Geopolitics
Highlights The Mueller investigation is part of the "Trump Put;" General White House disarray and congressional incompetence combine to produce Goldilocks conditions for U.S. equities; Mexico's frontrunner in the upcoming elections, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, is no Chavez; Malaysian political risks are overstated, the ruling Barisan Nasional has pushed through painful reforms; With economic growth stabilizing, cheap valuations, and overstated political risks, Malaysia could be an intriguing investment opportunity. Feature This week, we turn to two emerging markets: Mexico and Malaysia. Our approach to EMs is to look for opportunities where politics may emerge as the alpha amidst appealing valuations. We rely on our sister strategy, BCA's Emerging Market Strategy, for fundamental analysis, to which we then add our political research. We find it striking that these two EMs are the very two that stood to suffer the most should U.S. Congress have passed a border adjustment tax (Chart 1). Not only have the Republicans forsworn the border tax, but these countries will benefit from other trends, as we explain below. Before we dive into Malaysia and Mexico, however, a short note on the latest developments in the White House is in order. Clients from St. Louis, Missouri to Auckland, New Zealand are asking us the same question this summer: when does the Mueller investigation become a headwind for the SPX? Chart 1Vulnerability To U.S. Import Tariffs And Border Adjustment Taxes The "Trump Put" Continues Our answer is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation may already be a tailwind to the U.S. equity market. The investigation, along with general White House disarray and congressional incompetence, makes up the ongoing "Trump Put."1 The American political imbroglio has combined with decent earnings and steady global growth to produce Goldilocks conditions for U.S. equities, while simultaneously weakening the USD and supporting Treasuries. The political fulcrum upon which all these assets turn is the failure of the Trump administration to deliver its promised fiscal stimulus (Chart 2). Tax reform, which was supposed to be the main vehicle of such stimulus, is increasingly looking like it will fail to live up to its hype. We still think it will pass, for three broad reasons: Chart 2Handcuffed Trump The Most Likely Scenario Trump's low popularity remains an albatross around the neck of GOP candidates in the November 2018 elections, with potentially ominous results. Our simple "line-of-best-fit" model between a Republican president's approval rating and the GOP's midterm performance produces a 38-seat loss in the upcoming election (Chart 3). Republicans need a legislative win and need it fast. The House has laid the groundwork for tax reform, passing the FY2018 budget resolution with reconciliation instructions focused on tax legislation. This means that the Obamacare replace and repeal effort has until October 1 to be resolved.2 Investors are conflating replacing and repealing Obamacare with tax reform. The former is an entitlement program, the latter a more popular measure that Republicans have always tried to move through Congress. It is very rare for U.S. policymakers to successfully reduce or remove an entitlement program. Cutting, even reforming, taxes is easier to justify politically. Chart 3The Clock Is Ticking For The GOP On Tax Reform Although we still maintain that tax reform, or mere tax cuts, will happen, they are unlikely to be as stimulative as originally advertised. Corporate and household tax rates are unlikely to be lowered by as much as originally touted. That is because Republicans in the House will demand "revenue offsets" to accomplish rate reduction, yet they have already lost key offsets like Obamacare repeal and the border adjustment tax.3#fn_3 The White House could change all that by using its considerable political capital among conservative grassroots voters and the bully pulpit to get fiscally conservative Republicans in the House to move a stimulative tax reform through Congress. But, as we noted two weeks ago, factional fighting in the White House and an ineffective chief of staff are considerable hurdles.4 A few days after we published that report, President Trump replaced Reince Priebus with retired General and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. While Kelly is likely to introduce some discipline into the White House, we doubt he will make the executive more effective in cajoling House Representatives to toe the administration's line on tax reform. This is because Kelly adds no legislative experience to a White House that is already quite low on it by recent historical standards (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Administration Is On The Low End Of Congressional Experience Additionally, the Trump Administration continues to drag its feet on presidential appointments, hurting the effectiveness of the executive. Only 220 appointments had been sent to the Senate by July 19, compared to the average 309 during the same time period by the previous four presidents (Chart 5). The Senate is very slow in confirming the candidates, perhaps because of their unorthodox backgrounds and resumes. The average time to confirm a Trump nominee is 45 days, which is astonishing given that the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Chart 5The Trump Administration Is Dragging Its Feet On Appointments In addition to the ineffectiveness of the White House, investors fret that the ongoing Mueller investigation, which has just