global growth is likely to slow in the second half of 2018, with the deceleration intensifying into 2019, possibly culminating in a recession in a number of countries. To what extent markets "sniff out" an economic slowdown before it happens is a matter of debate. U.S. equities did not peak until October 2007, only slightly before the Great Recession began. Commodity prices did not top out until the summer of 2008. Thus, the market's track record for predicting recessions is far from an envious one. Nevertheless, investors should err on the side of safety and start scaling back risk exposure next spring. The 2019 recession will last 6-to-12 months, followed by a gradual recovery that sees the restoration of full employment in most countries by 2021. At that point, inflation will take off, rising to over 4% by the middle of the decade. The 2020s will be remembered as a decade of intense pain for bond investors. In relative terms, equities will fare better than bonds, but in absolute terms they will struggle to generate a positive real return. As in the 1970s, gold will be the standout winner. Chart 35 presents a visual representation of how the main asset markets are likely to evolve over the next seven years. Chart 35Market Outlook For Major Asset Classes Equities Cyclically Favor The Euro Area And Japan Over The U.S. Stronger global growth is powering an acceleration in corporate earnings. Global EPS is expected to expand by 12% over the next 12 months. Analysts are usually too bullish when it comes to making earnings forecasts. This time around they may be too bearish. Chart 36 shows that the global earnings revision ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. We prefer euro area and Japanese stocks relative to U.S. equities over a 12-month horizon. We would only buy Japanese stocks on a currency-hedged basis, as the prospect of a weaker yen is the main reason for being overweight Japan. In contrast, we would still buy euro area equities on a U.S. dollar basis, even though our central forecast is for the euro to weaken against the dollar over the next 12 months. Our cyclically bullish view on euro area equities reflects several considerations. For starters, they are cheap. Euro area stocks currently trade at a Shiller PE ratio of only 17, compared with 29 for the U.S. (Chart 37). Some of this valuation gap can be explained by different sector weights across the two regions. However, even if one controls for this factor, as well as the fact that euro area stocks have historically traded at a discount to the U.S., the euro area still comes out as being roughly one standard deviation cheap compared with the U.S. (Chart 38). Chart 36Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Chart 37Euro Area Stocks Are A Bargain... Chart 38...No Matter How You Look At It European Banks Are In A Cyclical Sweet Spot Of course, if euro area banks flounder over the next 12 months as they have for much of the past decade, none of this will matter. However, we think that the region's banks have finally turned the corner. The ECB is slowly unwinding its emergency measures and core European bond yields have risen since last summer. This has led to a steeper yield curve, helping to flatter net interest margins. Chart 39 shows that the relative performance of European banks is almost perfectly correlated with the level of German bund yields. Our European Corporate Health Monitor remains in improving territory, in contrast to the U.S., where it has been deteriorating since 2013 (Chart 40). Profit margins in Europe have room to expand, whereas in the U.S. they have already maxed out. The capital positions of European banks have also improved greatly since the euro crisis. Not all banks are out of the woods, but with nonperforming loans trending lower, the need for costly equity dilution has dissipated (Chart 41). Meanwhile, euro area credit growth is accelerating and loan demand continues to expand. Chart 39Performance Of European Banks And Bond Yields: A Good Fit Chart 40Corporations Healthier In The Euro Area Chart 41Cyclical Background Positive For Bank Stocks Beyond a 12-month horizon, the outlook for euro area banks and the broader stock market look less enticing. The region will suffer along with the rest of the world in 2019. The eventual triumph of populist governments could even lead to the dissolution of the common currency. This means that euro area stocks should be rented, not owned. The same goes for U.K. equities. EM: Uphill Climb Emerging market equities tend to perform well when global growth is strong. Thus, it would not be surprising if EM equities continue to march higher over the next 12 months. However, the structural problems plaguing emerging markets that we discussed earlier in this report will continue to cast a pall over the sector. Our EM strategists favor China, Taiwan, Korea, India, Thailand, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Russia. They are neutral on Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa; and are underweight Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, and Turkey. Fixed Income Global Bond Yields To Rise Further We put out a note on July 5th entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" recommending that clients go structurally underweight safe-haven government bonds.7 As luck would have it, we penned this report on the very same day that the 10-year Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. We continue to think that asset allocators should maintain an underweight position in global bonds over the next 12 months. In relative terms, we favor Japan over the U.S. and have a neutral recommendation on the euro area and the U.K. Chart 42The Market Expects 50 Basis Points Of Tightening Over The Next 12 Months Underweight The U.S. For Now We expect the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to rise to around 3.2% over the next 12 months. The Fed is likely to raise rates by a further 100 basis points over this period, about 50 bps more than the 12-month discounter is currently pricing in (Chart 42). In addition, the Fed will announce later this year or in early 2018 that it will allow the assets on its balance sheet to run off as they mature. This could push up the term premium, giving long Treasury yields a further boost. Thus, for now, investors should underweight Treasurys on a currency-hedged basis within a fixed-income portfolio. The cyclical peak for both Treasury yields and the dollar should occur in mid-2018. Slowing growth in the second half of that year and a recession in 2019 will push the 10-year Treasury yield back towards 2%. After that, bond yields will grind higher again, with the pace accelerating in the early 2020s as the stagflationary forces described above gather steam. Neutral On Europe, Overweight Japan Yields in the euro area will follow the general contours of the U.S., but with several important qualifications. The ECB is likely to roll back some of its emergency measures over the next 12 months, including suspending the Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations, or TLTROs. It could also raise the deposit rate slightly, which is currently stuck in negative territory. However, in contrast to the Fed, the ECB is unlikely to hike its key policy rate, the repo rate. And while the ECB will "taper" asset purchases, it will not take any steps to shrink the size of its balance sheet. As such, fixed-income investors should maintain a benchmark allocation to euro area bonds. Chart 43A Bit More Juice Left A benchmark weighting to gilts is also warranted. With the Brexit negotiations hanging in the air, it is doubtful that the Bank of England would want to hike rates anytime soon. On the flipside, rising inflation - though largely a function of a weak currency - will make it difficult for the BoE to increase asset purchases or take other steps to ease monetary policy. We would recommend a currency-hedged overweight position in JGBs. The Bank of Japan is committed to keeping the 10-year yield pinned to zero. Given that neither actual inflation nor inflation expectations are anywhere close to that level, it is highly unlikely that the BoJ will jettison its yield-targeting regime anytime soon. With government bond yields elsewhere likely to grind higher, this makes JGBs the winner by default. High-Yield Credit: Still A Bit Of Juice Left The fact that the world's most attractive government bond market by our rankings - Japan - is offering a yield of zero speaks volumes. As long as global growth stays strong and corporate default risk remains subdued, investors will maintain their love affair with high-yield credit. Thus, while credit spreads have fallen dramatically, they could still fall further (Chart 43). Only when corporate stress begins to boil over in late 2018 will things change. Nevertheless, investors will continue to face headwinds from rising risk-free yields in most economies even in the near term. This implies that the return from junk bonds in absolute terms will fall short of what is delivered by equities over the next 12 months. Currencies And Commodities Chart 44Real Rate Differentials Are Driving Up The Dollar Real Rate Differentials Will Support The Greenback We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to appreciate by about 10% over the next 12 months. Historically, changes in real interest rate differentials have been the dominant driver of currency movements in developed economies. The past few years have been no different. Chart 44 shows that the ascent of the trade-weighted dollar since mid-2014 has been almost perfectly matched by an increase in U.S. real rates relative to those abroad. Interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners are likely to widen further through to the middle of 2018 as the Fed raises rates more quickly than current market expectations imply, while other central banks continue to stand pat. Accordingly, we would fade the recent dollar weakness. As we discussed in "The Fed's Unhike," the March FOMC statement was not as dovish as it might have appeared at first glance.8 Given that monetary conditions eased in the aftermath of the Fed meeting - exactly the opposite of what the Fed was trying to achieve - it is likely that the FOMC's rhetoric will turn more hawkish in the coming weeks. The Yen Has The Most Downside, The Pound The Least Among the major dollar crosses, we see the most downside for the yen over the next 12 months. The Bank of Japan will continue to keep JGB yields anchored at zero. As yields elsewhere rise, investors will shift their money out of Japan, causing the yen to weaken. Only once the global economy begins to teeter into recession late next year will the yen - traditionally, a "risk off" currency - begin to rebound. The euro will also weaken against the dollar over the next 12 months, although not as much as the yen. The ECB's "months to hike" has plummeted from nearly 60 last summer to 26 today (Chart 45). That seems too extreme. Core inflation in the euro area is well below U.S. levels, even if one adjusts for measurement differences between the two regions (Chart 46). The neutral rate is also lower in the euro area, as discussed previously. This sharply limits the ability of the ECB to raise rates. Chart 45Market's Hawkish View Of The ECB Is Too Extreme Chart 46Core Inflation In The U.S. Is Still Higher, Even Excluding Housing Unlike most currencies, sterling should be able to hold its ground against the dollar over the next 12 months. The pound is very cheap by most metrics (Chart 47). The prospect of contentious negotiations over Brexit with the EU is already in the price. What may not be in the price is the possibility that the U.K. will move quickly to reach a deal with the EU. If such a deal fails to live up to the promises made by the Brexit campaign - a near certainty in our view - a new referendum may need to be scheduled. A new vote could yield a much different result than the first one. If the market begins to sniff out such an outcome, the pound could strengthen well before the dust settles. EM And Commodity Currencies The RMB will weaken modestly against the dollar over the coming year. As we have discussed in the past, China's high saving rate will keep the pressure on the government to try to export excess production abroad by running a large current account surplus. This requires a weak currency.9 Nevertheless, a major devaluation of the RMB is not in the cards. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has been driven by an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 48). At this point, most of the hot money has fled the country. This suggests that the pace of capital outflows will subside. Chart 47Pound: Cheap By All Accounts Chart 48Hot Money In, Hot Money Out A somewhat weaker RMB could dampen demand for base and bulk metals. A slowdown in Chinese construction activity next year could also put added pressure on metals prices. Our EM strategists are especially bearish on the South African rand, Brazilian real, Colombian peso, Turkish lira, Malaysian ringgit, and Indonesian rupiah. Crude should outperform metals over the next 12 months. This will benefit the Canadian dollar and other oil-sensitive currencies. However, Canada's housing bubble is getting out of hand and could boil over if domestic borrowing costs climb in line with rising long-term global bond yields. A sagging property sector will limit the ability of the Bank of Canada to raise short-term rates. On balance, we see modest downside for the CAD/USD over the coming year. The Aussie dollar will suffer even more, given the country's own housing excesses and its export sector's high sensitivity to metal prices. Finally, a few words on the most of ancient of all currencies: gold. We do not expect bullion to fare well over the next 12 months. A stronger dollar and rising bond yields are both bad news for the yellow metal. However, once central banks start slashing rates in 2019 and stagflationary forces begin to gather steam in the early 2020s, gold will finally have its day in the sun. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Structural Reasons For A Lower Neutral Rate In The U.S.," dated March 13, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The "What Can You Do For Me" World?" dated January 25, 2017, and Special Report, "Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?" dated March 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Ulrike Malmendier, Stefan Nagel, and Zhen Yan, "The Making Of Hawks And Doves: Inflation Experiences On The FOMC," NBER Working Paper No. 23228 (March 2017). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Taking Off The Rose-Colored Glasses: Education And Growth In The 21st Century," dated February 24, 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Note to economists: We can think of this relationship within the context of the Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. In the standard setup where the saving rate is fixed, slower population and productivity growth will always result in a lower equilibrium real interest rate. However, consider a more realistic setup where: 1) the saving rate rises initially as the population ages, but then begins to decline as a larger share of the workforce enters retirement; and 2) habit persistence affects consumer spending, so that households react to slower real wage growth by saving less rather than cutting back on consumption. In that sort of environment, the neutral rate could initially fall, but then begin to rise. If the central bank reacts slowly to changes in the neutral rate, or monetary policy is otherwise constrained by the zero bound on interest rates and/or political considerations, the initial effect of slower trend GDP growth will be deflationary while the longer-term outcome will be inflationary. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Unhike," dated March 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Financials stocks have taken it on the chin, reflecting the unwinding of the 'Trump Trade' following the Administration's inability to tackle health care reform. As a result, the financials sector is reverting from hopes for deregulation to fundamentals for support. Worrisomely, credit growth has stalled. The middle panel of the chart shows that the credit impulse is sinking quickly. While this may prove a temporary/transitory phenomenon, the breadth of the credit contraction is broad-based, and thus, worthy of close attention. Of the eight loan categories tracked by the Fed, only one loan segment has a positive credit impulse: consumer loans. Historically, both the credit impulse and our diffusion index for the credit impulse have been solid leading indicators for relative financials EPS growth. Consequently, there is no confirmation that earnings momentum has turned the corner on a sustained basis. Bottom Line: Within a neutral overall financials stance we remain underweight the S&P banks index and continue to overweight the S&P consumer finance sub-group, which has high-conviction status. (If you would like to receive the breakdown of the credit impulse per loan category please email us at clientservices@bcaresearch.com and we will email you the chart.) The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P consumer finance and S&P banks index are: BLBG: BLBG: S5CFINX-AXP, COF, DFS, SYF, NAVI and BLBG: S5BANKX -WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, respectively.

Highlights The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and the so-called 'Trump trades' going into reverse. Equity valuation is stretched and plenty of risks remain. Nonetheless, we do not believe it is time to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar. The economic data remain constructive for profits in the major countries. The risks posed by upcoming European elections have eased for 2017, now that the Italian election appears unlikely until 2018. The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. If a tax reform package proves too difficult to pass, then the GOP will settle for straight tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending. Market reaction to the FOMC's 'dovish hike' was overdone. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce a further tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. In Japan, the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar, and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations. This reflects falling perceptions of downside "tail risk", which is reflected in a declining equity risk premium (ERP). Absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside risk should continue to wane, allowing risk premia and asset correlations to ease further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years. The only adjustment to asset allocation we are making this month is an upgrade for U.S. high-yield based on improved valuation. Feature The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and a number of popular trades going into reverse. First, the failure to replace Obamacare triggered a pull-back of the so-called 'Trump trades.' Stock indexes are holding up well, but the U.S. dollar has given back most of the gains made in March and the 10-year Treasury yield has dropped back to the bottom of the post-U.S. election trading range. Moreover, the negative correlation between the U.S. dollar and risk assets has flipped (Chart I-1). Even oil prices have diverged from their usual negative trading relationship with the dollar. Second, investors are questioning the FOMC's appetite for rate hikes in the coming months. They are also wondering how much longer the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) can maintain current hyper-stimulative policy settings. The whole narrative regarding equity strength, a dollar overshoot and bond price weakness may be over if there is not going to be any fiscal stimulus in the U.S., the Fed is not going to hike more aggressively than the market currently expects, and monetary policy is near a turning point in Japan and the Eurozone. Is it time for investors to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar? We believe the answer is 'not yet', although 2017 was always destined to be a rough ride given the ups-and-downs in the U.S. legislative process and the lineup of European elections. President Trump's first 100 days are turning out to be even more tumultuous than many expected. Allegations of wiretaps and the FBI investigation into the alleged interference of Russia in the U.S. election are costing the President political capital, as well as raising question marks over the Republican Party's wish list. Simply removing the possibility of corporate tax cuts would justify a healthy haircut on the S&P 500. The political situation has admittedly become more complicated, but our geopolitical team makes the following observations: The GOP base supports Trump: Until the mid-term elections, Trump's popularity with Republican voters remains strong, which means that the President still has political capital (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Changing Correlations Chart I-2Trump Not Dead To Republicans Yet Republicans want tax reform: Even if reform gets bogged down, there is broad support for cutting taxes at a minimum. Many deficit hawks appear willing to use the magic of "dynamic scoring" to justify tax cuts as revenue-neutral. Even the chairman of the Freedom Caucus has signaled that he is open to tax reform that is not revenue neutral. Tax reform not conditional on Obamacare: The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. The Republicans will need to show success on at least one of their signature platforms before heading into the mid-term elections. The prospective savings from Obamacare's repeal are not needed to "fund" tax cuts. Infrastructure: We still expect that President Trump will get his way on additional spending on defense, veterans, infrastructure and the wall. The tax reform process will undoubtedly be full of drama and may be stretched out, adding volatility to the equity market. Our base case is that some sort of tax reform and infrastructure package will be passed by year end. However, if a reform package proves too difficult to pass, then we believe that the GOP will settle for straight-forward tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending (please see Table I-1 in the March 2017 monthly Bank Credit Analyst for the probabilities we have attached to the various GOP proposals). Tax cuts and increased spending will be positive for risk assets. The caveat is that we see little change in Trump's commitment to mercantilism. This means he will lean toward backing the border tax or tariff increases, which will offset some of the benefits for risk assets from reduced tax rates. Excess Reaction To FOMC Chart I-3FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year Given the uncertainty on the fiscal side, one can't blame the FOMC for taking a "wait and see" approach. The range for the funds rate was raised to 0.75-1.00% at the March meeting, as expected, but there was virtually no change to any of the median FOMC member projections for GDP growth, inflation or interest rates out to 2019. Another 50 bps of tightening is expected by the Committee this year, with 75 bps expected in both 2018 and 2019 (Chart I-3). The FOMC signaled in March that it was not yet prepared to adjust the 'dot plot,' sparking a rally in bond prices and a pullback in the dollar. This market reaction seemed excessive in our view. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target, as highlighted by the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Is The Dollar Bull Over? Still, recent market action suggests that the dollar may not get a lift from future Fed rate hikes because the outlook for global growth outside of the U.S. is brightening. Moreover, it could be that monetary policy in the Eurozone and Japan is at a turning point. There is increasing speculation that the ECB will have to taper the quantitative easing program sooner than planned. Some are even speculating the ECB will lift rates this year. The recent economic data for the euro area have indeed been stellar. The composite PMI surged to 56.7 in March, with the forward-looking new orders components hitting new cyclical highs. Capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart I-4). In addition, private-sector credit growth has accelerated to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Our real GDP model for the Eurozone, based on our consumer and business spending indicators, remains quite upbeat for the first half of the year. With unemployment rapidly falling in many parts of the Euro Area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to establish a consensus view on the ECB policy committee. The Bundesbank has been quite vocal on this issue, especially given that Eurozone headline HICP inflation reached 2% in February. The core rate of inflation remains close to 1%, but the rising diffusion index suggests that budding inflation pressure is becoming more broadly based (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Solid Eurozone Economic Data Chart I-5Eurozone Inflation Broadening Out BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently compared the current economic situation to that of the U.S. around the time of the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum."1 In Chart I-6, we show "cycle-on-cycle" comparisons for the Euro Area and U.S. In the Euro Area, the number of months to the first rate hike discounted in money markets peaked in July of last year right around the time of the U.K. Brexit vote. Interestingly, this indicator has converged with the U.S. path. There is less spare capacity in European labor markets today than was the case in the U.S. when the Fed first hinted at tapering its asset purchases. Nonetheless, the relatively calmer readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to rush to judgment on asset purchases, especially given upcoming elections. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce another tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. We do not believe that the ECB will raise short-term interest rates before it starts the tapering process. A rate hike would result in a stronger euro, downward pressure on inflation, and an unwanted tightening in financial conditions that would threaten the current economic impulse. This means that, between now and September, the window is still open for U.S./Eurozone interest rate spreads to move further in favor of the dollar. The European election calendar remains a risk to our view on currencies and risk assets. Widening OAT/Bund yield spreads highlight that investors remain concerned that the French election will follow last year's populist script in the U.K. and the U.S. However, our geopolitical team believes that Le Pen is unlikely to win since she trails in the polls by a 25-30% margin relative to Macron, her most likely opponent. Even if she were to pull off a win, she will not hold the balance of power in the National Assembly. Over in Germany, where the election is heating up, the fact that the Europhile SPD party is gaining in the polls means that the September vote is unlikely to be a speed bump for financial markets. The real political risk lies in Italy. While the election has been pushed off to February 2018, it appears that there will be genuine fireworks at that time because Euroskeptic parties have seized the lead in the polls (Chart I-7). In the meantime, European elections will be a source of volatility, but investors should ride it out until we get closer to the Italian election. Chart I-6Less Spare Capacity In Europe ##br##Now Vs. Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Chart I-7Italian Elections: The Big Risk Japanese Yield Cap To Hold Chart I-8Japanese Wages Still Disappointing Similar to our view on the ECB, we do not believe that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) will be in a position to begin removing monetary accommodation anytime soon. We expect that the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. True, deflationary forces appear to have eased somewhat. Japan is also benefiting from the faster global growth on the industrial side. Nonetheless, the domestic demand story is less positive, with consumer confidence and real retail sales growth languishing. Wages continue to struggle as well (Chart I-8). This year's round of Japanese wage negotiations was particularly disappointing, with many manufacturing companies offering pay raises only half as large as those of last year. We continue to see this as the only way out of the low-inflation trap for Japan - keeping Japanese interest rates depressed versus the rest of the world, thus making the yen weaken alongside increasingly unattractive interest rate differentials. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the outlook for the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Admittedly, however, the next major move in global yields may not occur until the autumn when the ECB takes a less dovish tone. In the meantime, our fixed-income strategists remain underweight Treasurys within global currency-hedged portfolios. The team recently upgraded (low beta) JGBs to overweight at the expense of core European government bonds, which move to benchmark. Correlation, ERP And Hurdle Rates Chart I-9Market Correlations Are Shifting Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations, a trend that began before the U.S. election (Chart I-9). Elevated financial market correlations have been a hallmark of this expansion, making life difficult for traders and for investors searching for diversification. Correlations have been higher than normal across assets, across regions and within asset classes. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the past 6 months. A drop in asset correlations is important for diversification reasons and because it provides a better backdrop for those seeking alpha. But the reasons behind the decline in correlations may have broader financial and economic implications. One can only speculate on the underlying cause of the surge in asset correlations in the first place. Our theory has been that the large global output gap lingered because of the sub-par recovery that followed the most damaging macroeconomic shock since the Great Depression. The growth headwinds were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged solely on the success or failure of radical monetary policy. Either policy would "work", the output gap will gradually close, the deflation threat would be extinguished and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail, and risk assets would be dragged down as the economy fell back into recession. Thus, risk assets fluctuated along with violent swings in investor sentiment in what appeared to be a binary economic environment. In the March 2017 Quarterly Review, the Bank for International Settlements described it this way: "In a global environment devoid of growth but plentiful in liquidity, central bank decisions appear to draw investors into common, successive phases of buying or selling risk." In previous research, we developed a model that helps to explain the historical movements in correlations. We chose to focus on the correlation of individual stocks within the S&P 500 (Chart I-10). The two explanatory variables are: (1) the equity risk premium (ERP; the difference between the S&P 500 forward earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield); and (2) rolling 1-year realized downside volatility.2 The logic behind the model is that a higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. Conversely, a lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious include an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Volatility is included to explain the cyclical variation of correlations, but we use only below-average returns in the calculation because we are more concerned about the risk of equity market declines. It makes sense that perceptions of downside "tail risk" should affect investors' appetite for risk. The model almost completely explains the trend in stock price correlations over the past decade, highlighting the importance of the ERP in driving the structural change in correlations (Chart I-11). But why was the ERP so elevated after 2007? Chart I-10Market Correlation And The ERP Chart I-11Modeling The Stock ##br##Correlation Within The S&P 500 The preceding moderation in risk premia in the 1990s was likely due to a decline in macroeconomic volatility, a phenomenon that began in the early 1980s and has since been dubbed "The Great Moderation". A waning in the volatility of global inflation and growth contributed to a decline in the volatility of interest rates, which are used to discount future cash flows. This also reduced the perceived riskiness of investing in securities that are leveraged to economic growth, thus causing investors to trim their required excess returns to equities. Unfortunately, the Great Moderation contributed to complacency and bubbles in tech stocks and, later, housing.3 The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble brought the Great Moderation to a crushing end, ushering in an era of rolling financial crises and monetary extremism. Our measure of downside volatility soon returned to normal levels after the recession-driven spike. However, the ERP continued to fluctuate at a higher average level, which helps to explain the strong correlation among risk asset prices in the years since the recession. The ERP And Capital Spending Chart I-12Capex Hurdle Rates Never Came Down An elevated equity risk premium is consistent with the view that investors demanded a more generous premium to take risk in a post-Lehman world. This may also help to explain the disappointing rate of capital spending growth in the major countries in recent years. Firms demanded a fat "hurdle rate" when evaluating new investment projects. Sir John Cunliffe, a member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, recently cited survey evidence related to the dismal U.K. capital spending record since the recession.4 The main culprits were bank lending issues, the high cost of capital and elevated hurdle rates. Eighty percent of publically-owned firms in the survey agreed that financial market pressure for short-term returns to shareholders had been an obstacle to investment. This short-termism makes sense if investors feared that the recovery could turn to bust at any moment. The survey highlighted that market pressure, together with macro uncertainty among CEOs, kept the hurdle rate applied to new investment projects at close to 12%, despite the major drop in market interest rates. In other words, the gap between the required rate-of-return on new projects and the risk-free rate or corporate borrowing rates surged (Chart I-12). J.P. Morgan concluded that hurdle rates have also been sticky at around 12% in the U.S.5 This study blamed uncertainty over the cash-flow outlook (macro risk) and the fact that CEOs believed that low borrowing rates are temporary. It is rational for a firm to hold cash and buy back stock if perceptions of downside tail risk remain lofty. The bottom line is that uncertainty and higher risk aversion related to macro volatility kept the ERP elevated, curtailing animal spirits and lifting correlation among risk asset prices. The good news is that the situation appears to have changed since the U.S. election. Measures of market correlation have dropped sharply across asset classes, within asset classes and across regions. Animal spirits also appear to be reviving given the jump in consumer and business confidence in the major countries. We are not making the case that all risks have dissipated. The military situation in North Korea and upcoming European elections are just two on a long list, as highlighted in this month's Special Report on Brexit's implication for Scotland independence, beginning on page 19. Our point is that, absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside tail risk and a binary economic future should wane further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can now focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Does The ERP Have More Downside? It is difficult to determine the equilibrium equity risk premium, but back-of-the-envelope estimates can provide a ballpark figure. Let us assume that the ERP is not going back into negative territory, as was the case from 1980-2000. A more reasonable assumption is that the ERP instead converges with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003 to 2007 (about +200 basis points). The ERP is currently 3.2, which is equal to the forward earnings yield of 5.6 minus the 10-year yield of 2.4% (Chart I-13). The ERP would need to fall by 120 basis points to get back to the 2% average yield of 2003-2007. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or a higher bond yield. If the 10-year Treasury yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3%, then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 60 basis points. This would boost the earnings multiple from 17.8 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We lean to the latter scenario for bonds, although it will take some time for the bond bear phase to play out. In the meantime, an equity overshoot is possible. The bottom line is that much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years, although that will be much better than the (likely negative) returns in the bond market. We continue to favor higher beta developed markets where value is less stretched, such as the euro area and Japan, over the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. Europe is about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. index, although the extra value in the Japanese market has dissipated recently (Chart I-14). Moreover, both Eurozone and Japanese stocks in local currency terms will benefit from weaker currencies in the coming months, as rising inflation expectations and stable nominal interest rates result in declining in real rates, at least relative to the U.S. Chart I-13Forward Multiple Scenarios Chart I-14Eurozone Stocks Are Cheap Conclusion We have reassessed our asset allocation given that several market calls have gone against us over the past month. However, three key views argue to stay the course for now: Recent economic data support our view that a synchronized global acceleration is underway. This is highlighted by an update of the real GDP growth models we introduced last month (Chart I-15). The implication is that earnings growth will be constructive for stocks; Tax reform is still likely to be passed this year in the U.S. Moreover, were a broad tax reform package to elude the Administration, the fallback position will involve (stimulative) tax cuts, some infrastructure spending and de-regulation; and The FOMC will shift to a more hawkish tone in the coming months, while the ECB, Bank of England and Bank of Japan will maintain extremely accommodative monetary policy at least into the fall. The result is that stocks will outperform cash and bonds, while the dollar still has another 10% upside potential. The only adjustment we are making this month is in the U.S. high-yield corporate bond allocation. According to our fixed-income strategists, value has improved enough that it is worth upgrading the sector to overweight at the expense of Treasurys. Some of the indicators that comprise our default rate model have become more constructive for credit risk, including lending standards, the PMIs and profits. The combination of wider junk spreads and an improving default rate outlook have resulted in a widening in our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread to 219 basis points (Chart I-16). Historically, high-yield earns a positive 12-month excess return 81% of the time when the default-adjusted spread is between 200 and 250 basis points. Chart I-15GDP Models Are Bullish Chart I-16Upgrade U.S. High Yield Turning to oil markets, we expect recent price weakness to reverse despite dollar strength. Building inventories have weighed on crude, but this is a head fake according to our commodity experts. We expect to see a sustained draw in OECD storage volumes this year, now that the year-end surge on crude product from OPEC's Gulf producers has been fully absorbed. With global supply/demand fundamentals now dominating price movements, the recent breakdown in the inverse correlation between oil prices and the dollar should persist. Oil prices will rise back toward the US$55 range that we believe will be the central tendency over 2016 and 2017. Risks are to the upside. Our other recommendations include: Maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. Shift to benchmark in Eurozone government bonds and upgrade JGBs to overweight within currency-hedged portfolios. The U.S. remains at underweight. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged portfolios. Be defensively positioned within equity sectors to temper the risk associated with overweighting stocks over bonds. In U.S. equities, maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that rely heavily on imports. Overweight investment-grade corporate bonds relative to government issues in the U.S.; upgrade U.S. high-yield to overweight, but downgrade European investment-grade to underweight due to fading support from the ECB. Within European government bond portfolios, continue to avoid the Periphery in favor of the core markets. Fade the widening in French/German spreads. Overweight the dollar relative to the other major currencies. Stay cautious on EM bonds, stocks and currencies. Overweight small cap stocks versus large in the U.S. market, on expected policy changes that will disproportionately favor small companies. Favor oil to base metals. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 30, 2017 Next Report: April 27, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?" dated March 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Downside volatility is calculated in a fashion similar to standard deviation, except only using below-average returns. 3 Of course, the Great Moderation was not the only factor that contributed to the financial market bubbles. 4 Are Firms Underinvesting - and if so why? Speech by Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor Financial Stability and Member of the Monetary Policy Committee. Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. February 8, 2017. 5 It's Time to Reassess Your Hurdle Rates. J.P. Morgan, November 2016. II. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? This month's Special Report, on Scotland's role in Brexit negotiations, was penned by our colleagues Matt Gertken, Marko Papic, and Jesse Kurri of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Scottish secessionist sentiment has increased in response to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's decision to push for a second popular referendum on Scottish independence, tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019, though likely to be denied for some time by Westminster. The outcome of a referendum on leaving the U.K., which eventually will occur, is too close to call at this point. The possibility will influence the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, and vice versa. The risk of a U.K. break-up adds an important constraint to Prime Minister Theresa May's government in the Brexit talks. Since the EU also has an interest in avoiding a devastating outcome for the U.K., our geopolitical team believes that the worst version of a "hard Brexit" will be avoided. That said, independence for Scotland cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s divorce proceedings. I trust that you will find the report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President A second Scottish referendum will be "too close to call"; There is upside potential to the 45% independence vote of 2014; Scots may vote with their hearts instead of their heads; But the EU will not seek to dismember the U.K. ... ...And that may keep the kingdom united. "No sooner did Scots Men appear inclined to set Matters upon a better footing, than the Union of the two Kingdoms was projected, as an effectual measure to perpetuate their Chains and Misery." - George Lockhart, Memoirs Concerning The Affairs Of Scotland, 1714. British Prime Minister Theresa May has had a busy week. On Monday she met with Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as part of a tour of the United Kingdom to drum up national unity. On Wednesday she communicated with European Council President Donald Tusk and formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, initiating the process of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. And on that day and Thursday, she turns to the parliamentary battle over the "Great Repeal Bill" that will replace the 1972 European Communities Act, which until now translated European law into British law. Brexit is finally getting under way. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi puts it, the "Phoney War" has ended, and now the real battle begins.1 Indeed, the dynamic has truly shifted in recent weeks. Not because PM May invoked Article 50, which was expected, but rather because Scottish secessionist sentiment has ticked up in reaction to Sturgeon's decision to hold a second popular referendum on Scottish independence (Chart II-1), tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019. Scottish voters are still generally opposed to holding a second referendum, but the gap is narrowing (Chart II-2). A sequel to the September 2014 referendum was always in the cards in the event of a Brexit vote. Financial markets called it, by punishing equities domiciled in Scotland following the U.K.'s EU referendum (Chart II-3). The timing of the move toward a second referendum is significant for two reasons. First, the odds of Scotland actually voting to leave have increased relative to 2014, even as the economic case for secession has worsened. Second, Scotland's threat of leaving will impact the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, slated to end in March 2019.2 Chart II-1A Second Independence Referendum... Chart II-2...Is Looking More Likely Chart II-3Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a second Scottish referendum will eventually take place. And as with the Brexit referendum, the outcome will be "too close to call," at least judging by the data available at present. In what follows we discuss why, and how Scotland could influence the Brexit negotiations, and vice versa. While the U.K. can avoid the worst version of a "hard Brexit," the high risk of a break-up of the U.K. will add urgency to negotiations with the EU. Why Scotland Rejected "Freedom" In 2014 In a Special Report on "Secession In Europe," in May 14, 2014, we argued that the incentives for separatism in Europe had weakened and that this trend specifically applied to Scotland:3 The world is a scary place: Whereas the market-friendly 1990s fueled regional aspirations to independence by suggesting that the world was fundamentally secure and that "the End of History" was nigh, the multipolar twenty-first century discourages those aspirations, with nation-states fighting to maintain their integrity. For Scotland, the Great Recession drove home the dangers of socio-economic instability. EU and NATO membership is difficult to obtain: Scotland could not be assured to find easy accession to the EU as it faced opposition from states like Spain, which wanted to discourage Catalan independence. Enlargement of the EU and NATO have both become increasingly difficult and Scotland would need a special dispensation. The United States and the European Union vociferously discouraged Scotland from striking out on its own ahead of the 2014 referendum. Domestic politics: The Great Recession revived old fissures in every country, including the old Anglo-Scots divide. The U.K. imposed budgetary austerity while Scotland opposed it. Left-leaning Scotland resented the rightward shift in the U.K., ruled by the Conservative Party after 2010. We also highlighted some of Scotland's particular impediments to independence: Energy: Scotland's domestic sources of energy are in structural decline. This would weigh on the fiscal balance and domestic private demand. The referendum actually signaled a top in the oil market, with oil prices collapsing by 58% in 2014. Deficits and debt: Scotland's public finances would get worse if it left the U.K. If that had happened in 2014, it was estimated that the country's fiscal deficit would have been 5.9% of GDP and that its national debt would have been 109% of GDP. (Today those numbers are 8% and 84% of GDP respectively) (Table II-1). A newborn Scotland would have to adopt austerity quickly. Table II-1Scotland Would Be A High-Debt Economy Central banking: If Scotland walked away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, yet retained the pound unilaterally and without the blessing of the BoE, it would lose access to the English central bank as lender of last resort. And if it walked away from its U.K. debt obligation and the pound, then it would also lose its financial sector and much of its wealth, which would be newly redenominated into a Scots national currency. Scotland is every bit as reliant on the financial sector as the U.K. as a whole (Chart II-4), making for a major constraint on any political rupture that threatens to force it to change currencies or lose control of monetary policy. Chart II-4Highly Financialized Societies Politics: We also posited that domestic political changes in the U.K. could provide inducements to keep Scotland in the union, particularly if the Conservatives suffered in the 2015 elections. The opposite, in fact, occurred, sowing the seeds for today's confrontation. For all these reasons, we argued that the risks of Scottish secession were overstated. The September 2014 referendum confirmed our forecast. The economic prospects were simply too daunting outside the U.K. But the 45% pro-independence tally also left open the possibility for another referendum down the line. Bottom Line: Scottish independence did not make sense in 2014 for a range of geopolitical, political, and economic reasons. But note that while independence still does not make economic sense, the political winds have shifted. Scottish antagonism toward the Conservative leadership in England has only intensified, while it remains to be seen how the European Union will respond to Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The Three Kingdoms In our Strategic Outlook for 2017, we argued that the British public not only did not regret the Brexit referendum outcome, but positively rallied around the flag because of it. This helped set up an environment in which the ruling party could charge forward aggressively and pursue the outcome confirmed by the vote (Chart II-5). Brexit does indeed mean Brexit. We have since seen that the Tories have forced parliament's hand in approving the bill authorizing the government to initiate exit proceedings. Chart II-5Three Cheers For Brexit And The Tories It stood to reason that the crux of tensions would shift to the domestic sphere, i.e. to the troubling constitutional problems that Brexit would provoke between what were once called "the Three Kingdoms," England (and Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4 While 52% of the U.K. public voted to leave the EU, the subdivision reveals the stark regional differences: England and Wales voted to leave (53.4% and 52.5% respectively), while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay (62% and 55.8% respectively). Scotland and the London metropolitan area were the clear outliers. The Scottish parliament is a devolved parliament subordinate to the U.K. parliament in Westminster, and it cannot hold a legally binding referendum on independence without the latter's permission.5 The May government is insisting that it will not allow a referendum to go forward until the Brexit negotiations are completed. This is an obvious strategic need. Although the Scottish National Party (SNP), the dominant party in Edinburgh, could hold a non-binding referendum at any time to apply pressure on London (reminder: the Brexit vote was also non-binding), it has an interest in waiting to see whether public opinion of Brexit will shift in England and what kind of deal the U.K. might get from the EU in the exit negotiations. Eventually, however, Scotland is likely to push for a new vote. The SNP is a party whose raison d'être is independence sooner or later. It faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the 2014 referendum producing an encouraging result and Brexit adding new impetus. The party manifesto made clear in 2016 that a new independence vote would be justified in case of "a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will." Why have the odds of Scottish independence increased? First, Brexit removes a domestic political constraint on independence. After the Brexit vote, the SNP and other pro-independence groups can say that England changed the status quo, not Scotland. It is worth remembering that the Anglo-Scots union was forged in 1707 at a time of severe Scottish economic hardship, in which a common market was the primary motivation to merge governments. Today, Scotland's comparable interest lies in maintaining access to the European single market, which is now under threat from Westminster. In particular, as with the U.K. as a whole, Scotland stands to suffer from a decline in immigration and hence workforce growth (Chart II-6). Second, Brexit removes an external constraint. The EU's official opposition to Scottish independence, particularly European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's threat that Scottish accession would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible," likely affected the outcome of the 2014 referendum. Of course, many Scots rejected all such warnings as the vote approached, with polls showing a rally just before the referendum date toward the 45% outcome (Chart II-7). But if the EU's warnings even had a temporary effect, what happens if the EU gives a nod and wink this time around? While EU officials have recently reiterated the so-called "Barroso doctrine," we suspect that they are less likely to play an interventionist role under the new circumstances. Spain - which is still concerned about Scotland fanning Catalan ambitions - might be less vocal this time, since Madrid could plausibly argue that Brexit makes a material difference from its own case. Catalonians could not argue, like the Scots, that their parent country attempted to deprive them of access to the European Single Market. Chart II-6Immigration Curbs ##br##Threaten Scots Growth Chart II-7Scottish Patriots ##br##Only Temporarily Deterred To put this into context, remember that it is not historically unusual for continental Europe to act as a patron to Scotland to keep England in check. There is ample record of this behavior, namely French and Spanish patronage of the exiled Stuart kings after 1688. The situation is very different today, but the analogy is not absurd: insofar as Brexit undermines the integrity of the EU, the EU can be expected to reciprocate by not doing everything in its power to defend the integrity of the U.K. All is fair in love and war. Nevertheless, the economic constraints to Scottish secession are even clearer than they were in 2014: The North Sea is drying up: Scotland's North Sea energy revenues have essentially collapsed to zero (Chart II-8). Meanwhile the long-term prospects for the North Sea oil production remain as bleak as they were in 2014, especially since oil prices halved. Reserves of oil and gas are limited, hovering at around five to eight years' worth of supply - i.e. not a good basis for long-term independence (Chart II-9). Decommissioning costs are also expected to be high as the sector is wound down. England still foots many bills: Total government expenditures in Scotland exceed the total revenue raised in Scotland by about £15 billion or 28% of Scotland's government revenue (Chart II-10). Chart II-8No Golden Goose In The North Sea Chart II-9Limited Domestic Energy Supplies Chart II-10The U.K. Pays For Scotland's Allegiance Scottish finances stand at risk: Scotland's fiscal, foreign exchange, and monetary policy dilemmas are as discouraging as they were in 2014 (Chart II-11). Judging by the value of financial assets (which come under risk if Scotland loses the BoE's support or changes currencies), Scotland is incredibly exposed to financial risk (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Chart II-12Scottish Financial Assets Need Currency Stability Thus, while key domestic political and foreign policy impediments may be removed, the country's internal economic impediments remain gigantic. Moreover, Scotland already has most of the characteristics of a nation state. It has its own legal and education system, prints its own banknotes, and has some powers of taxation (about 40% of revenue). It lacks a standing army and full fiscal control, but in these cases it clearly benefits from partnering with England. It also has a strong sense of national identity, regardless of whether it is technically independent. Why, then, do we believe Scottish independence is too close to call? Because Brexit has shown that "math" is insufficient! The Scots may go with their hearts against their heads, just as many English voters did in favor of Brexit. Nationalism and political polarization are a two-way street. History also shows that strictly materialist or quantitative assessments cannot anticipate paradigm shifts or national leaps into the unknown. Compare Ireland in 1922, the year of its independence from the U.K. Ireland was far less prepared to strike out on its own than Scotland is today. It comprised a smaller share of the U.K.'s population, workforce, and GDP than Scotland today (Charts II-13 and II-14). It was less educated and less developed relative to its neighbors, and it faced unemployment rates above 30%. Yet it chose independence anyway - out of political will and sheer Celtic grit. Ireland's case was very different than Scotland's today, but there is an interesting parallel. The U.K. was absorbed with continental affairs, the Americans played the role of external economic patron, and the Irish were ready to seize their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Today the U.K. is similarly distracted with Europe, and the SNP leadership is ready to seize the moment, having revealed its preference in 2014. But foreign support (in this case the EU's) will be a critical factor, even though the EU's common market is much less valuable to Scotland than the U.K.'s (Chart II-15). Chart II-13Irish Independence: ##br##Poverty Not An Obstacle Chart II-14Scotland: If The Irish ##br##Can Do It So Can We Chart II-15EU Market No ##br##Substitute For British Market Will the SNP be able to get enough votes? We know that more Scots voted to stay in the EU (62%) than voted to stay in the U.K. (55%), which in a crude sense implies that there is upside potential to the first referendum outcome. However, looking at the referendum results on the local level, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between Scottish secessionists and Europhiles, or unionists and Euroskeptics (Chart II-16). Nor is there any marked correlation between level of education and the desire for independence, as was the case in Brexit. Yet there is evidence that love of the Union Jack is correlated with age (Chart II-17). Youngsters are willing to take risks for the thrill of freedom, while their elders better understand the benefits from economic links and transfer payments. In the short and medium run, this suggests that demographics will continue to work against independence - reinforcing the fact that the SNP can wait to see what kind of deal the U.K. gets first.6 Chart II-16No Relationship Between IndyRef And Brexit Chart II-17Old Folks Loyal To The Union Jack The most striking indicator of Scottish secessionism is unemployment (Chart II-18). Thus an economic downturn that impacts Scotland, for example as result of uncertainty over Brexit, poses a critical risk to the union. The SNP will be quick to blame even a shred of economic pain on Tory-dominated Westminster. The British government and BoE have shown a commitment to use accommodative monetary and fiscal policy to smooth over the transition period, and they have fiscal room for maneuver (Chart II-19), but much will depend on what kind of a deal London gets from the EU and whether the markets remain calm. Chart II-18Joblessness Boosts Independence Vote Chart II-19The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver Bottom Line: Economics is an argument against Scottish independence, but history and politics are unclear. We simply note that independence cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s actual divorce proceedings. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? From the beginning of the Brexit saga, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has argued that Britain, of all EU members, was uniquely predisposed and positioned to leave the union. Hence the referendum was "too close to call."7 This did not mean that the U.K. could do so without consequences. Leaving would be detrimental (albeit not apocalyptic) to the U.K.'s economy, particularly by harming service exports to the EU and reducing labor force growth via stricter immigration controls. In the event, upside economic surprises have occurred, though of course Brexit has not happened yet.8 How does the Scottish referendum threat affect the Brexit negotiations? This is much less clear and will require constant monitoring over the coming two years, and perhaps longer if the European Council agrees to extend the negotiating period (which would require a unanimous vote). Still, we can draw a few conclusions from the above. First, London is a price taker not a price maker. It cannot afford not to agree to a trade deal or transition deal of some sort upon leaving in 2019. Even if England were willing to walk away from the EU's offers, a total rupture (reversion to minimal WTO trade rules) would be unacceptable to Scotland after being denied a say in the negotiation process. Therefore Scotland is now a moderating force on the Tory leadership that is otherwise unconstrained by domestic politics due to the high level of support for May's government (see Chart II-5, page 24). To save the United Kingdom, the Tories may simply have to accept what Europe is willing to give. This supports our view that the risk of a total diplomatic war between Europe and the U.K. is unlikely and that expectations of cross-channel fireworks may be overdone. Second, Scotland is twice the price taker, because it can only afford independence from the U.K. if the EU is willing to grant it a special arrangement. This is possible, but difficult to see happen early in the negotiations process. It will be important to monitor Brussels' statements on Scottish independence carefully for signs that the EU is taking a tough stance on Brexit negotiations. Sturgeon has to play it safe and see what kind of a deal May brings back from Brussels. By waiting, she can profit from Scottish indignation over both May's use of prerogative to block the referendum in the first place and then over the Brexit deal itself, when it takes place. Third, the saving grace for both countries is that it is not in Europe's interest to dismantle the U.K., or to force it into a debilitating economic crisis. We have long differed from the view that the EU will be remorseless in its negotiations over Brexit. The EU seeks extensive trade engagements with every European country, from Norway and Switzerland to Iceland and Turkey, because its interest lies in expanding markets and forging alliances. Europe is not Russia, seeking to impose punitive economic embargoes on Ukraine and Belarus for failure to conform to its market standards. While free trade agreements usually take longer than two years to negotiate, and while the CETA agreement between the EU and Canada is a recent and relevant example of the risks for the U.K., the U.K. and EU are already highly integrated, unlike the two parties in most other bilateral trade negotiations. In addition, the U.K. is a military and geopolitical ally of key European states. The U.K.-EU negotiations are not being conducted in a ceteris paribus economic laboratory, but are occurring in 2017, a year in which Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism and migration, and global multipolarity are all shared risks to both the U.K. and EU. Investment Implications Since January 17 - the date of Theresa May's speech calling for the exit from the common market - we have argued that the worst is probably over for the U.K.9 Yes, the EU negotiations will be tough and the British press - surprisingly lacking the stiff upper lip of its readers - will make mountains out of molehills. However, by saying no to the common market, Theresa May plays the role of a spouse who does not want to fight over the custody of the children, thus defusing the divorce proceedings. Our Geopolitical Strategy service has been short EUR/GBP since mid-January and the trade is down 2%. This suggests that the market has been in "wait and see mode" since the speech. We are comfortable with this trade regardless of our analysis on the rising probability of the Scottish referendum for two reasons: Hard Brexit is less likely: Many Tory MPs have had a tough time getting behind the "hard Brexit" policy, but until now they have had a tough time expressing their displeasure. However, the threat of Scottish independence and the dissolution of the U.K. will give the members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it is officially known) plenty of ammunition to push May towards a softer Brexit outcome. This should be bullish GBP in ceteris paribus terms. It's not the seventeenth century: We do not expect the EU to act like seventeenth-century France and subvert U.K. unity, at least not this early in the negotiations. For clients who expect the "knives to come out," we offer Scottish independence as a critical test of the thesis. Let's see if the EU is ready to play dirty and if it decides to alter the "Barroso doctrine" for Scotland. If they do, then our sanguine thesis is truly wrong. To be clear, we do not have high conviction that the pound will outperform either the euro or the U.S. dollar. Instead, we offer this currency trade as a way to gauge our political thesis that the U.K.-EU negotiations will likely go more smoothly than the market expects. Matt Gertken Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Jesse Anak Kuri Research Analyst Geopolitical Strategy 1 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins," dated March 16, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Article 50 allows for a two-year negotiation period, after which the departing party may have an exit deal but is not guaranteed a trade deal for the future. The negotiation period can be extended with a unanimous vote in the European Council. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Brexit: The Three Kingdoms," in Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a power "reserved" to parliament and the crown in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act of 1998. Altering the union would therefore require the U.K. and Scottish parliaments to agree to devolve the power to Scotland using Section 30(2) of the same act, which the monarch would then endorse. This was the case in 2012 when the 2014 referendum was initiated. 6 On the other hand, demographics also may work against Brexit in the long run, given that - as our colleague Peter Berezin has said in the past - many who voted to leave the EU will eventually pass away. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, and "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 index has pulled back from its recent highs, but it has not corrected enough to 'move the dial' in terms of the valuation or technical indicators. Stocks remain expensive based on our valuation index made up of 11 different measures. The technical indicator is still bullish. Our equity monetary indicator has dropped back to the zero line, meaning that it is not particularly bullish or bearish at the moment. The speculation index is elevated, however, pointing to froth in the market. The high level of our composite sentiment index and the low level of the VIX speaks to the level of investor complacency. Net earnings revisions remain close to the zero mark, although it is somewhat worrying that the earnings surprises index is slowly deteriorating. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to send a positive message for the S&P 500. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. However, the widening gap between the U.S. WTP and that of Japan and Europe highlights that recent flows have favored the U.S. market relative to the other two. Looking ahead, this means that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the Japanese and European markets. A rise in the WTPs for these two markets in the coming months would signal that a rotation into Europe and Japan is taking place. U.S. bond valuation is hovering close to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as some of the economic headwinds fade. The composite technical indicator for the 10-year Treasury shows that oversold conditions are unwinding, although the indicator is not yet back to zero. This suggests that the consolidation period for bonds is not yet complete. Oversold conditions are almost completely gone in terms of the U.S. dollar. The dollar is very expensive on a PPP basis, although it is less so by other measures. We believe the dollar has more upside. Technical conditions are also benign in the commodity complex. However, we are only bullish on oil at the moment. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro TechnicalsChart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights EM equity valuations are neutral. Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer some value, but this primarily reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. According to the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio, EM stocks are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon - longer than two to three years. Corporate profits are much more important than equity valuations in driving share prices in the next 12 months. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months. Maintain a defensive posture and an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM. A new trade: go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones. Feature Chart I-1EM P/E Ratio And EPS There is ongoing debate in the investment community concerning whether emerging markets (EM) equities are or are not cheap, in both absolute terms and relative to developed markets (DM). In this week's report we review various equity valuation indicators and reiterate that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive in absolute terms. For example, the average of trailing and forward P/E ratios is slightly above its historical mean (Chart I-1, top panel). Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer value, but this reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. Despite this, we recommend underweighting EM vs U.S./DM because the cyclical growth dynamics is much better in DM than EM. EM stocks are cheap if one assumes a strong earnings recovery (Chart I-1, bottom panel). If earnings per share (EPS) begin contracting anew, as we expect, then the current rally will be reversed sooner than later. Overall, we continue to recommend a defensive posture for absolute-return investors and maintaining an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM for asset allocators. Valuation Perspectives Below we consider several valuation ratios: The equal-sector weighted trailing P/E ratio is 17.7 for EM (Chart I-2). Table I-1 displays equal-sector weighted P/E ratio, price-to-book value ratio and dividend yields for major equity markets globally. This is an apples-to-apples comparison, as it assigns equal weights to each of the 10 MSCI sectors - i.e., it removes sector biases. Chart I-2Equal-Sector Weighted Trailing P/E Ratio Table I-1Equal-Sector Weighted Valuation Ratios Across EM And DM Hence, on a comparable basis, EM equities are only slightly cheaper than DM stocks as is evident in Table I-1. Besides, the composite valuation indicator based on equal-sector weighted trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield indicate that EM stocks are fairly valued (Chart I-3). The cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. The CAPE ratio is a structural valuation measure, i.e. it matters in the long run. Importantly, it assumes that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS will revert to its historical mean or trend. In short, the CAPE ratio tells us what the P/E ratio would be if EPS were to revert to its historical trend. Chart I-4 illustrates the EM CAPE ratio. If EM EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms reaches its historical time trend, one can safely assume that EM stocks are cheap and currently worth buying. In a nutshell, the current CAPE ratio of 15 assumes that EM EPS should rise by about 30% in nominal U.S. dollar terms over an investor's time horizon. Chart I-3EM Equities Valuations Are Neutral Chart I-4EM CAPE Ratio Given that our time horizon is 12 months, the assumption that EM EPS will surge by about 30% in U.S. dollar terms is in our view ambitious. Therefore, we posit that EM share prices do not offer compelling value at all in the next 12 months. If one's investment horizon were two-to-three years or longer, the assumption that EPS will rise by 30% or more in U.S. dollar terms is much more plausible. In this sense we would concur that EM share prices offer decent value from a longer-term perspective. Our methodology of calculating the CAPE ratio for EM varies from the well-known Robert Shiller's CAPE ratio for the U.S.1 However, even when applying our CAPE methodology to U.S. equities, the resulting ratio is not very different from Shiller's CAPE (Chart I-5). Trimmed-mean equity valuation ratios. Chart 6 illustrates 20% trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yields for the EM equity universe. A 20% trimmed-mean ratio excludes the top 10% and bottom 10% of industry groups, and then calculates the average. All calculations are based on 50 EM industry group data available from MSCI. Why look at trimmed-mean valuation ratios? Because by removing the top and bottom 10% of industry groups, this measure excludes outliers and provides a better perspective on valuation. A few observations are in order: First, according to the trimmed-mean valuation ratios, EM equities are not cheap. The trimmed-mean ratios are close to their historical mean (Chart I-6). Second, the trimmed-mean ratios are well above their market cap ones. This indicates that there are a few industry groups with large market caps that pull EM multiples lower. In other words, market-cap weighted multiples are skewed to the downside by a few large industry groups. There are reasons why some sectors and countries have low or high equity multiples. It makes sense to exclude them. Finally, the composite valuation indicator based on trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/Es, PBV and price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield demonstrates that EM equity valuations are neutral (Chart I-7). Chart I-5U.S. CAPE Ratios Chart I-6EM Stocks Are Close to Fair Value Chart I-7EM Equities Have Neutral Value Bottom Line: EM equities by and large command a neutral valuation. According to the CAPE ratio, EM equities are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon, say two-to-three years or longer. Profits Hold The Key Valuations are not a good timing tool. For low equity valuations to be realized, i.e., to produce solid price gains, corporate profits should grow. The reverse is also true: for an overvalued market to decline, company earnings should contract, or at least disappoint. When valuations are neutral - as they currently are for the EM equity benchmark - a recovery in EPS should entail higher share prices, while EPS shrinkage should lead to a selloff. EM EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months, given the rally in commodities prices in 2016, amelioration in China's business cycle and the technology sector boom in Asia. However, this moderate and short-lived EPS recovery is already priced in. For the market to rally further, EPS will need to expand beyond the next three to six months. Remarkably, there has been little improvement in EM ex-China domestic demand. Besides, the risk to bank loan growth remains to the downside both in China and EM ex-China. Slower loan growth and the need to recognize and provision for potentially large NPLs will pressure banks' profits in many EM countries. Finally, we expect oil and industrial metals prices to decline considerably over the course of this year. If and as this view plays out, energy and materials stocks will fall. Energy and materials share prices correlate not with their past or current profits but rather with underlying commodities prices. One area where we remain bullish is the technology sector. Even though tech share prices are overbought and could correct in absolute terms in the months ahead, they will continue to outperform the benchmark. Bottom Line: Corporate profits are much more important in driving share prices in the next 12 months than equity valuations. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months or so, even though EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months. Timing Reversal: Watch Credit Quality Spreads Chart I-8Credit Quality Spreads: ##br##A Correction Or Reversal? Following are some of the indicators we are monitoring to gauge a reversal in EM share prices. EM corporate spreads have widened a notch relative to EM sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, top panel). Similarly, Chinese off-shore corporate spreads have widened versus Chinese sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, middle panel). Credit quality spreads - the gap between B- and BAA-grade corporate bonds - have widened slightly in the U.S. (Chart I-8, bottom panel). These moves are still very small, and do not constitute a definite sign of a major trend reversal. Nevertheless, such widening in credit quality spreads is an important development. If they persist, they will certainly sound the alarm for the reflation trade. Interestingly, this is the first time a simultaneous widening in credit quality spreads has occurred since the risk assets rally began in early 2016. Bottom Line: Major equity market selloffs will occur when lower quality credit begins to persistently underperform better quality credit. There have been budding signs of quality spread widening that are worth being monitored. Identifying Relative Value Within the EM equity universe, valuation ratios differ greatly. For example, banks trade at a trailing P/E of 9.7, while consumer staple stocks trade at 24.8. Table I-2 portrays the trailing P/E ratio and its historical mean as well as 12-month forward EPS growth and the forward P/E ratio for each sector - as well as average of trailing and forward P/E ratios. Table I-3 shows the same valuation measures but for EM countries. Table I-2Stock Valuation Snapshot: EM Sectors Table I-3Equity Valuation Snapshot: EM Countries It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from these tables. On a general level, a simplistic approach to investing based on trailing and forward P/E ratios would not have produced great outcomes in EM in recent years. When analyzing EM stock valuations, we prefer to use the trailing rather than forward P/E ratio because historically, EM forward EPS have had a very poor record forecasting actual EPS. One of our favorite ways to identify relative value is to compare the PBV ratio and return on equity (RoE) across countries/sectors. Chart I-9 plots RoE on the X-axis and the PBV ratio on the Y axis. Countries and sectors located in the bottom right corner (at the low end of the shaded area) have a low PBV ratio compared to their RoE. In contrast, in the north-west side of the distribution (at the upper end of the shaded zone), these have an elevated PBV ratio, taking into account their RoE. Chart I-9Searching For Relative Value Among countries, Korea, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and China appear cheap, while Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Malaysia and Poland are on the expensive side. Chart I-10EMS's Recommended ##br##Equity Portfolio Performance Concerning equity sectors, utilities and financials/banks are cheap, yet consumer staples and consumer discretionary, health care, telecom and materials appear expensive in relative terms. Our recommended country equity allocation is based on a qualitative assessment of many variables including but not limited to valuation. Chart I-10 displays the performance of our fully invested EM Equity Portfolio Model versus the EM benchmark. Our overweights presently include: Korea, Taiwan, India, China, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and Peru. We are neutral on Mexico, Chile, Colombia, South Africa and the Philippines. The lists of our country allocation and other equity investment recommendations are presented each week at the end of our reports. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Bet On Russia's Non-Compliance With OPEC Odds of Russia's compliance with the OPEC agreement to cut oil output by 300k b/d in the next two months are low. This poses downside risk to oil prices. Russia has so far done only 120k b/d cuts. Hence, in the next two months it should reduce its output by 180k b/d which amounts to 1.6% of the nation's oil output. One way to bet on Russia's non-compliance, regardless the direction of oil prices, is to go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones (Chart II-1). There are a number of political, economic and financial motives why Russia might care less about lower oil prices than Saudi Arabia in the next 12-18 months or so. As a result, Russia might not cut as much as it is expected by the OPEC agreement. Russia is able to increase oil production due to a cheaper ruble and technology advances. BCA's Energy Sector Strategy team has been highlighting that there have been concerted efforts by Russia's largest producers to employ horizontal drilling and multi-zone hydraulic fracturing in Western Siberia.2 These have stemmed declines from those aging fields and allowed production to rise (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Long Russia Energy / ##br##Short Global Energy Stocks Chart II-2Russian Oil ##br##Production Will Increase Russia will not shy away from being opportunistic and increase its market share when it can ramp up oil production. A rising global oil market share will allow Russian companies to outperform their global peers regardless the direction of oil prices. There are major cyclical divergences between Russian and Saudi economies. Russia's economy is gradually picking up while there is less certainty about Saudi's growth recovery. The reason is that Russia has allowed the ruble to depreciate and act as a shock absorber. Meanwhile, Sa­­­­udis have stuck to the currency peg. ­­­Oil prices are down by 27% from their top in rubles and 55% in Saudi riyals (Chart II-3). This has reflated Russia's fiscal revenues and the economy, while Saudi Arabia is still struggling with the consequences of low ­oil prices. On the fiscal front, Russia went through a notable fiscal squeeze and its budget deficit is projected to be 3.2% of GDP in 2017 (Chart II-4). In contrast, the Saudi Arabian fiscal deficit in 2016 reached an outstanding 17% of GDP, accounting for the drawdown in reserves by our estimates.3 Chart II-3Ruble's Depreciation ##br##In 2014-15 Made a Difference Chart II-4Fiscal Deficit: Small In ##br##Russia & Large In Saudi More importantly, Russia's federal budget for 2017 was constructed on the oil price assumption of $40/bbl. The 2017 Saudi budget assumes oil price of $50/bbl.4 Therefore, Russia would not mind if oil prices drop toward or slightly below $40 in the second half of this year. Therefore, Saudis care much more about sustaining oil prices at a higher level than Russians do. Finally, Rosneft has already conducted its IPO while Aramco's IPO has not taken place yet. As such, the need for higher oil prices is much greater in Saudi Arabia - to justify a higher value of their oil giant - than in Russia. Bottom Line: Odds are considerable that Russia will not comply with the OPEC deal and this could cause oil prices to selloff more. Regardless of direction of oil prices, we expect the Russian energy sector to outperform their global peers due to Russia's rising market share in the global oil market. Go long Russian energy stocks / short global ones. Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 For more detailed discussion on our methodology of CAPE, please refer to January 20, 2016 Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "EM Equity Valuations: A CAPE Model", available at ems. bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Russian Oil Production: Surpassing Expectation", dated December 14, 2016, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Saudi Arabia: Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain", dated February 1, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 https://mof.gov.sa/en/budget2017/Documents/The_National_Budget.pdf Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Geopolitical tensions in the South China Sea are here to stay; China has reached the ability to impose massive costs on any state that tries to roll back its control; U.S. advantages in the region are significant, but declining and overrated. We put together a portfolio of stocks that give investors exposure to the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea. Dear Client, Today's Special Report is jointly authored by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy services and focuses on the tail risks around the South China Sea conflict. In this report, our colleagues Matt Gertken of the Geopolitical Strategy and Oleg Babanov of the Emerging Markets Equity Sector Strategy ask whether China has "won" the South China Sea, and what the implications might be for investors. At the end of the report, we provide detailed investment recommendations for both EM-dedicated as well as global investors. Kindest Regards, Garry Evans Senior Vice President EM Equity Sector Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President, Geopolitical Strategy "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years ... There's no doubt about that." - Steve Bannon, prior to becoming President Donald Trump's Chief Strategist, Breitbart News, March 2016 The South China Sea is a headline grabber that has failed to produce any market-disruptions despite years of rising tensions. In fact, it would appear that the issue has been relegated to the backburner, with the Trump administration laying off its earlier aggressive rhetoric and America's Asian allies focusing on building a trade relationship with China. Compared to the Koreas, in particular, where geopolitical risk is spiking due to political turmoil in the South and weapons advances in the North, the South China Sea seems relatively calm.1 We are not so sanguine, however, and advise investors to take the tail-risk of a conflict in the South China Sea seriously. First, there has been a general "rotation" of global geopolitical risk from the Middle East to Asia Pacific, as BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has chronicled over the years.2 China's transformation into a "peer" or "near-peer" competitor to the United States, and the U.S.'s various reactions, are transforming the region and sowing the seeds of a new Cold War. Second, despite a thaw in the relationship between China and the Trump Administration, the latest positive signals have not extended to the South China Sea.3 In North Korea, China is offering to enforce sanctions. In Taiwan, Trump has backed away from hints of encouraging independence. But in the South China Sea, the two sides have increased activity even as they have made reassuring statements.4 Third, fact remains that despite headline grabbers, China has managed to expand its military installations in the region over the past half-decade and now possesses a layered-defense system in the region. In this report, we ask whether China has "won" the South China Sea, and what the implications might be for investors, particularly EM-dedicated investors, on the sectoral level. We find that China has reached the ability to impose massive costs on any state that should try to roll back its control of the disputed islands. We also do not think that the U.S. is ready to accept this new Chinese "sphere of influence." This means that the two countries are in a "gray zone" in which policy mistakes could occur. This uncertainty is driving the odds of a crisis higher. China is flush with recent victories in the islands, and yet the United States will continue to insist on free passage and the defense of allies and partners. Nationalism and rising jingoism in both countries also raises the odds of misunderstanding and miscalculation. Until the Trump and Xi administrations agree to a robust strategic deal that arranges for de-escalation, the South China Sea will remain a source of low-probability, high-impact geopolitical risk for investors. It is only one aspect of a broader deterioration in U.S.-China relations that we see as the ultimate driver of a secular rise in geopolitical risk in Asia Pacific.5 Unfortunately, history also teaches us that such "strategic resets" are normally motivated by a dramatic crisis. At the end of this report, we provide investment recommendations for investors in emerging markets (and a couple for the U.S. as well). Why Not Ignore The South China Sea? Map 1Nine-Dash Line Reaches Far Beyond China Maritime territorial disputes between China and several of its neighbors - Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and partly Indonesia - have a long history. China declared its "Nine Dash Line," an expansionist claim of sovereignty over almost the entirety of the sea, in 1947 (Map 1). Since then, conflicts have flared up sporadically. The most notable skirmishes illustrate that the maritime disputes are always simmering but tend to boil over only when larger geopolitical issues heat up.6 Since the 1990s, China and the other claimants have raced to "grab what they can," particularly in the Spratly Islands. However, conflicts have especially intensified since the mid-2000s (Charts 1 and 2). A major factor has been the rise in competition for subsea resources: Chart 1Territorialism Rising In South China Chart 2Rising Number Of Confrontations Energy and minerals - Although estimates vary widely, the South China Sea contains respectable reserves of oil and natural gas (Chart 3) and there are also hopes of extracting other minerals from the sea floor. Most of the region's states are net importers. Several conflicts have been sparked by exploration, test drilling, and unilateral development.7 It is a fact that the past decade's buildup in tensions has coincided with a global bull market for energy prices and offshore energy investment and capex (Chart 4). Chart 3Not Insignificant Reserves Of Oil And Gas In South China Sea Fishing Grounds - The South China Sea holds vast fish resources, a source of food security, exports, and jobs for littoral countries. It is estimated that over 10% of global fishing catches come from here. Fishing as a whole accounts for about 1-3% of GDP for the countries involved in the disputes (Chart 5), and the South China Sea is a large chunk of that. A quick glance at recent skirmishes reveals that fishing rights are a major cause of conflict (Table 1). Chart 4Offshore Oil Production In Decline Chart 5Fisheries Non-Negligible For Asian States Table 1Notable Incidents In The South China Sea (2010-16) Nevertheless, resource extraction is not the main driver of discord. Frictions spiked in 2015-16 despite the collapse in China's and other countries' offshore rig counts (Chart 6). And fishing rights are also clearly a pretext for attempts to assert control over waters and rocks.8 Chart 6Energy Interest Declining, Tensions Still Elevated Moreover, China's conversion of the sea's various geographical features into artificial islands through a process of land reclamation, and its construction of military facilities and stationing of armaments on these islands, points not to strictly economic interests but to broader strategic security interests. Similarly, the United States' enforcement of international rights of free navigation and overflight is not related to oil and fish. What is really at stake is national security, supply-line control, and international prestige. First, the United States has long executed a grand strategy of preventing any country from forming a regional empire and denying the U.S. access. China has the long-term potential to make this happen, and the South China Sea is its earliest foray into empire-building abroad. (Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet are all old news and expand Chinese hegemony into the largely useless Eurasian hinterland.) Second, the main global trading lines from Eurasia and Africa to and from Asia mostly go through the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands. We illustrate this process through our diagram of the sea as a large traffic roundabout (Diagram 1). China is attempting to control the centerpiece of the roundabout, which - in combination with China's southern mainland forces - would eventually give it veto power over transit. Diagram 1South China Sea As A Vital Supply Roundabout The economic value of the trade potentially affected by power struggles is what makes this all highly market relevant if a full-blown war ever occurs. We estimate that roughly $4.8 trillion worth of trade flowed through this area in 2015, which is comparable to the $5.3 trillion estimate from 2012 frequently cited in news media.9 Moreover, the trade does not consist merely of manufactured goods from Asian manufacturing centers but also basic commodities vital to the Asian countries' economic and political stability. Essential commodities account for about 20-35% of Northeast and Southeast Asian imports, and almost all of this by definition flows through the South China Sea (Charts 7 and 8). Chart 7Commodity Imports Go Through South China Sea... Chart 8...And Greatly Affect Asian Economies The numbers belie how vital the supply lanes are for individual countries: Japan, for instance, gets 80% of its oil via the South China Sea. A total cutoff would be devastating after strategic reserves were exhausted; and even a marginal hindrance of energy imports would bite into the current account surpluses that grease the wheels of high-debt Asian economies. The South China Sea is therefore vital even to countries like Japan and South Korea that are not party to the maritime-territorial disputes. A commerce-destroying war could strangle their economies. Military access is another reason states seek control. This is separate but related to the need to secure economic supplies. Chinese military planners are clear that they want to be able to deny access to foreign powers if need be, in order to secure the southern half of the country, or cut off Taiwan's or Japan's supply lines. American military planners are equally clear that they will not allow a state to deny them access to international commons, or to coerce others through supply-lane control.10 Finally, there are political and legal aspects to the South China Sea disputes. China's successful alteration of the status quo in the face of opposition from the U.S., Asian neighbors, and a high-profile international tribunal (the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague), has undermined international legal institutions and the U.S. prestige in the region. Over time, regional states, perceiving that "might makes right," may feel the need to cling more closely to China or the U.S., giving rise to proxy battles.11 With supply security and national defense at risk - and China in the process of "militarizing" the islands - there is a rising probability of a major "Black Swan" incident. The involvement of a number of major powers and minor allies means that a small incident could escalate into something significant. The friction between U.S. global dominance and China's rising regional sway is the chief source of instability. China could agree to a "Code of Conduct" with the Asian states possibly as early as this year. But without improvement in U.S.