impaneled a grand jury, could undercut the rally in risk assets. By summoning a grand jury Mueller can subpoena documents and obtain testimony of witnesses under oath. Doing so will accelerate the investigation and perhaps take it down new avenues. For example, the Kenneth Starr investigation initially focused on the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments by Bill Clinton. But the trail led elsewhere. Ultimately, the "Starr Report" alleged that Clinton lied under oath regarding his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Impeachment proceedings ensued. That said, we are sticking with our conclusion from May that investors should look through any risk of impeachment or indictment for President Trump, at least as long as Republicans hold the House of Representatives (i.e., at least until the midterms in 2018).5 In particular, there are three main reasons to fade any near-term equity market volatility: President Mike Pence - Under both impeachment rules and the 25th amendment, the U.S. president would be replaced by the vice president. Vice President Pence's approval rating largely tracks that of President Trump and is in the 40% area, but investors should note that he once stood at nearly 60% during the campaign (Chart 6). As such, the worst-case scenario for investors in the event of a post-midterm impeachment is that Trump is replaced by Pence, an orthodox Republican, and that Pence has to deal with a split Congress. And that is not bad! It would grind reforms to a halt, but at least tax reform would be out of the way by then. Midterm Election - If the Trump White House becomes engulfed in scandal, Republicans in the House will fear losing their majority. Yes, the partisan drawing of electoral districts - "gerrymandering" - has reduced the number of competitive U.S. House districts from 164 in 1998 to 72 in 2016 (Chart 7). But the Democrats managed to win the House in 2006 and the Republicans managed to take it back in 2010, so there is no reason the roles cannot be reversed yet again. However, this is not a risk, it is an opportunity. It will motivate the GOP in Congress to lock in tax and health care reform well ahead of the midterm elections. Counter-Revolution - With Trump embattled and facing impeachment, the market may let out a sigh of relief because it would mark a clear defeat of populist politics in the U.S. Much as with electoral outcomes in Europe, investors may want to cheer the defeat of an unorthodox, anti-establishment movement in the U.S. As such, we would push against any "Russia scandal"-induced volatility in the U.S. markets, at least until the midterm election. We think the market would digest the volatility and realize that Trump's impeachment, were it to occur after midterm elections, would not arrest the Republican agenda before the midterms. After all, the GOP has waited over 15 years to make Bush-era tax cuts permanent and the opportunity to do so may evaporate within the next 12 months. In addition, given the performance of high tax-rate S&P 500 equities (Chart 8), investors appear to have already discounted the failure of meaningful tax reform in the market. This means that the "Trump Put" is in full effect: investors are bidding up risk assets not because they expect something to happen (tax reform, fiscal stimulus, financial deregulation, etc.), but because they expect nothing to happen (no fiscal stimulus, no fast Fed rate hikes, no onerous regulation for businesses, etc.). Chart 6Could Be Worse ##br##Than Pence Chart 7Gerrymandering Reduces##br## Competitive House Seats Chart 8Investors No Longer##br## Expect Tax Reform What about the long term? A scandal-ridden White House, escalating leaks against the administration, and a mounting bureaucratic revolt against the executive cannot be good for the U.S., can they? The news flow out of Washington increasingly looks like news from Ankara, Brasilia, or Pretoria. There are two diametrically opposed directions the U.S. can take. The first is deepening polarization and policy gridlock that leads to President Trump being replaced by an even greater bout of populism in 2020 or 2024. We described this scenario recently in a pessimistic note about the coming social unrest in America.6 The alternative is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress (particularly the Senate), representing the country's elites, decide to work together on legislation. Both parties recently united to pass veto-proof sanctions on Russia with a 98-2 vote that has bound the executive to future review by Congress. And some green shoots of bipartisanship appeared over the past two weeks on tax reform and even on health care. It is too soon to say which path American policymakers will take. Investors may have to wait until after the midterm election for genuine cooperation. But it would be very positive for the U.S. economy and prospects of reform if genuine bipartisanship emerged as a reaction to the incompetence, scandal, nationalism, and populism of the White House. Bottom Line: The intensifying Mueller investigation and ongoing White House incompetence will only further fuel the "Trump Put." This is positive for U.S. equities, neutral for bonds, and bad for the dollar, ceteris paribus. A significant pickup in inflation could overwhelm the "Trump Put" and cause the dollar to rally. As such, investors should focus on inflation prospects more than politics in the White House. What If Mexico Builds A Wall First? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The election of President Donald Trump, an unabashed nationalist who campaigned on an anti-immigrant platform, is spurring the campaign of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, also known as AMLO, in the upcoming July 1, 2018 elections in Mexico. Obrador has been a left-wing firebrand of Mexican politics for years. He was the Head of Government of Mexico City (essentially the city's mayor) from 2000 to 2005 and contested a close election against Felipe Calderon in 2006, which he narrowly lost. He lost the 2012 election by a much wider margin, but still came second to current president Enrique Pena Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Obrador's election campaign calls for a confrontational attitude towards President Trump, the renegotiation of NAFTA, an increase to farm subsidies, and limitations on foreign investment in Mexico. He has said that he would reverse the opening of the energy sector to foreign investment through a referendum, but that he is in favor of public-private partnerships in the sector. That said, his left-wing firebrand persona is more PR than substance. In 2012, for example, he also campaigned on cutting government expenditure and ending monopolies - not exactly Chavista credentials. Nonetheless, he quit the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) to form a more left-wing movement. Obrador's new party, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA), did well in the 2015 midterms and is currently leading in the polls ahead of the 2018 election (Chart 9). MORENA also did well in the State of Mexico, a PRI stronghold and Nieto's home state, in the June 4 election. The ruling PRI held the state for 90 years and is accused of election-rigging in order to, only narrowly, defeat an unknown MORENA candidate this year. Chart 9MORENA Has Lead In The Polls Given that the election is a year away, it is too soon to make a forecast. Nonetheless, it is clear that Obrador is the frontrunner for the presidency. There are three reasons why his election may be an over-hyped risk: The Congress: For much of Mexico's twentieth century history, the president was essentially a dictator due to the one-party rule of PRI. In the twenty-first century, however, Congress has become plural, forcing the president to cooperate with the body or see his reforms stalled. Given recent elections (Chart 10), it is highly unlikely that Obrador would have a congressional majority behind him, thus forcing him to temper his policies. Chart 10Mexico's Rising Political Plurality The PAN-PRD Alliance: An unlikely alliance of the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and the center-left PRD has emerged as a reaction to the rise of MORENA in the polls. (These two parties have a history of cooperating against PRI presidents.) The two parties come from completely opposite ideological spectrums, but successfully joined forces in several state elections in 2016. It is unlikely that the two parties will unify sufficiently to field a single candidate - they failed to do so in the June 4 State of Mexico elections - but they may get enough votes to form a plurality in Congress. Mexicans do not lean left: Unlike most of Latin America, Mexico is a conservative country. Most Mexicans either think of themselves as centrist or lean right (Chart 11). While our data stops in 2015, the historical trend is clear: Mexico is a right-leaning country. As such, it is highly unlikely that AMLO will be able to manipulate the country's democratic institutions - which have been strengthened over the past twenty years - to turn Mexico into Venezuela. Chart 11Mexicans Lean Right We would therefore fade any politically induced volatility in Mexican assets. Next year, investors should prepare to "sell the rumor and buy the news" (you read that right), as Mexican election fever grips the markets. Given current macroeconomic fundamentals, an entry point in Mexican assets may develop if they sell off ahead of the election - but they are not a buy at the moment. BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has pointed out in a recent report that:7 Inflation is well above the central bank's target and is broad based (Chart 12). Notably, wage growth is elevated (Chart 13). Given meager productivity growth, unit labor costs - calculated as wage-per-hour divided by productivity (output-per-hour) - are rising. This will depress companies' profit margins and make them eager to hike selling prices. This will, in turn, prevent inflation from falling and, consequently, hamper Banxico's ability to cut rates for now. Chart 12Inflation is Above Target Chart 13Wage Inflation Is High Meanwhile, the impact of higher interest rates will continue filtering through the economy. High interest rates entail a further slowdown in money and credit growth and, hence, in domestic demand. Both consumer spending and capital expenditure by companies are set to weaken a lot (Chart 14). This will weigh on corporate profits and share prices. Even though non-oil exports and manufacturing output are accelerating (Chart 15), non-oil exports - which make about 30% of GDP - are not large enough to offset the deceleration in domestic demand from monetary tightening. That said, the positive for Mexico is that the Mexican peso remains cheap (Chart 16) and may rally against other EM currencies. Our EM strategists suggest that investors should overweight MXN versus ZAR and BRL. Chart 14Domestic Demand to Buckle Chart 15Exports are Robust Chart 16Peso is Cheap If EM currencies depreciate or oil prices drop, it would be difficult to see MXN rally against the USD. However, MXN should outperform other currencies, especially given that political risks in Mexico are far lower than they are in Brazil and South Africa. Bottom Line: The Mexican markets may get AMLO-fever in 2018. Obrador is a clear frontrunner in the election to be held a year from now. However, AMLO will face off against constitutional, political, and societal constraints. As such, we would fade any politically induced risks in Mexican markets. Go strategically long MXN versus BRL and ZAR and look for an entry point into Mexican risk assets over the next 12 months. Malaysia: Hold Your Nose And Buy We have been broadly bearish on Malaysia since August 2015, but the upcoming elections - due by August 2018, but we expect to occur sooner rather than later - are likely to cause the markets to re-price Malaysian assets (Chart 17). The country's fundamentals are not rosy, and it remains vulnerable to a slowdown in China, a drop in commodities prices, and bad loans. Nevertheless, its underperformance is late, and this fact, combined with the political outlook, suggests that it will outperform for a while. Malaysia is in the midst of a long saga of party polarization that began amid the Asian Financial Crisis, when Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad ousted his ambitious deputy, Anwar Ibrahim. Both men hailed from the dominant party of the country's ethnic Malay majority: the United Malay National Organization (UMNO), which is the center of Barisan Nasional (BN). The BN is a multi-ethnic coalition that has held power in one form or another since independence in 1957. Anwar went on to lead the reformasi (reform) movement, creating an opposition coalition of strange bedfellows: his own urban Malay People's Justice Party (PKR), the ethnic Chinese DAP, and the Islamist PAS. In the 2008 general elections, the opposition shocked the BN, depriving it of a two-thirds super-majority for the first time since 1969. In the 2013 general elections, the opposition won the popular vote, though BN retained control of parliament due to inherent advantages in the electoral system (Chart 18). Hence the past two elections, particularly the last one in 2013, have shaken the political system to the core. Since the 2013 shock, the opposition has had its sights set on the 2018 election, and a series of blows to the Najib government have given cause for hope. First, exports and commodity prices plunged from 2014 to 2016, damaging the economy and giving the opposition a grand opportunity to attack the administration (Chart 19). Second, Najib was personally implicated in a massive scandal involving 1MDB, a sovereign wealth fund that Najib helped create and from which he allegedly embezzled $700 million (!). Street protests emerged in 2015 and suddenly Najib faced a revolt from the old guard within his own party (including Mahathir himself). Chart 17Malaysian Underperformance Is Late Chart 18Opposition Threatens UMNO's Dominance Chart 19Commodities Should Help Malaysian Exports The problem for the opposition, however, is timing. The 2008 election occurred before the worst of the global financial crisis had been felt; the 2013 election occurred before the full impact of the commodity bust; and now the ruling coalition's fortunes are recovering in time for the upcoming election - which, of course, the prime minister schedules to his advantage. Thus, the opposition once again faces an uphill battle in this election cycle: The Malaysian economy has beaten expectations, growing by 5.6% in the first quarter of 2017, the fastest rate in two years. This was driven mainly by exports and the manufacturing sector (Chart 20). Money supply growth is strong while the credit impulse has bottomed and is approaching positive territory (Chart 21). The 1MDB scandal has mostly dissipated. Najib publicly confessed that the $700 million found in his personal account was a donation from a foreign government, and Saudi Arabian authorities confirmed this, prompting Najib to return the money. Malaysia's attorney general, anti-corruption commission, and central bank have all cleared Najib of wrongdoing, and his popular support has recovered from the fever pitch of the scandal in 2015-16, as demonstrated by the net-gain for BN in by-elections since 2013, and the fact that the BN saw its share of seats rise from 27% to 37% in the 2016 Sarawak State Assembly elections. This state's local elections have tended to foreshadow national elections, and it has the largest representation of any state in the national parliament (31/222). The opposition is split. Najib has courted the Islamist opposition party, PAS, peeling it away from the opposition coalition. Without PAS, the opposition falls from 89 seats in parliament to 71 seats, which is 41 shy of a majority. Even in the best case scenario for the opposition in the upcoming election, in which the opposition holds all seats from 2013 and Bersatu gains all of UMNO's seats in Kedah and Johor, the opposition would still fall 16 seats shy of a majority. Chart 20Growth Is Strong Chart 21Credit Cycle Is Picking Up Bottom Line: Our baseline case holds that Najib and BN will retain control of the government in the upcoming election on the back of the fading scandal, economic recovery, and a shrewd practice of dividing political enemies. What Does A Najib Win Mean? Is a Najib/BN victory positive for Malaysian risk assets? We think so, at least relative to other EMs. While Malaysia would benefit in the long run from breaking the BN's monopoly over parliament, the immediate consequence of an opposition victory would be confusion as the various opposition parties have widely divergent interests ... and zero governing experience. On the other hand, Najib's government has undertaken some significant reforms, expanded infrastructure, and improved government finances, making his corrupt and pseudo-authoritarian government not as market unfriendly as one might expect: As a result of weak commodities, cuts in subsidies, and the introduction of a goods and services tax (GST) and a tourism tax, Malaysia's fiscal deficit has improved from 5.5% in 2013, when Najib took office, to 3.1% today (Chart 22). The government is on a path to close the deficit by the end of the decade. The GST has allowed the government to reduce its dependency on oil revenues. Non-tax revenues, which include oil royalties, have decreased from 35% in 2010 to only 20% of total revenue, while indirect taxes (which include GST) have increased from 17% to 28% of revenue (Chart 23, top three panels). There are plans to increase the goods covered by the GST in the near future. The government has cut subsidies in fuel and cooking gas, taking advantage of low oil prices. The government had also eliminated subsidies in cooking oil and sugar. Subsidies as a percent of total expenditures have declined from almost 20% in 2014 to only 9% today (Chart 23, bottom panel). The government has expanded infrastructure, completing a mass rail transit extension in Kuala Lumpur, connecting the two East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak via a 2,000 km highway, and attracting Chinese investment from the One Belt One Road program. The latter entails China building an East Coast Rail Link to connect the west and east coasts. Upon completion, this link will enable shippers to circumvent the port of Singapore and reach the South China Sea in a shorter time period. Chart 22Austerity Works Chart 23Tax Reforms Paid Off One perceived drawback of Najib's government is that in order to stay in power, he has had to court the Islamist PAS party, as mentioned above, specifically by allowing it to promote aspects of shariah law in the country's parliament. However, Malaysia is not at risk of being swept away by an imaginary rising tide of Islamic extremism. The country is very diverse, and Malay Muslims make up only a little more than half of the population. Malaysians are highly religious, but they are also highly tolerant, as they have lived among other races and religions since independence (Chart 24). Moreover, Islam is regulated and bureaucratized in Malaysia, which discourages the emergence of charismatic, anti-establishment religious leaders and the development of extremist movements. Finally, the government has an absolute need to win votes both in the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak, which have sizable Christian and non-Malay populations (adding up to more than half), and in the population centers of Kuala Lumpur and Penang. This means that it is not likely to allow PAS (or other Islamist movements) to go too far. Chart 24Malaysians Are Tolerant Bottom Line: Najib's government is corrupt and has authoritarian leanings, but has improved its management of the economy and public finances, and is not getting out of control with Islamism or populism. We would not expect a sustained market sell off in the face of a BN victory in upcoming polls. By contrast, if the opposition coalition wins a majority, it offers the long-term promise of a more inclusive and competitive political system that would be good for Malaysia, but would bring greater policy uncertainty in the short term. The opposition would likely have a low probability of achieving major reforms, as the BN party-state conglomerate would fight tooth and nail against it. A positive knee-jerk market response to an opposition win - on the expectation that "regime change" raises the probability of pro-market reforms - would likely be ephemeral. Investment Conclusion A key internal risk to the Malaysian economy stems from the country's fairly sizable debt, which may eventually become unsustainable. Yet at the moment, household and government debt are both rolling over even as growth is improving (Chart 25). A key external risk stems from China. Chinese politics are likely to shift from a tailwind for Chinese growth - fiscal stimulus and the need for stability ahead of the National Party Congress - to a headwind, as stimulus subsides and reforms are rebooted in 2018.8 We do not expect China's investment in Malaysia to fall sharply, since it is tied to a broad, long-term, strategic plan; nor do we see Malaysia as overexposed to Chinese imports or tourism. Nevertheless, Malaysia would suffer to some extent, and it is indirectly vulnerable as Malaysian exports to ASEAN and tourists from ASEAN are significant, and ASEAN would suffer from a Chinese slowdown. In short, China is a risk, albeit not as direct or major as one might think. The Malaysian ringgit has already become the best-performing currency this year. Yet this recent appreciation has not come near to reversing the currency's roughly 20% depreciation since 2014. A cheap currency, combined with robust external demand, should be a tailwind for Malaysian exports and the broader economy (Chart 26). Moreover, the rising price of key Malaysian exports like energy and palm oil should be positive for Malaysian equities (Chart 27). Chart 25Debt Is High, But Is Rolling Over Chart 26Cheap Currency Is A Tailwind For Exports Chart 27Commodities Support Equity Prices At the same time, valuations are attractive. Malaysian equities have underperformed the EM universe and its ASEAN peers since 2013 (see Chart 17 above). Malaysian equities have lost considerable value relative to their EM peers, and are trading at a discount relative to ASEAN peers. Compared to historical valuations, Malaysian equities are also trading at a discount (Chart 28 A and B). Chart 28aMalaysia Is Cheap Compared To Peers... Chart 28b...And Its Historical Valuation Bottom Line: The likely start of a new credit cycle, improving government finances, a persistently cheap currency, and the likelihood of an acceptable policy status quo should put a tailwind behind Malaysian risk assets. We recommend going long Malaysian equities relative to their EM peers. Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst Emerging Markets Strategy stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For A Major Top In EM," dated July 12, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Investors are becoming less concerned about China's growth outlook, but there is no sign of euphoria. Monitor three risk factors that could disrupt the positive growth outlook and the bull market in Chinese stocks. For now, the risks appear reasonably contained, and the lack of a complacency in the marketplace means it is too early to bet against the herd. Remain positive and stay invested. Feature The latest purchasing managers surveys released early this week confirm that the Chinese economy remains buoyant. The manufacturing and service PMIs from both official and private sources remain comfortably in expansionary territory, and there are no signs of a material deterioration from the readings of the sub-indices. Improving growth also appears to be reflected in the stock market. Chinese investable equities have rallied by over 30% so far this year, beating the major global and EM benchmarks (Chart 1). Despite the improvement in the growth numbers and the rally in stock prices, there is no sign of euphoria among investors with respect to China. On the contrary, Chinese stocks' multiples are still among the lowest of the major global bourses (Chart 2). Importantly, ETFs investing in Chinese assets are still witnessing net redemptions: China-focused ETFs listed in the U.S. and Hong Kong have been witnessing constant net capital outflows since 2013 (Chart 3). Even in the first half of this year, these ETFs have continued to lose capital despite rising stock prices - which means retail investors have not participated in the rally. Attractive valuations and lack of "irrational exuberance" suggest the rally in Chinese investable stocks should have further to run. Chart 1Chinese Equities Have Outperformed... Chart 2...But Still With Much Lower Multiples Chart 3... And Net ETF Redemptions Overall, we remain positive on both Chinese equities and the economy's cyclical outlook, and see limited downside risks in the near term, as discussed in detail in recent weeks.1 However, as growth and stock market performance have been largely in line with our expectations, it is always useful to reflect on risk factors. We see three potential risks that could upset the economy and the ongoing rally in Chinese stocks that need to be closely monitored. Will The Trump Wildcard Strike Again? There are increasing signs that tensions between the U.S. and China are on the rise again after a period of relative tranquility. The first round of U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (CED) resulted in no material progress or concrete plans to improve bilateral trade imbalances. U.S. President Donald Trump has continued to pull "China hawks" into his trade policy team, naming Dennis Shea, well known for being highly critical of China's trade practices, as deputy U.S. Trade Representative. Furthermore, the U.S. State Department recently approved a major weapon package to Taiwan, the first arms sales to the Island since 2015. More recently, President Trump has openly accused China of not helping deal with the North Korea nuclear issue after the country tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that it claims can reach continental America. In addition, the Trump administration is reportedly planning trade measures to force Beijing to crack down on intellectual-property theft and ease requirements that American companies share advanced technologies to gain entry to the Chinese market. Overall, it is widely viewed that the brief "honeymoon" in U.S.-China relations following the April Summit between the leaders of the two countries has decisively ended, and the odds for protectionism tactics against Chinese products have increased. The "Trump wildcard" has always been a key risk with respect to our outlook for China2 - the latest developments suggest this risk remains firmly in place. President Trump and his inner circle appear genuinely convinced that punitive tactics could solve the country's chronic trade deficit. Moreover, President Trump has been increasingly bogged down by domestic policy, and he may lash out on the international front in an effort to boost his popularity. Furthermore, the U.S. President has few legal constitutional constraints to using tariffs against trade partners, giving him maneuvering room. From a big-picture perspective, the conflict between the U.S. and China has deep ideological and geopolitical roots, which are even harder to deal with than trade issues. Chart 4Steel Is No Longer Relevant For ##br##U.S.