-China relations, the geopolitical consequences of such a code will be moot. Southeast Asian risk assets could benefit temporarily, but the chief tail-risks of the U.S. and China falling out would be unresolved. Bottom Line: He who controls the sea routes controls the traffic. China has made an overt bid for the ability to govern the sea routes and deny foreign powers access to the sea. The U.S. has threatened forceful responses to acts of "area-denial" or military coercion. Thus, geopolitical uncertainty and risks in the region remain elevated. How Do The Contenders Size Up? If China had clearly achieved full control of the waterways, airways, and geographical features of the South China Sea, then geopolitical risk over the area might decline. Countries would adjust to Beijing's rules of the game and the region would enter a period of hegemonic stability. The reason we are in a gray area today is that China has not yet reached dominance. China's advantages are significant, growing rapidly, and underrated; meanwhile the U.S.'s advantages are significant, declining, and overrated. A simple comparison of the U.S.'s and China's military advantages and disadvantages will make this clear. China Considering that the South China Sea is China's backyard, the country has a major advantage of playing on its "home court" versus the United States. China can afford to concentrate its military capabilities and planning specifically on its near seas, whereas American resources are dispersed globally and reduced to an "expeditionary force" when operating in China's neighborhood.12 Even so, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), Navy (PLAN), and Air Force (PLAAF) have major obstacles to overcome if they are to contend with American forces. Until relatively recently, China's defense buildup focused on traditional ground capabilities, creating weak spots in its ability to project military power over the South China Sea. What matters is whether China has addressed these shortfalls sufficiently to raise the costs of U.S. intervention to a prohibitive level. So far, it is attempting to do so in the following ways: Sea Power - China's naval capabilities have generally lagged far behind those of the U.S. and Japan. An important step was the commissioning of China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in 2012. It is a renovated Soviet carrier of the type that Russia has recently used in Syria. A second carrier, Shandong, is 85% complete and set to be commissioned in 2018 - it is an indigenously produced copy of the former. It is set to be stationed in Hainan, which will influence the balance of power given that the U.S. only has one carrier permanently in the region (though several more dock in San Diego). A third carrier is slated for 2022 and expected to be stationed in the South China Sea. The navy has also significantly increased China's logistic and support capabilities in the area, with amphibious warships and air cover. China has also vastly expanded its destroyers and smaller ships. Only its submarine capabilities face serious doubts about the degree of improvement and capability. Air Transport - China's naval and air force lifting capabilities, necessary to transport troops and equipment quickly to disputed territories, were initially very limited. But in recent years, China has improved these capabilities. Considering satellite pictures of the Spratly and Paracel Islands with new hangars and landing strips, China has made considerable progress toward the goal of quick material and troop supply for the islands. Of course, it is notoriously difficult to resupply small scattered islands amid enemy disruptions, but it is also difficult to disrupt without committing more than one aircraft carrier wing to the problem. Clearly China's capacity has improved. Infrastructure - China has converted Hainan, its southernmost island (and smallest province) into a major military and logistics base. Its new Yulin Naval Base can host up to 20 nuclear submarines as well as two carrier groups and several assault ships. This is China's "Pearl Harbor," and unlike the American version, it is in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, on the disputed islands, China had not built infrastructure until very recently. It was in fact the last of the island claimants to pave an airstrip. But its construction has been bigger, faster, and more ambitious - including for air transport, fighter jets, and surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles, all of which have added greatly to its ability to deny the U.S. access to the sea. Air Power - One of the main issues the PLAAF had over the years was the limited radius of its fighter planes, which would not allow full air superiority in the South China Sea. Airfield infrastructure was built on the disputed islands so that fighter planes could be stationed closer to the area. China therefore does not possess just one aircraft carrier, but rather numerous ones if we think of islands as aircraft carriers. Also, Russia is delivering to China a number of multirole fighters that can cover the South China Sea from bases on the mainland. And China's fifth-generation fighter is coming along. By far the most significant military development in China's arsenal, however, is its development of short- and medium-range missiles. This development greatly increases the danger to American ships and aircraft seeking access to the region. First, China has concentrated on building short-range, DF-21D "Carrier Killer" anti-ship missiles, which pack enough punch to take out an American aircraft carrier with one hit, and which the U.S. has limited means to defend against.13 China has also paraded around the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, or "Guam Killer," which can reach as far as Guam, can carry a nuclear charge, and has a mobile launch platform that would be difficult for U.S. forces to detect and knock out before the launch. In turn, the U.S. has deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile systems in Guam and South Korea in preparation for precisely this kind of attack.14 Second, China has amassed around 500 surface-to-air missiles on Hainan Island, waiting to be shipped to the disputed rocks. The armory consists of a combination of short-, medium-, and long-range missiles to create a layered air-defense perimeter. Satellite images of the islands show that China has also positioned short-range and medium-range missile systems on some of the islands, namely Woody Island in the Paracels. Finally, China has fielded better radar systems to gain full coverage of the South China Sea (as well as other nearby waters) in order to find or guide friendly or hostile ships or planes and to support the various activities of its air and ship defenses. This combination of radar and missile capabilities amounts to a game changer. They make it possible for China to raise the costs of conflict to such a level that the United States might balk. Will the U.S. seek to change the balance of power with force? No. But Washington has reaffirmed its "red lines" in the region, namely freedom of passage. This was the takeaway from Secretary of Defense James Mattis's first foreign trip, not incidentally to Japan and South Korea. Mattis indicated that freedom of passage is "absolute" not only for the U.S. merchant fleet but also for the navy. However, he also said the U.S. will exhaust "diplomatic efforts" and eschew "any dramatic military moves" in the South China Sea, while maintaining the U.S.'s neutrality on sovereignty disputes. This is status quo, and the status quo favors China's rapidly growing ability to deny others' access to the area. The United States The U.S. has several bases in the Indo-Pacific area, with ground, air, naval, and marine assets. It also has extensive experience conducting wars and special operations in East Asia. Yet despite this dispersed and historic basing, China poses a challenge the likes of which it has not seen in the region. The distances to be covered, the complexities of the logistics, and China's growing strengths, make any U.S. intervention in the South China Sea harder than is typically assumed. The U.S.'s key five bases make these advantages and disadvantages clear: Guam, with almost 6,000 troops, will most likely be the first base to respond to a threat in the South China Sea, or to become engaged in a conflict there. It hosts part of the Seventh Fleet, including a ballistic-missile submarine squadron. It would be a key launch pad for regional operations. It could also be an early target for China's long-range ballistic missiles in a major conflict. Guam sits almost 3,000km from the South China Sea. South Korea hosts one of the U.S.'s oldest and largest regional deployments, with about 28,000 troops. Korea hosts the Eighth U.S. Army and Seventh Air Force, as well as Special Operations Command Korea. Its chief advantage is its proximity to China. However, assuming a conflict involves no direct engagement with mainland China, Korea comes with some disadvantages. Most of the ground staff is located around the North Korea border. The U.S. command in the region will be wary of lifting troops from the border and exposing its northern flank. North Korea (or conceivably China itself) could take advantage of U.S. distraction in the South China Sea. At the same time, the operational radius of planes on the Osan Air Base would not allow direct engagement in the South China Sea, though they could cover the southeast to hinder any maneuvers of the Chinese air force. Japan is the United States' largest overseas deployment with about 49,000 troops - heavily tilted toward naval and air power. The Fifth U.S. Air Force is spread across three main bases in Misawa, Yokota, and Kadena, while the Seventh Fleet is the largest forward-deployed U.S. fleet. It has several powerful task forces including the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and naval special warfare, amphibious assault, mine warfare, and marine expeditionary forces. The strong presence and firepower of this fleet as well as its maneuverability make it the prime candidate for any sort of engagement in the South China Sea (or East China Sea for that matter). The air bases around Tokyo and Okinawa can provide air support down to Taiwan and run airlift operations down to China's Hainan Island, the base of China's southern fleet. The only disadvantages stem from vulnerability to layered air defense and long supply lines for the navy, which will become targets after any lengthy engagement. Moreover, U.S. Forces Japan lack large ground units to organize landing operations, which will need to be sourced from South Korea or Hawaii. Hawaii is the home of the U.S. Pacific Command, which oversees regional forces, and contains sizable ground units to reinforce regional bases. It hosts the U.S. Army Pacific, U.S. Pacific Air Forces, and the U.S. Pacific Fleet stationed in Pearl Harbor (with a second base in San Diego). Hawaii has a large ground troop presence, which, together with U.S. air-lift capabilities, would provide the main ground forces for offensive operations. The large fleet secures U.S. presence in the region. Hawaii would host and resupply the core of any naval operations in the South China Sea. The only disadvantage is geographic: the distance to any U.S. ally's territory is significant, and main operational areas in the South China Sea cannot be reached in a single lift. This means that troop and equipment movement will take time and will not go unmolested. In any scenario involving land operations, the redeployment of troops will give the other side time to prepare. Alaska is also worth mention as it houses infantry brigades and air force combat units, albeit no significant naval presence. We only give small consideration to the base here because of its proximity to Russia. Assuming the neutrality of Russia during a hypothetical conflict, the U.S. would still be unlikely to draw resources from Alaska to aid operations in the South China Sea, since that would leave its own territory exposed to some degree. Other Allied Bases - We do not feature other allied bases in the region mainly because of the small numbers of troops that can be deployed and the low capabilities of U.S. allies. Some countries, such a Singapore, which has a respectably army, could disappoint the U.S. by trying to remain neutral. The most reliable help would come from Japan and Australia, but even Australia would face a very intense internal dilemma as a result of its economic dependency on China. South Korea would also be preoccupied with North Korea's ability to take advantage. A quick survey of the "order of battle" of the U.S. and China in the region would make our assertion that China has gained supremacy laughable. Then again, geopolitics does not work in ceteris paribus terms. Yes, the U.S. maintains military hegemony in the region, but China's abilities to impose real pain on American naval forces creates a complicated political dilemma for the U.S.: is Washington prepared to expend blood and treasure to defend allies and their supply lines in case of a conflict over this area? China is not yet looking to project power globally. It is not actively trying to compete for supremacy with the U.S. in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, or Caribbean Sea. As such, it can concentrate its forces in the South and East China Seas and dedicate its entire naval strategy to the sole purpose of denying the U.S. navy access there. The U.S., meanwhile, has to plan for a global confrontation and then dedicate a portion of its forces to China's home court. Japan may very well hold the balance of power in a potential conflict over the region. Its import dependency is at the core of its national psyche and it would view a Chinese blockade of the South China Sea as an existential threat - not unlike the American threat of oil embargo that precipitated war in the early 1940s. Japan is not likely to go rogue, but it would be a tremendous addition to the American effort, even in a situation where other states refrained from action out of fear. However, while China will see the above as a reason not to initiate armed conflict with the United States, it will not be able to retrench in the South China Sea in the face of domestic nationalism either. These pressures virtually ensure that it is locked into the assertive foreign policy it has pursued over the past ten years. Bottom Line: A simple analysis of the current disposition shows that the military capabilities of the two countries - in this limited theater - are not as disparate as one might think. Both sides have weaknesses: the U.S. is bound to a handful of distant bases and has a global range of obligations and constraints, while China lacks technology, experience, and cooperation among its military branches. Nevertheless, China is approaching full air and sea cover of the area within the Nine Dash Line (Map 1) and is rapidly gaining greater ability through radar and missiles to inflict politically unacceptable damage on the U.S. The U.S.'s interest in the South China Sea is ultimately limited to free passage and the defense of treaty allies. The Trump administration is primed to strengthen the country's rights and deterrence, namely through a large increase in defense spending that focuses heavily on the navy - aiming at a 600-ship fleet - and likely on Asia Pacific. In the context of a massive new assertion of U.S. regional presence and power, it is significant that China has not yet given any concrete indication of slowing down its island reclamation, militarization, or control techniques. Investment Implications BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been warning clients of the rising risks in the South China Sea, and East China in general, since 2012. However, it has been a challenge to construct an investment strategy based on our view. For starters, it is unclear when the crisis could emerge. It is difficult to know when accidents and miscalculations will happen. What we can say with some degree of certainty, however, is that the window of opportunity for any realistic campaign to reverse the militarization of the disputed islands will probably be closed by the end of this year. By "realistic," we mean operations that would promise control over the disputed territory with a calculated degree of risk and an acceptable degree of casualties. At the same time, the U.S. still has the ability to win a full-blown war with China. We have not addressed scenarios like cutting off China's oil supplies at the Strait of Hormuz, for instance, but have limited our discussion to a conflict in the South China Sea over control of the newly militarized islands. In that context, the American threshold for pain is low and its military advantages are narrowing. We are therefore entering a danger zone now because both China and the U.S. stand at risk of becoming overly assertive in the near future: Chart 9Will Trump Seek Political Recapitalization Via Conflict? China because it has domestic nationalist pressures that the Communist Party needs to vent as the economy slows; The U.S. because it has an unpopular (Chart 9), nationalist leadership that seeks to increase its defense presence in the region and may fall to brinkmanship in order to extract major trade concessions from Beijing. The tail-risk in the South China Sea suggests that global investors should also continue to hedge their exposure to risk assets with exposure to safe-haven assets receptive to geopolitical risk, like gold, Swiss bonds, though perhaps not U.S. Treasuries. The persistence of Sino-American distrust - beyond whatever happy encounter Trump and Xi may have at Mar-a-Lago in April - suggests that Chinese economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated and global financial volatility to rise. U.S.