-China Trade Nonetheless, we maintain our guarded optimism that unilateral protectionism measures will not materially undermine Chinese exports, at least in the near term. On the U.S. side, even though President Trump has toughened his rhetoric on China and trade issues of late, it is still far less extreme compared to the promises he made on the campaign trail, in which he pledged to slap a 45% tariff on all imports from China and to label the country a currency manipulator on "day one." So far, the U.S. administration has mainly been focusing on specific industries, particularly steel, rather than broad-based tariffs, the impact of which should be marginal. For example, China accounts for only 3% of American steel imports. Sales to the U.S. account for less than 1% of China's massive steel output (Chart 4). In other words, steel appears to be a highly symbolic sector in Trump's trade policy, but the real impact on China-U.S. trade is negligible. On the Chinese side, the authorities have hard-drawn redlines on political and sovereign issues, but have much greater flexibility on trade-related issues. Chinese officials understand that the country's large surplus with the U.S. puts it at a near-term disadvantage in a trade war, and therefore will likely cave to pressure from the U.S. Moreover, the sectors that President Trump has been complaining about, namely steel and some other base metals, are the same sectors the Chinese government wants to restrict. Therefore, China will not fight for its own "out of favor" industries to disrupt the broader picture in exports. Taken together, President Trump's trade policy has once again become unpredictable, and some punitive measures on specific products appear likely in the near term. However, we still assign low odds of a drastic escalation in trade frictions, and we expect the Chinese authorities to refrain from tit-for-tat retaliation that could lead to a trade war. Protectionism risks, however, will remain a long-term structural issue that complicates the global trade and growth outlook. Deflationary Pressures And The Risk Of Policy Overkill? Chart 5Headline CPI Is Set To Drop Further A key feature of the Chinese economy is strong disinflationary/deflationary pressures, despite robust growth and job creation. Headline inflation to be released next week will likely once again surprise to the downside, mainly due to food prices (Chart 5). Wholesale prices of agricultural products have weakened substantially in recent months, pointing to sharply lower food CPI. Core CPI remains around 1%, underscoring incredibly low inflationary pressures. The key challenge for the Chinese authorities is figuring out how to manage economic policies to achieve the delicate balance between growth and disinflation/deflation. We have long viewed that one of the critical reasons behind China's sharp growth deterioration between 2012 and 2015 was a policy mistake, in which the authorities allowed monetary conditions to tighten dramatically. We are hopeful that the authorities have realized the cost of policy overkill, and will avoid similar mistakes down the road, but the risk certainly cannot be dismissed entirely. For now, we see low odds of policy overkill that could lead to price deflation and negative growth surprises. First, as growth has improved, some policy tightening is warranted. The authorities recently reported that the economy added 7.35 million new jobs in the first half of the year, far exceeding the government's target, pushing the registered urban unemployment rate to 3.95%, the lowest in recent years. In fact, the People's Bank of China may still be behind the curve, meaning that further tightening is simply a "catch-up" and is not immediately restrictive. Chart 6Another Sharp Rally ##br##In The Trade Weighted RMB is Unlikely Second, a major factor behind China's drastic tightening in monetary conditions in previous years was the sharp rally in the trade-weighted RMB, which appreciated by almost 30% between mid-2011 and early/late 2015 - a massive deflationary shock to Chinese exporters (Chart 6). Looking forward, it is extremely unlikely that the PBoC will allow the RMB to rise by a similar magnitude anytime soon. Finally, from investors' perspective, producer output prices are more important to watch for pricing power and profitability. On this front, PPI inflation has also rolled over and will likely continue to downshift, but will not turn to outright deflation in our view. It is important to note that the sharp decline in producer prices in previous years was due to a multi-year deterioration in Chinese growth, which has historically been an anomaly. The only other period in China's post-reform history with falling PPI happened in the late 1990s in the aftermath of the Asian crisis (Chart 7). In other words, falling PPI only occurs under rather extreme growth difficulties. Our model suggests that PPI inflation may decelerate to 3% by year end. Our PPI diffusion index, which measures the percentage of industrial sectors experiencing rising prices, suggests the majority of sectors are still witnessing higher prices both compared with previous months and a year ago (Chart 8). We are monitoring the PPI diffusion index closely to heed a leading signal on corporate pricing power and overall deflationary pressures in the corporate sector. Chart 7Producer Prices: A Historical Perspective Chart 8PPI Watch Bottom Line: A policy mistake of overtightening by the Chinese authorities remains a key threat to the near-term growth outlook, but is not our base case scenario. The Resumption Of The Dollar Bull Market? The U.S. dollar has rapidly dropped out of favor among global investors. The dollar index has fallen by 10% so far this year, the weakest among the major currencies. The weak U.S. dollar has provided a Goldilocks scenario for both the Chinese economy and financial markets: a weaker dollar