-China tension also feeds our broader narrative of rising mercantilism and protectionism. Investors will want to overweight domestic-oriented economies, consumer-oriented sectors, and small cap companies relative to their export-oriented, manufacturing, and large cap counterparts. We also recommend that EM-dedicated investors be wary about Asian states caught in the middle of de-globalization and vulnerable to geopolitical tail-risks. We are neutral to bearish on South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Our long Vietnam equities trade has been downgraded to tactical. We prefer Thailand and Japan, U.S. allies that are removed from conflict zones (Thailand) or domestically oriented and reflationary (Japan). We are also long China relative to Hong Kong and Taiwan, given the risks of both de-globalization and Chinese political troubles for the latter two. We are bullish on U.S. defense stocks.15 The U.S. defense establishment is conducting extensive reviews of the navy's force structure and future strategic needs - the fleet peaked in 1987 and fell below 300 battle force ships in 2003, but has projected that 355 battle force ships is necessary. This would require a major injection of funds in the coming decade. The Trump administration has endorsed this assessment in principle and is planning a significant increase in defense spending, marked by a requested increase of $50 billion in his first annual budget. Trump has signaled that defense manufacturing, notably shipbuilding, will be one of the ways in which he seeks to boost American manufacturing and jobs. This plays to his blue-collar base of support and could move the needle in battleground states like Virginia. It should be beneficial on the margin for U.S. defense companies.16 Below are our corporate-level recommendations for both EM-dedicated and global investors. The Companies Given the likelihood that tensions in the SCS will continue, and the projected build up in defense spending in both the U.S. and China, EMES recommends investors look to take exposure to defense stocks. We have put together a portfolio of such stocks that is intended to give exposure to the developments between China and the U.S. in the South China Sea. We recommend the following basket of companies: AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK); AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH); AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH); AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH); China Avionics Systems (600372 CH); Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US); General Dynamics Corporation (GD US). The basket consists of four Chinese defense companies, mostly centered around the aviation industry. The choice of listed companies in China is constrained and hence we have been forced to gain exposure through aviation companies rather than naval. We recommend two companies in the U.S. that are involved in military vessel production for the U.S. Navy. We believe that the main ramp-up in defense spending from the U.S. side will come through a significant increase in the number of ships in the Asian region. Chart 10Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AviChina Vs. MSCI EM AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK): Chinese aviation holding company (Chart 10). AviChina is the listed subsidiary of the government-controlled Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). Airbus is another large shareholder, with over 11% of the free float. The company produces dual-purpose aircraft - civil and military -- including helicopters, trainers, parts and components (including radio-electronic), avionics and electrical products and components. AviChina itself is a holding company with a rather complicated structure, which makes it difficult for investors to access its market value. Listed subsidiaries include AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH), China Avionics (600372 CH), AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH) and Hongdu Aviation (600316 CH). In terms of the revenue stream, 49% is generated from whole aircraft production, 28% from engineering services and another 23% from parts and components manufacturing. The company reports semi-annual results. The latest full-year report released on March 15 came out mixed. Revenues were strong, up 39% year over year, but costs accelerated at a faster pace (+45% year over year). Operating income was still strong, growing 12.3% year over year, but margins declined across the board. EBITDA margin contracted by 257 basis points to 9.94%, while operating margin fell by 170 basis points to 7.32%. Despite this, the bottom line still managed to grow by 18.75% year over year. AviChina is currently trading at a forward P/E of 21.2x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 9.5% for the next three years. Chart 11Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Jonhon Optronic Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH): Profiting from growing military and EV spending (Chart 11). A subsidiary of AVIC and AviChina, the company specializes in production of optical and electric connectors (third largest in China), and cable components. Jonhon is unrivalled in the defense market. It profits from rising electronic content and from supplying major components to other parts of the AVIC group, shipbuilders, railways and aerospace. It is also successfully developing its civil offering, specifically for the fast-growing electric vehicle market and the 4G space in the telecoms industry. Looking at the revenue composition, 54% is generated by sales of electric connectors, a further 24% from fiber-optic cables, and 19% from conventional cable and assembly products. As for the civil-military split, the company is expected to receive 60% of total revenues from its civil applications, growing approximately 10% per annum. Jonhon Optronics reported its full-year results on March 15. Revenues saw a strong increase, jumping 23.7% year over year. Cost growth was also higher, though it slowed from the previous year (up 23.8% year over year). This led to an operating profit increase of 19.7%, but slight margin deterioration. EBITDA margin fell by 77 basis points to 16.98%, and operating margin was down 5 basis points to 14.32. On the other hand, profit margins improved to 12.6% (up 54 basis points) as the bottom line grew by 29.8% year over year. Jonhon Optronics is currently trading at a forward P/E of 24.4x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 15.2% for the next three years. Chart 12Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Helicopter Company Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH): AVIC's helicopter arm (Chart 12). As the name already suggests, the company specializes in helicopter production, which accounts for almost 100% of the overall revenue stream. The main helicopters currently marketed are from the AC series, in particular the AC311, AC312 and AC313, the Z series - Z-8, Z-9 and Z-11. We expect further tailwinds for the company stemming from China's future defense budget. The country's helicopter fleet is still only a tenth of the size of the U.S.'s fleet. It will continue to ramp up production. Export contracts will also support revenue growth for AVIC Helicopter Co. With a strong advance on the Asian military helicopter market, the company is looking to expand in the region. Furthermore, we see some promising developments in the civil helicopter space, with Chinese emergency services and the Civil Aviation Administration ramping up demand. The main headwind might come from the transition to new models, with the new production cycle to be in full force in 2018. AVIC Helicopter Co reported full year results on March 15, which came out weaker than expected. Revenues were virtually flat, contracting by 0.3% year over year, while cost of revenue grew 1.3% year over year. Operating income was also stable relative to last year, contracting 0.4% year over year, helped by an operating expense reduction of 12% year over year. Nevertheless, EBITDA margin declined slightly by 19 basis points to 6.77%, while operating margin fell by 131 basis points to 13.99%. A marginally lower income tax in FY16 allowed the firm to eke out 1.3% year-over-year bottom-line growth. AVIC Helicopters is currently trading at a forward P/E of 48.2x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 13.8% for the next two years. Chart 13Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Aviation Engine Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH): Sole leader in Chinese engine production (Chart 13). Aviation Engine Corporation is part of the government-controlled Aeroengine Corporation of China (AECC), which was established in August 2016 and contributes just under 50% to Being in a monopolistic position on the Chinese market, the company profits from rising military aircraft procurement and prices. As part of the AECC, the company also receives tailwinds from scale effects within the company as well as cost savings in the supply chain. AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation reported weak full year results on March 16. Revenue slid 5.5% year over year, but management kept costs under control (down 7.3% year over year). Operating expenses grew only marginally (up 5.2% year over year), which left operating profit flat compared to last year. Margin trends have been strong; EBITDA margin improved by 78 basis points to 13.05%, while operating margin grew by 42 basis points to 7.78%. However, high net interest expense depressed the bottom line, which fell 13.3% year over year. At the same time the company managed to decrease its debt level for the fourth year in a row. AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation is currently trading at a forward P/E of 52.0x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 14.4% for the next two years. Chart 14Performance Since March 2016: ##br## China Avionics Systems Vs. MSCI EM China Avionics Systems (600372 CH): Leading developer and producer of avionics equipment (Chart 14). China Avionics Systems is also a subsidiary of AviChina, which controls 43% of the free float. The company is active in R&D, running several research institutes in the fields of radar, aviation and navigation control as well as aviation computers and software. China Avionics enjoys a near-monopoly on the Chinese aviation electronics market, and also controls over 90% of the military market for air data systems. Looking at the revenue breakdown, 80% of total revenues come from military contracts, while it is expected that the share of civil revenues will increase with the development of civil aircraft in the country. Aircraft data acquisition devices contribute the most to overall revenue, at 25% of total, followed by airborne sensors at 15%, auto-pilot systems at 14%, distance-sensing alarm systems at 9.5%, and air data systems at 9%. The company reported full year results on March 16. Revenues experienced a mild increase of 1.9% year over year, while costs increased at the same pace (2% year over year). On the operating side, costs increased by 3% year over year, suppressing income by 1% year over year. EBITDA margin fell 37 basis points to 15.15%, while operating margin contracted 30 basis points to 10.60%. The bottom line contracted 3.5% year over year. China Avionics Systems is currently trading at a forward P/E of 55.0x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 13% for the next two years. Chart 15Performance Since March 2016: ##br## Huntington Ingalls Industries Vs. S&P 500 Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US): Largest listed U.S. military shipbuilder (Chart 15). Initially a part of Northrop Grumman, Huntington was spun off and listed in 2011. Huntington enjoys a monopolistic market position, as over 70% of the current U.S. Navy fleet was designed and built by the company's Newport News or Ingalls divisions in Virginia and Mississippi. Huntington is currently the sole designer, builder and re-fueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the U.S. In the nuclear submarines space, the company has one competitor: the Electric Boat unit of General Dynamics. The company also provides a range of services through its Technical Solutions division, centered around fleet support, integrated missions solutions and nuclear and oil and gas operations. Huntington reported full-year results on February 16. Full year revenue was virtually flat (+1% on quarterly basis), while costs increased slightly by 1.6% year over year. The company managed to reduce operating expenses, which fell by 16% to the lowest level since 2010. This helped boost operating profit by 13% year over year. EBITDA margin improved by an impressive 125 basis points to 14.77%, and operating margin was up by 119 basis points to 12.14%. New orders grew by US$5.2 billion, bringing the total pipeline to US$21 billion. The bottom line jumped by 45% year over year, helped by a lower income tax bill and a one-off after-tax adjustment. Huntington Ingalls Industries is currently trading at a forward P/E of 18.1x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 4.2% for the next two years. Chart 16Performance Since March 2016: ##br## General Dynamics Vs. S&P 500 General Dynamics (GD US): Primary contractor for U.S. Navy submarines (Chart 16). General Dynamics is a multinational defense corporation and currently the fourth-largest defense company in the world. The company has four business segments, from which we are mainly interested in the marine systems segment, contributing 25% of overall group revenue. The marine systems segment is represented by General Dynamics' unlisted subsidiary, GD Electric Boat. Electric Boat has long been the main builder of nuclear submarines for the U.S. Navy out of Connecticut, and is expected to be one of the main beneficiaries of the U.S. Navy expansion program under the Trump administration. General Dynamics reported full-year results on January 27, which generally came in flat. Revenue fell by a marginal 0.4% year over year (after the adoption of a new revenue-recognition standard), but the company did a good job in managing costs, which contracted by 1% year over year. Operating income grew by 4% year over year, helped by lower operating costs. Margins improved across the board; EBITDA margin went up 45 basis points to 15.19%, while operating margin was up 54 basis points to 13.74%. The bottom line grew 5% year over year. Management seem confident in their guidance through 2020, including detailed but conservative estimates. Especially promising was the good pipeline visibility in the marine segment, driven by the company's Columbia-class submarine sales. General Dynamics is currently trading at a forward P/E of 19.3x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 6.5% for the next two years. How To Trade? The GPS/EMES team recommends gaining exposure to the sector through a basket of the listed equities, which would consist of five Chinese companies and two U.S. companies. The main goal is active alpha generation by excluding laggards and including out-of-benchmark plays, to avoid passive index hugging via an ETF. Direct: Equity access through the tickers (Bloomberg): AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK); AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH); AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH); AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH); China Avionics Systems (600372 CH); Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US); General Dynamics Corporation (GD US). ETFs: At current time there is one listed ETF covering the China defense sector: Guotai CSI National Defense ETF (512660 CH); And three listed ETFs covering the U.S. defense sector: iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF (ITA US); SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR US); PowerShares Aerospace & Defense Portfolio (PPA US). Funds: At current time there are no funds with significant defense sector exposure. Please note that the trade recommendation is long-term (1Y+) and based on a straight long trade. We don't see a need for specific market timing for this call (for technical indicators please refer to our website link). For convenience, the performance of both market cap-weighted and equally-weighted equity baskets will be tracked (please see upcoming updates as well as the website link to follow performance). Risks To The Investment Case The largest risk to our investment case - leaving aside company-specific risks - would be an unexpected fading away of the tensions in China's near seas, and of China's and America's military spending ambitions. Such a development - which would require a robust diplomatic agreement and an about-face from what the leaders have stated - would hit the weapons producers. Though such a settlement would not necessarily occur overnight, or receive immediate publicity, it would be observable over the course of negotiations between the Trump and Xi administrations. A key event to watch is the upcoming April summit between the two leaders. At the same time, the large momentum in the defense industry (with very long production pipelines), and the very low flexibility of defense budgeting, means that we are comfortable in terms of timing an exit should geopolitical tensions begin to recede. Another risk might come from a slowdown in economic growth in China or the U.S., which could lead to cuts in defense budgets. Nevertheless, in a case of a further escalation in China's near-abroad, we would most likely see defense spending continue to grow despite any weak economic performance, warranted by strategic needs. This is a key dynamic that investors should understand. Strategic distrust between the U.S. and China has worsened since the Great Recession, indicating that the preceding period of strong growth helped keep a lid on U.S.-China tensions. Now the two countries have entered a dilemma in which relations have soured despite their economic recoveries, since both sides are using growth to fuel military development, yet an economic relapse would fuel further distrust. Only a high-level political settlement can break this spiral and such settlements between strategic rivals traditionally require a "crisis." Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The United States sent the USS Carl Vinson carrier group to the South China Sea as part of Freedom of Navigation Operations that the Trump administration may intensify; China is involved in a new spat about "environmental" monitoring stations in the Paracel Islands and in Scarborough Shoal, and is also increasing activity east of the Philippines; it is threatening to impose a new law that would govern foreign ships' access; the question of a Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone lingers; and China has also begun sending large tourist groups to the Paracels. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013 and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Most notably in 1971, 1974, 1988, 1995, 2001, and 2011-14. In the two biggest "battles," 1974 and 1988, China kicked Vietnamese forces out of the Paracel Islands and parts of the Spratly Islands, respectively. These conflicts took place in the context of Vietnam's wars with itself, the U.S., and China, just as the recent rise in tensions takes place in the context of China's emergence as a global power - in other words, international tensions are the cause and maritime-territorial disputes are but a symptom. 7 Most notably the HS981 showdown between China and Vietnam in 2014, which occurred when China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) moved a large mobile drilling rig into the farthest southwest island of the Paracel Islands, near Triton Island, triggering a months-long skirmish with Vietnamese coast guard ships and fishermen that involved Chinese warships and aircraft and the sinking of at least one Vietnamese fishing boat. 8 In fact, officers from China's People's Liberation Army-Navy's southern fleet have recently written publicly and approvingly of the well-known Chinese tactic of fighting "behind a civilian front" to establish control over the sea - which has involved a host of private and public actions covering fishing, energy, coast guard, administration, science and environment, and tourism. Please see "Chinese Military's Dominance in S. China Sea Complete: Report," Kyodo News, March 20, 2017. 9 Please see Bonnie S. Glaser, "Armed Clash In The South China Sea," Council on Foreign Relations, Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 14, April 2012, available at cfr.org. Separately, an American diplomatic estimate from 2016 claims that "more than half the world's merchant fleet tonnage" passes through these waters; see Colin Willett, "Statement ... Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee ... 'South China Sea Maritime Disputes,'" July 7, 2016, available at docs.house.gov [http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS28/20160707/105160/HHRG-114-AS28-Wstate-WillettC-20160707.pdf]. A Chinese study estimates that 47.5% of China's total foreign trade in goods transited the sea in 2014; see Du D. B., Ma Y. H. et al, "China's Maritime Transportation Security And Its Measures Of Safeguard," World Regional Studies 24:2 (2015), pp. 1-10. 10 When President Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson clarified remarks at his senate confirmation hearing in which he threatened that the U.S. would deny China's access to the islands in the South China Sea, he reformulated his statement to say that in the event of a contingency the U.S. needed to be "capable of limiting China's access to and use of its artificial islands" to threaten the U.S. and its allies and partners. 11 Please see footnote 3 above. Another potential implication might be a weaker U.S. position in the partition of the Arctic shelf (which has far more hydrocarbon reserves than the South China Sea), which U.S. rivals like Russia will pursue next against the claims of the U.S. and its allies Norway, Canada, and Denmark. 12 Please see Robert Haddick, Fire on the Water: China, America, and the Future of the Pacific (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2014). 13 It is understood by multiple sources that these missiles cannot be defended successfully against by current anti-missile technology, with one potential exclusion - the recently tested SM-6 Dual I. Otherwise, possible defense methods would lie in the realm of electronic countermeasures. 14 We believe, with medium conviction, that the incoming administration in South Korea will remove the THAAD missile defense sometime in 2017 or 2018 in what would be a major diplomatic quarrel between Seoul and Washington. This is because the soon-to-be ruling Minjoo Party (Democratic Party) will seek to engage North Korea and mend relations with China, and the latter countries' top demand will be removal of the missile defense system that was only put in place in a rushed manner in the final days of the discredited and impeached Park Geun-hye administration. Such a removal would illustrate the U.S.'s disadvantages relative to China in having to deal with alliances, basing, and force structure in a foreign region. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Joint Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated January 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see "2016 Navy Force Structure Assessment (FSA)," dated December 14, 2016, and Ronald O'Rourke, "Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress," Congressional Research Service, September 21, 2016.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Internal dynamics warn that a broad market consolidation phase has begun. The jump in growth vs. value stocks has provided an opportunity to shift to a neutral style bias. Transports have sold off sharply, but downside risks have not yet been fully expunged, especially for the airline group. Recent Changes Growth Vs. Value - Shift to a neutral stance. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature The perceived dovish Fed shift and doubts about the achievability of Trump's policy goals are causing equity market consternation. To the extent that the run up in stocks has largely reflected an improvement in sentiment and other 'soft' economic data, the lack of follow through in 'hard' data has created a validation void. While a weaker U.S. dollar, lower oil prices and less hawkish Fed imply easier monetary conditions, which are ultimately positive for growth, profits and the stock market, a digestion phase still looms. Financials, and banks in particular, had been market leaders, driven up by hopes for a meaningful upward shift in the yield curve and unleashing of animal spirits. But these assumptions are being challenged and there is limited fundamental support. Indeed, bank lending growth remains non-existent and there is no tailwind from improving credit quality. Our view remains that banks carry the most downside risk of all financial groups (please see the March 6 Weekly Report for more details). Regional banks are now down on a year-to-date relative performance basis (Chart 1). In fact, our newly constructed gauge of the equity market's internal dynamics suggests that additional tactical broad market turbulence lies ahead. A composite of relative bank stock, relative transport, small/large cap and industrials/utilities share prices has been a good coincident to leading market indicator in recent years (Chart 2). While no indicator is infallible, the message is that overall market risk is elevated and a choppy period lies ahead, reinforcing our defensive vs. cyclical bias. Nevertheless, it will be important to put any corrective action into a longer-term context. Over the years, we have kept an eye on several qualitative 'unconventional indicators' that have helped time major market turning points. They are meant to augment rather than replace fundamental factors. Chart 1Market Leaders Are Stumbling Chart 2A Yellow Flag From Internal Dynamics Below we highlight five critical variables to gauge whether a correction will devolve into a sustained sell-off. Each of the indicators measures either; profits; business confidence; investor confidence; and/or reflects how liquidity conditions are impacting market dynamics. Investor confidence can be measured through margin debt. While extremely elevated (Chart 3), there is no concrete sign that access to funds is being undermined by the modest backup in interest rates. When the cost of borrowing becomes too onerous, it will manifest in reduced margin debt and forced selling, which will be a serious threat to stocks given that leverage is challenging levels experienced at prior peaks, as a share of nominal income. M&A activity is losing momentum (Chart 4). A peak in merger activity typically coincides with a rising cost of capital. If corporate sector capital availability becomes a pressing issue, then M&A activity will decline further, signaling that the corporate sector is facing growth headwinds. Economic signals are mostly positive. Durable goods orders have tentatively perked back up (Chart 5), reinforcing that profits and confidence have improved after a soft patch. Temporary employment continues to rise (Chart 5). When temp workers shrink, it is often an early warning sign that companies are entering retrenchment mode, given the ease and low cost of reducing this source of labor costs. If temporary employment falls at the same time as share prices, that would be a red flag. The relative performance of consumer discretionary to consumer staples can provide a read on purchasing power and/or the marginal propensity to spend. This share price ratio does not suggest any consumption concerns exist (Chart 4, bottom panel). If consumer staples begin to outperform, then it would warn of a more daunting economic outlook. Chart 3Borrowing Costs Are Not Yet Restrictive Chart 4M&A Is Starting To Labor Chart 5Economic Signals Are Decent In all, these indicators suggest that any pullback will be corrective rather than a trend change. If the profit cycle continues to improve and the Fed has no inflationary need to become restrictive, then any broad market correction could provide an opportunity to selectively add cyclical exposure to portfolios in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we are revisiting our growth vs. value view and providing an update on transports. Growth Vs. Value: Shifting To Neutral Our last style bias update in the December 19 Weekly Report concluded that we would likely recommend moving to a neutral stance over the coming weeks/months from our current growth vs. value (G/V) stance, but expected to do after growth stocks had staged a comeback. That recovery is now well underway and so we are revisiting the outlook. Growth indexes have outperformed value since the depths of the Great Recession. The preference for growth reflected central bank interest rate suppression, which boosted the multiple investors were willing to pay for perceived growth at a time when growth was scarce. In addition, the composition of the growth index is much longer duration than that of the value space. The surge in long-term earnings growth expectations suggests that investors have increased conviction in the durability of the expansion, which has aided the G/V recovery (Chart 6). That monetary experiment has recently begun to pay off, as global economic growth has finally demonstrated evidence of self-reinforcing traction, led by developed countries. As a result, most central banks are well past the point of maximum thrust, which would mean the loss, albeit not a reversal, of the primary support for the secular advance in growth vs. value indexes. Keep in mind that growth benchmarks have a massive technology sector weight, at just over 1/3 of the total index capitalization. Value indices carry only a 7% weight. As shown in previous research, the technology sector underperforms when economic growth is fast enough to create inflationary pressure and therefore, the interest rate structure. Furthermore, value benchmarks have more than 25% of their weight in the financials sector vs. less than 5% for growth indexes. The upshot is that a meaningful interest rate increase would pad the profits of financials-rich value indices while having little to no impact on growth benchmarks by virtue of their tech-dependence. It is no surprise that the G/V ratio trends with technology/financials relative sector performance (Chart 7). The latter has clearly peaked, with an assist from the renormalization in Fed policy. Chart 6Time To Shift Chart 7Two Key Sector Influences These sector discrepancies mean that a critical question for the style decision is what is the path for government bond yields? The U.S. economy is exhibiting signs of self-reinforcing behavior. The small business sector's hiring plans have surged, and the ISM employment index remains solid (Chart 8). Chart 8Economy No Longer Favors Growth Chart 9A Mixed Bag While at least a modest employment slowdown is probable given that the corporate sector is feeling the profit margin pinch from higher wage costs, these gauges do not suggest a major crunch is imminent. The personal savings rate is drifting lower, supporting consumption growth (Chart 8). Value indexes have a higher economic beta than growth benchmarks, owing to their exposure to shorter duration sectors. The gap between growth and value operating margins tends to close when the economy enjoys a meaningful acceleration (Chart 8). Chart 10Volatility Is A Style Driver Other markers of global economic growth are more mixed. The global manufacturing PMI survey is very strong, but oil and other commodity prices have started to diverge negatively (Chart 9). That may soon change if the U.S. dollar has crested, which would provide a much needed fillip to emerging markets and remove a source of deflationary pressure. Real global bond yields are grinding higher, suggesting that in all, economic prospects have improved, and alleviating a major constraint on value stocks. Against this backdrop, it is timely to shift to a neutral style preference after the sharp rebound in the G/V ratio since late last year. Why not a full shift into value indexes? Developing countries are conspicuously lagging developed countries, which caps the outlook for commodities and their beneficiaries. EM capital spending is still very weak in real terms. Deep cyclical sectors are much more heavily-weighted in value benchmarks. A global recovery that has a greater thrust from consumption than investment, at least at the outset, argues against expecting value stocks to outperform. Moreover, the fallout from potentially protectionist U.S. trade policies remains unknown, which could restrain economic growth momentum and unleash volatility in the equity markets. The latter has been incredibly muted in recent months. In fact, BCA's VIX model, which incorporates corporate sector health and interest rate expectations, is heralding a higher VIX. Clearly, elevated volatility has supported the G/V ratio over meaningful periods of time (Chart 10). Bottom Line: Shift to a neutral style bias. A full shift to a value preference would require BCA to forecast a much weaker U.S. dollar and/or demand-driven inflationary pressure. Transports: Stuck In Neutral The S&P transports index peaked in mid-December versus the broad market, the first major sub-group to fizzle after the post-election sugar high (Chart 11). The recent setback has been broad-based. We had been overweight both the rails and air freight & logistics industry sub-groups, but booked gains in both prior to their respective pullbacks. Is it time to get back in? Transportation equities are ultra-sensitive to swings in global economic growth. Chart 12 shows that the relative share price ratio is an excellent leading indicator of both the ISM manufacturing survey and Citi's economic surprise index. The message is that at least a mild mean reversion in both of these indexes looms in the coming months, i.e. beware of some form of economic cooling. Chart 11Transports Have Cracked... Chart 12... Signaling Economic Cooling Ahead Against this backdrop, we are revisiting our last remaining underweight, the S&P airlines index. While rails and air freight & logistics stocks are directly linked to global trade, the same does not hold true for the S&P airlines index. Business and consumer travel budgets are the key drivers of industry demand. A revival in animal spirits and a healthy U.S. consumer could be clear positives for air travel. Moreover, the recent pullback in fuel costs should cushion profit margins for unhedged airline operators (Chart 13). Finally, renowned investor Warren Buffett has recently become a major shareholder in the U.S. airline industry, raising its profile. While betting against Buffett is always fraught with risk, our cautious take on the airline industry boils down to our view that excess capacity will continue to hold back profitability. If the overall transport index is accurately signaling that some loss of economic momentum looms, then a rapid expansion in business and travel spending may not be quick to materialize. A pricing war has already gripped the industry, as airlines are scrambling to fill up planes. Revenue-per-available-seat-mile and U.S. CPI airfare are contracting (Chart 14), reflecting a fight for market share. That is a serious impediment to profit margins. Chart 13Airlines Are Losing Altitude... Chart 14... As Price Wars Persist The headwinds extend beyond the U.S. Chart 15 shows that global airfare deflation also bodes ill for top line industry growth. The lags from previous U.S. dollar strength could compound this source of drag. Absent a decisive recovery in total travel spending, there does not appear to be any catalysts to reverse deflationary conditions. Carriers are still allocating an historically high portion of cash flow to capital spending. While upgrading aging fleets to become more fuel-efficient in an era of low interest rates is a long-term positive, the payback period may be extended. Revenue has failed to keep up with the increase in capital expenditures (Chart 16, bottom panel), suggesting that capacity growth continues to outpace industry demand, a recipe for ongoing pricing pressure. Chart 15Deflation Is Global Chart 16Too Much Capacity This difficult backdrop has begun to infect analyst earnings estimates. Net earnings revisions have nosedived. Relative performance momentum is tightly lined with the trend in earnings estimates (Chart 16). The message is that the breakdown in cyclical momentum has further to run. Indeed, the 52-week rate of change rarely troughs until it reaches much lower levels, warning of additional downside relative performance risks. Bottom Line: The S&P transports group is heralding a period of economic cooling, but the airline sub-component has not yet fully discounted such an outcome. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P airlines index are: UAL, AAL, DAL, LUV & ALK. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Special Report

The aim of this Special Report is to elaborate on and explain the different views on China that have coexisted at BCA in recent years. Although BCA strives to achieve consensus among its strategists, this is not always possible, as has been the case with China. Peter Berezin of the Global Investment Strategy service and Yan Wang of China Investment Strategy have been positive, while Arthur Budaghyan of Emerging Markets Strategy has been negative on both China's business cycle and China-related plays. The focal points of divergence are centered on how Peter, Yan, and Arthur view and explain the relationship between savings, debt, and the misallocation of capital, as well as how they see China's potential roadmap going forward. The debate is moderated by BCA Global Strategist Caroline Miller. Caroline: Peter and Yan, the world - including the Chinese government - is climbing a wall of worry about China's debt load. Why are you guys still smiling? How many Maotai did you have last night? Peter: I don't know what a Maotai is, but I am sure that if I had more than one I wouldn't be smiling this morning. But yes, I am not as worried as Arthur that China is in the midst of an unsustainable credit bubble. Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors in the global equity market (Chart 1). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 2). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 3). Chart 1Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 2Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 3Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy Yes, there is a lot of debt in China. But there is a lot of savings too. In fact, to a large extent, China's high debt levels are just a function of its high saving rate. The evidence suggests that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies (Chart 4). China sits close to the trend line, implying that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 4Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Arthur: Allow me to both agree and disagree with Peter. No, there is no bubble in Chinese equities, but yes, there is a bubble and euphoria in China's property market. Property prices have risen exponentially and are extremely high by any metric. Chinese bank equity valuations have already adjusted, but bank stocks could still sell off if their profits shrink considerably, as I expect. Bank shares are not expensive, but not cheap either, if one adjusts for non-performing loans. I concur that China's property market adjustment will likely resemble that of Hong Kong as opposed to that of the U.S. As Peter noted, in Hong Kong in the late 1990s, property prices plunged by 70%, but few homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. Yet property starts/construction also collapsed by 80% (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong's Property: ##br##Few Mortgage Defaults ##br##But Collapse In Construction Presently in China, the risk is not mortgage defaults but a renewed drop in property construction as well as other types of capital spending. Less construction/capital spending entails less demand for commodities, materials/chemicals and industrial goods. China's residential and non-residential construction activity will contract anew as speculative/investment demand for property weakens. Yan: I agree with Peter that China's rising debt is fundamentally a function of the country's abundant savings. Moreover, the fact that the country's massive savings pool is primarily intermediated via the banking sector and other debt instruments exacerbates the debt buildup. If a country's savings are primarily intermediated by the stock market through equity financing, then high savings do not necessarily lead to high debt, as "savers" become "shareholders" rather than "creditors." In China's case, the country's still relatively undeveloped and volatile equity market has not yet been able to play a meaningful role in financial intermediation. Instead, banks still play a dominant role channeling financial resources. In other words, China's high savings and a banking-centric financial intermediation system are key drivers of the ever-rising debt level. In fact, as long as these two features persist, the country's debt will inevitably continue to rise, as it simply reflects the accumulated savings. Caroline: Arthur, does this line up with how you think about the relationship between savings and debt? Arthur: My thesis has been that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, euphoric behavior among Chinese banks and the shadow banking system - and not the natural result of the country's "excess savings," as Peter and Yan have argued. What economists call "savings" or "excess savings," non-economists refer to as "overproduction" or "excess capacity." This is about concepts, not about China. In economic science, the term "savings" is used to denote the number of goods and services that a nation has produced but not consumed - i.e., they can be used for investment or exports. Peter and Yan are using this textbook definition of "savings." Hence, by "savings" or "excess savings" they mean "excess production." Logically, the glut of goods and services does not flow to banks and create deposits. In brief, "savings" or "excess savings" are real economic variables and have nothing to do with bank deposits - i.e., "monetary savings." Peter, Yan and many other commentators make this mistake by mixing up national savings - which is literally output of goods and services that were not consumed by households and government - with "monetary savings," i.e., deposits in the banking system. I have no doubt China has had a high savings rate, i.e., it has had overcapacity and over-production in a number of sectors. The textbook concept of national savings is calculated as a residual from the national accounts and balance of payments. In particular: Savings - Investments = Current Account Balance and Savings = Investments + Current Account Balance A few remarks on the economic interpretation of this equation are in order. First, in any country, "excess" national savings over investment, i.e., current account surpluses, lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but has no implication on domestic loan creation.1 Second, a country that invests a lot and does not run a large current account deficit will have a high savings rate as per the economic textbook's definition of national savings. The opposite also holds true. Critically, national or household savings are in no way linked to the amount of deposits at banks. When households decide to save a part of their income, they do not create new deposits or "monetary savings." They save deposits that already exist in the banking system. To sum up, the amount of deposits in the banking system does not change as a result of households' decision to save a part of their income. When a person gets paid in cash and deposits that cash in a bank as a savings deposit, there is no new money created either. That cash was a deposit and was withdrawn from a bank a few days before, and now this cash returns to the banking system as a deposit again. In this case, the amount of total outstanding money supply in the economy (cash plus deposits) has not changed. In general, when a bank receives a deposit, it does not create new money, or "monetary savings." The deposit simply moves from one bank to another or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. When a country enjoys a lot of overcapacity, strong bank loans or money growth will not cause inflation and interest rates will stay low, encouraging more borrowing. This is why in Peter's Chart 4 there is a positive correlation between the national savings rate and debt-to-GDP ratio across countries. Overcapacity entails low inflation; the latter keeps nominal interest rates low, which in turn entices more borrowing and debt build-up. In brief, the linkage between national savings/excess capacity and the credit-to-GDP ratio is indirect via subdued inflation and low interest rates that encourage debt build-up. Caroline: Arthur, you have made the case that savings are not a constraint to loan origination. Can you elaborate? Arthur: The banking system does not intermediate "savings" or "excess savings" from the real economy into loans. The commercial banking system as a whole creates deposits at the time it originates loans. This is true of all countries. Indeed, whenever commercial banks make a loan, they simultaneously create a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart 6). In other words, bank loan origination creates deposits and money.2 Chart 6Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits China's banking system has a lot of deposits because banks have created too many loans. In addition, a bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it originates. It still requires some liquidity to settle its net balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it may not require liquidity to "back up" the loan. There are many variables that constrain bank loan origination, but they do not include national savings or "excess savings." We discussed these constraints in detail in our EMS report titled Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses.3 Finally, when central banks opt to keep short-term interest rates steady, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. This point is greatly relevant to China. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money) (Chart 7). As a result, nowadays the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks. Chart 7The PBoC Has Begun Targeting Rates In Recent Years It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. The PBoC decides whether or not to accommodate banks' liquidity needs by allowing interest rates to rise or fall, or by keeping them steady.4 To conclude, what habitually drives credit booms in any country are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers - not national savings. This has been the case in China too. Caroline: Peter, do you agree with Arthur's assessment? Peter: I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds of monetary theory, but let me briefly address two distinct points that I think Arthur is making. The first is the claim that the ability of banks to create money "out of thin air" is somehow not constrained by the volume of bank reserves and cash in circulation (the so - called "monetary base"). The second is the claim that there is no meaningful link between savings and deposits. I think Arthur is wrong on both counts. On the first claim, it is true that when a bank issues a loan, it also creates a deposit. To the extent that bank deposits are treated as "money," this expands the money supply. This is simply the "money multiplier" taught in introductory economics classes. Where Arthur's logic falls short is in his implicit assumption that all lending translates into additional bank deposits. It doesn't have to. Some of the deposits will be withdrawn and kept as cash. Governments have complete control over how much cash there is in circulation by virtue of their monopoly over the printing press. As long as cash exists, central banks can influence the broad money supply via open market operations. By the way, this is true even in banking systems where there are no reserve requirements. Regarding Arthur's claim that lending can occur without savings, this is often true when someone is borrowing money to buy an asset. However, it is generally not true if they are borrowing money to finance new spending. Let me offer a concrete, albeit somewhat whimsical, example to illustrate this point. Suppose I am living in a closed economy where no one saves anything. Now, let's imagine that I decide to throw a party for myself and need to borrow $1000 to do this. Who is going to provide me with the resources? Well, we just said that no one wants to save, so "something" has to adjust for me to have my party. That "something" is the interest rate. In order to entice someone to spend a bit less, the bank (on my behalf) will offer depositors a higher interest rate. If rates rise by enough, someone will decide to forego a bit of consumption today in order to have more consumption tomorrow. In other words, my decision to borrow must result in someone else's decision to save. So do savings create debt or does debt create savings? The answer is both: interest rates adjust to ensure that the two end up being different sides of the same coin. Caroline: Yan, what's your perspective on China's high debt profile? What could you be missing? Yan: As you can see Arthur and I view China's debt profile through different theoretical lenses. I don't think we can fully reconcile our different frameworks on the matter, but we hope our debate can deepen clients' own understanding of this issue, so they can make up their own minds. What I do want to stress is that those analysts who fear that China's corporate debt problem constitutes an alarming systemic financial risk focus exclusively on the rapid increase in the country's debt-to-GDP ratio. While undoubtedly there is merit to this ratio, I think it is also important to validate this judgement by looking at other indicators. In our previous research, we looked beyond this widely cited conventional indicator for corroborating evidence of a "debt bubble." Our findings suggest that the level of Chinese corporate sector leverage is not as precarious as widely perceived. For example, in the Chinese corporate sector, the area of China's economy where investors worry most about leverage, the debt-to-asset ratio of China's industrial sector has been falling since the late 1990s, down to 56% from 62%, contrary to popular belief (Chart 8). State-owned enterprises have witnessed an increase in their debt-to-asset ratio since the global financial crisis, but it has barely reached late 1990s levels, and has actually rolled over in recent years. Meanwhile, SOEs are a shrinking part of the overall economy and therefore, when looked at in conjunction with the private sector, have not moved the needle on the broader trend of corporate balance sheet "deleveraging." This stands in stark contrast to Japan's corporate sector at the peak of its debt bubble. In the early 1990s, Japan's corporate sector debt-to-asset ratio topped out at 78% when the country's "balance sheet recession" began (Chart 9). Even after two decades of deleveraging, Japan's current corporate debt-to-asset ratio is comparable to China's. To validate this conclusion, we also calculated several other key ratios to compare the leverage situation of Chinese listed companies relative to their global peers. Ratios such as liability-to-assets, net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage assess both leverage levels and debt servicing capacity. As Chart 10 shows, our extensive survey, both from the top down and the bottom up, suggests that China's leverage situation is comparable if not superior to its global peers. Chart 8The Leverage Picture From A Balance Sheet Perspective Chart 9Japan's Debt Bubble And Deleveraging Chart 10Leverage Ratios: How China Compares Therefore, I think we should be skeptical about the widely held view that China's corporate sector leverage is precariously high. It is at a minimum inaccurate, if not misleading, to rely solely on the debt-to-GDP ratio to reach such an ominous conclusion. Caroline: Arthur, I take it you don't agree? Arthur: Since January 2009, China's corporate and household debt has risen by RMB 130 trillion (about US$ 19 trillion) or by 100% of GDP (Chart 11). I do not believe even the most sophisticated financial/credit systems can allocate such amounts of credit in such a short time and not misallocate capital. By capital misallocation, I am implying investments in projects that do not generate sufficient cash flow to service debt. The accounting value (valuation) of assets is irrelevant in these cases; the cash flow generation is critical. The debt-to-GDP ratio is a much more superior measure to debt-to-asset-ratio. The basis is that the GDP is a proxy for cash flow, while accounting value of assets could be extremely inflated during a credit bubble. To be sure, I am not suggesting that all investments in China have gone sour. Nobody knows the extent of capital misallocation in China. But I suspect it is large enough to make a difference for the macro outlook/business cycle. Caroline: Peter, you have made the comparison between China today and Japan in the 1990s. Could you expand on that? Peter: Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 12). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government ended up having to absorb the private sector's excess savings through its own dissaving. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 13). Chart 11China: The Credit Boom Chart 12Japan Relied On Fiscal Largesse And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 13China: Debt Increased When ##br##The Current Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (please see Chart 8). In effect, China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere": They are a necessary evil. Caroline: Arthur, your thoughts? Arthur: What Peter and Yan in effect propose is that Chinese banks should continue creating credit/money "out of thin air" in order to create demand for these "excess" goods, i.e., overcapacity sectors. In a nutshell, a number of Chinese companies made bad decisions by over expanding capacity, and now banks have to continue lending/creating demand to justify these bad investments. As a result, persisting explosive credit growth has allowed these unviable or zombie enterprises to survive, and they are not compelled to restructure. This is not how capitalism and markets work. This is de facto socialism. Socialism usually does not lead to prosperity. One of the key reasons behind the failure of socialist economic models is that productivity growth in socialist systems is very low, often close to zero. The basis is that productivity growth is generated not by government officials but by the private sector and entrepreneurs. China's economic success over the past 35 years or so has been due to allowing private enterprises to function and flourish - not because government officials necessarily made correct business and investment decisions. I am for countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. However, the credit boom in China has gone well beyond the countercyclical policy framework. The concept of countercyclical policies does not suggest that the government or public banks should continue to spend in perpetuity to support fundamentally unviable businesses that invested too much and created excess capacity. Besides, "countercyclical" means for a couple of years. China has been expanding bank/credit/money for about nine years - since January 2009. Peter and Yan argue that they should keep doing it further. If the authorities do what Peter and Yan propose, investors should be structurally - not cyclically - bearish on Chinese stocks. Chart 14There Has Been No Shortage ##br##Of Demand Since 2010 The basis is that a socialist growth model is not friendly for shareholders. Shareholders often lose money when companies operate for maximizing employment rather than profits. This is why Chinese SOEs and bank stocks trade at low multiples - because they destroy capital and value for their shareholders. Notably, "overproduction" and "excess capacity" could be an outcome of either a demand downturn or oversupply/overproduction. Keynes recommended countercyclical policies to fill the gaps when demand shrinks. Chart 15Fiscal Outlays & Credit Origination ##br##Are Close To 50% Of GDP In China's case, there has been no domestic demand downturn to warrant multi-year countercyclical policies. China did the right thing in early 2009 to offset its export plunge amid the Global Financial Crisis, and it helped the global economy recover. However, since 2010 global demand and mainland exports have been stable (Chart 14), making the extended and ongoing credit boom in China unwarranted and excessive. As to the argument that most credit should be counted as a form of fiscal spending, I do not think Chinese policymakers themselves would agree with this statement. In fact, if this is correct, it would mean that government officials are allocating about 50% of GDP each year. Chart 15 illustrates general (central plus local) government spending and annual credit origination as a share of GDP. How fast would productivity grow in an economy where government bureaucrats allocate 50% of GDP annually? It is true that China's central government has a low debt load so it can afford to take over a large chunk of corporate debt. If and when they do so, I will change my view. So far, they have not done this, and will likely only contemplate such a policy move when things get really messy. Investors do not want to be long China plays going into such a scenario. That said, a tactical buying opportunity could emerge when the government takes over a large chuck of corporate debt. Caroline: Yan, how worried should we be about the misallocation of capital in China? Yan: Every economy experiences some level of capital misallocation. The real question is whether China's level of capital misallocation is more serious than that of its global peers. Theoretically, if a country has a bigger capital misallocation problem than others, the economy should have systemically lower capacity utilization, weaker pricing power, and lower profitability. These metrics are easily cross-referenced: Chart 16 contextualizes China's industrial sector capacity utilization ratio relative to global peers. By and large, most countries' capacity utilization ratios hover around 80%, not much different from China's, especially since the 2000s. In fact, barring some obvious outliers, capacity utilization ratios across countries have been largely synchronized, reflecting the ebb and flow of the global business cycle. Chart 16Capacity Utilization: A Global Perspective Industrial sector output prices have shown similar swings (Chart 17). Almost all countries suffered producer price deflation in recent years, and are now experiencing a synchronized upturn in wholesale pricing power. China's falling PPI was widely regarded as a tell-tale sign of misallocation of capital. Conversely, this was in fact more a reflection of stagnating global aggregate demand and weak resource prices worldwide than structurally weak pricing power among Chinese manufacturers. Chart 17Producer Prices: A Global Perspective Similarly, Chinese listed companies' deteriorating Return on Equity (ROE) was again singled out as a sign of capital misallocation. This view is easily debunked by Chart 18, as ROEs have fallen in all major markets. In fact, Chinese companies' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global averages. Even some Chinese sectors that have been derided as being plagued by massive overcapacity and inefficiency such as materials and energy exhibit ROEs almost identical to their global peers. The important point is that we should put China in a global context, rather than analyzing it in isolation. Some Chinese firms' efficiency and profitability have weakened notably over the past several years, but to me, this is more of a reflection of the sluggish global macro backdrop, rather than an indictment of China's discrete growth model. Caroline: Turning to the investment implications, Yan, how does the debt bubble concern impact your view on Chinese equities? Yan: Global investors' widespread concerns over Chinese debt levels and other macro issues have contaminated Chinese stocks with a broad-brushed bearish undertone. Chinese equities have been unduly punished, underweighted and under-owned for many years. As shown in Chart 19, Chinese investable stocks' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global benchmark, and have followed similar cyclical fluctuations. However, their stock prices are trading at massive discounts to the global benchmarks, based on conventional yardsticks (Chart 19). This in my view represents the "China risk premium," which is unjustified and unsustainable. I expect the misperception will eventually unwind, and Chinese shares will be re-rated. This is the fundamental factor supporting my positive view on Chinese equities. Strategically it makes sense to overweight Chinese stocks against their global peers. Chart 18Chinese ROEs Are Not Inferior To Global Peers Chart 19Chinese Equities' Large Valuation Gap Caroline: Arthur, how does your view impact your outlook for investment prospects in China and the rest of the emerging markets space? Arthur: There has not been any adjustment in China's corporate leverage. Deleveraging in China has not yet started. On the contrary, the credit bubble is getting larger. I mean the credit-to-GDP ratio continues rising exponentially and credit and bank loan growth remain in double digits (Chart 20). It is very risky to be bullish on financial assets linked to a bubble when the adjustment has not yet begun. It is like running in front of a steamroller trying to collect pennies. Besides, when there is a major imbalance in the system like the credit bubble happening in China now, I tend to overplay the importance of marginal policy tightening and underplay the significance of easing. Recent marginal policy tightening in China - in particular the clampdown on shadow banking, including banks' off-balance-sheet asset expansion - will cause credit growth to decelerate. This is a major risk to Chinese and EM growth in the second half of this year (Chart 21). Chart 20China: Money/Credit Is Still Booming Chart 21Is China's Recovery At Risk? Even if China does not have a full-blown crisis, we are likely to experience another down leg in China plays, commodities and EM risk assets similar to the second half of 2015, when Chinese import volumes contracted and global markets tanked. A few words about the potential adjustment trajectory are in order. I have been negative on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets since 2010, but I have never used the word "crisis." China may or may not have a crisis, but investors holding risk assets exposed to China's growth will suffer considerable losses again similar to the 2011-16 period. It is essential to differentiate cyclical from structural growth drivers. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, China will move toward a socialist model and structural growth will tumble. That said, the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart 22. Chart 22Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation And Inflation If we assume China's productivity is currently growing at a rate of about 5.5-6% (which is already very high and hard to sustain), and if the country embarks on a socialist path, odds are that productivity growth will drop by 50-100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1-3%. This path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably one of these mini-cycles. How can investors invest in this scenario? The stylized mini-cycles depicted in Chart 22 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. In short, investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Caroline: Peter, is it all that bad? Peter: I think Arthur is too pessimistic. Investors have been predicting a Japanese debt crisis for years. It hasn't materialized and probably won't. They are making the same mistake about China. If China averts a debt crisis, as I think is likely, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions in local-currency terms. For global bonds, the implications are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Caroline: Yan, do domestic politics play into your outlook for the RMB versus the dollar and on a trade-weighted basis? What is your outlook for monetary policy given recent signs of improving economic momentum? Yan: How President Donald Trump will deal with China on the RMB issue is a wildcard. Recent rhetoric suggests that the new U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal protocol to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from Candidate Trump's repeated campaign trail promises. If the U.S. Treasury follows the formal process laid out in the statute, it is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator in the next semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the criteria for that label at the moment. The odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB have ebbed. From China's domestic perspective, how the People's Bank of China intends to manage the exchange rate is also a thorny issue. From a long term point of view, the PBoC clearly wants to achieve a free-floating exchange rate, but the recent downward pressure on the RMB due to elevated capital outflows has forced the PBoC to heavily intervene to prevent a vicious, disorderly cycle, in which currency depreciation and capital flight reinforce each other. In terms of monetary policy, China's improving economic momentum has allowed the PBoC to follow the Fed in raising short-term interest rates. However, tighter capital account control measures will remain in place until the downward pressure on the RMB from capital outflow dissipates. Moreover, investors have been overwhelmingly focused on the negative economic effects of a weaker RMB, somehow ignoring the reality that as the world's largest manufacturer and exporter, China also stands to benefit from a weaker currency. In my view, the depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB since 2015 has played a critical role in reflating the Chinese economy (Chart 23). A weaker RMB has helped producer prices to reflate, and lowered the real cost of funding for manufacturers, which in turn has eased China's monetary conditions and supported cyclical growth improvement. In this vein, the downside of the RMB should be self-limiting, as the reflationary impact of a weaker exchange rate will help boost Chinese growth, which in turn will reduce downward pressure on the currency. Caroline: Peter and Arthur, is rampant capital flight still a risk? Where do you see the RMB heading over the coming 12-18 months? Peter: I think the RMB will weaken somewhat over the coming year, but that is more a reflection of my bullish view on the dollar than a bearish view on the yuan. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has just been an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding four years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese corporate external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 24). At this point, most of the hot money has exited the country and hence, I expect the pace of capital outflows to subside. Chart 23A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery Chart 24The Rise And Fall Of Corporate Foreign Credit Nevertheless, the chronic shortfall of domestic demand that I described earlier will keep pressure on the Chinese government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. This requires a weak currency. Thus, while I don't expect the yuan to plummet, I don't expect it to soar either. Arthur: I believe the RMB is set to depreciate by 10% or more against the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months or so. The Chinese yuan is not expensive, but it will stay under downward pressure because the mainland banking system has created too many yuan. When the supply of money goes vertical, its price drops. It seems the Chinese people are sensing there is too much RMB floating around, and they are trying to get rid of local currency. They have been overpaying for properties and have been shifting their wealth into foreign currencies. Finally, in China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart 25, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate turned negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart 25, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Chart 25Real Deposit Rate Is Negative In brief, I expect capital outflows to persist and policymakers to allow the currency to depreciate further. Caroline: Peter/Yan/Arthur: Final thoughts: What are each of you watching for signs that China's macro landscape is evolving as you expect? Conversely, what would signal that your assessment has missed the mark? Peter: I am watching for signs of a policy mistake. Until China can reorient its economy towards one that is more consumer-centric, it will have to rely on high levels of investment to sustain aggregate demand. Any attempt to aggressively curb debt growth will only backfire. Arthur talks about resource misallocation from subpar investment projects, but there is no worse resource misallocation than a person who wants a job but can't find one. I am also watching trade policy. I don't think a trade war between China and the U.S. is in the cards for the time being, but if the U.S. economy turns down in 2019, as I expect, Trump will be backed into a corner. And with another election looming, he will strike out at China. That could trigger a global trade war. Yan: I agree with Peter that we should watch for policy mistakes and some sort of "Trump shock," both of which constitute downside risks. A less talked-about risk is potential growth overheating, which could require much tighter policy, leading to greater economic volatility. In fact, some cyclical indicators that are tightly linked to industrial activity have rebounded sharply, which is also reflected in the rebound in some raw materials prices. If exports get a further boost from continued improvement in the U.S. economy, the possibility of China's economy overheating cannot be completely dismissed. Another potential trouble spot is the housing market. The Chinese authorities have begun to tighten housing policy, but developers appear to be gearing up for another construction cycle. Sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators have soared. Historically, construction machine sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 26). If history is any guide, the renewed strength in construction equipment sales could be a harbinger of an impending boom in new home construction. This is good news for business activity and GDP growth, but probably antithetical to policymakers' broad agenda. We will follow up on these issues closely in our future reports. Arthur: The key variables to watch are various interest rates, credit/loan growth and inflation - in addition to keeping an eye on lending standards and credit demand. Recent increases in borrowing costs amid the enormous credit overhang give me confidence to argue that China's credit origination and economic growth are bound to decelerate later this year. A billion-dollar question is whether the recent rise in China's consumer inflation is transitory or the beginning of a notable uptrend (Chart 27). If consumer price inflation rises to 3% and higher, the game will be over - interest rates will need to go up and credit growth will tumble. If interest rates do not rise amid intensifying inflationary pressures, capital outflows will escalate and the currency will depreciate a lot. Chart 26An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 27China: Inflation Is Picking Up I will be wrong if policymakers manage to slow down credit growth from 11-12% toward 7-8% or so without generating notable economic weakness. This can occur only if productivity growth in China accelerates meaningfully. It is difficult to observe productivity growth in real time - it is a black box. 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?" dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.