depreciates the RMB in trade-weighted terms, which is reflationary for the Chinese economy. For investors, the broad dollar weakness also alleviates downward pressure on the CNY/USD, and a stable CNY/USD in turn reduces investors' anxiety on China's macro conditions, pushing up stock prices. This Goldilocks scenario could once again be disrupted if the dollar bull market resumes, and the positive feedback loop goes into reverse. A stronger dollar tends to strengthen the trade-weighted RMB, which is bad news for exporters. Meanwhile, it could rekindle downward pressure on the CNY/USD, re-intensifying domestic capital outflows, which could be viewed as a sign of China's macro troubles. Fears of an economic hard landing would quickly resurface. In our view, Chinese stocks are more vulnerable if the dollar's strength resumes, but the real damage on the broader economy should not be material. It is highly unlikely that Chinese policymakers would allow the trade-weighted RMB to rise alongside the dollar, and will tighten capital account controls to stop domestic capital flight. Chinese equities will suffer in this scenario, as investors' risk aversion increases. However, so long as the Chinese economy and corporate profits do not suffer a major relapse, the rally in stocks should eventually resume. All in all, the three risk factors should be closely monitored in the coming months, especially if investors become increasingly comfortable with the Chinese growth outlook. For now, the risks appear reasonably contained, and the lack of a complacency in the marketplace means it is too early to bet against the herd. We remain positive on Chinese growth, and favor Chinese equites both in absolute terms and against global/EM benchmarks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, "Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes", dated July 20, 2017, and Special Report, "Focusing On Chinese Money Supply", dated July 27, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard", dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Easier financial conditions will lift U.S. growth in the second half of this year. However, given the Fed's dovish predisposition, aggressive tightening measures are unlikely until next year, when inflation will begin to accelerate. We see little downside for the dollar over the coming months, but think the next major leg of the structural dollar bull market will only come in 2018, as the Fed begrudgingly comes to terms with the fact that it has been behind the curve in raising rates. Even then, the Fed's efforts to tighten monetary policy will not be enough to prevent a secular rebound in inflation from taking root. Structural factors, ranging from population aging to chronically weak productivity growth, will further fuel inflation in the U.S. and around the world. Political populism - historically, an inflationary force - will come roaring back, while globalization, a deflationary force, will remain in retreat. Remain overweight global equities for now, but look to raise cash next summer. A structurally underweight position in government bonds is appropriate. Feature The Fed Stands Pat As expected, the Fed kept rates on hold this week and signaled its intention to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year. The FOMC upgraded its assessment of the state of the labor market to "solid," but sounded a note of caution on the recent weak inflation readings. It was the latter point that caught investors' attention. The dollar promptly sold off. We went long the DXY index in October 2014. We maintained our bullish dollar view going into the U.S. presidential elections, controversially arguing in September 2016 that "Trump will win and the dollar will rally."1 While our long dollar trade is still comfortably in the black, the dollar's recent swoon does imply that we stayed at the party longer than was warranted. Chart 1Investors Dismiss Future Inflation Risk What went wrong this year? The failure of the Trump administration to make progress on tax reform in recent months has hurt the dollar. So has the decline in core inflation. Core PCE inflation registered 1.4% in May, down from a high of 1.8% in January. As a result, the market is now pricing in only 26 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months and just a 45% chance that the Fed will raise rates by December. Hawkish comments from the ECB, the Bank of Canada, and several other central banks have added fuel to the dollar selloff. Shifts in speculative positioning haven't helped either. Investors were extremely bullish the dollar going into 2017 while bearish the euro. Today, euro longs are at record highs, while sentiment towards the dollar is in the pits. Looking out, sentiment towards the dollar should normalize, while U.S. growth should surprise to the upside over the next few quarters. U.S. financial conditions have eased sharply this year thanks to the decline in bond yields, narrower credit spreads, higher equity prices, and of course, a weaker dollar. Historically, easier financial conditions have boosted growth with a lag of 6-to-9 months. In contrast, euro area growth may be close to plateauing, as already foreshadowed this week by the decline in the PMI for July. All this should be enough to put a floor under the dollar over the remainder of the year. However, at this point, it looks increasingly likely that the next (and last) leg of the dollar bull market will have to wait until inflation begins to accelerate. This may not happen until 2018, suggesting that the dollar could trade in a range until then. We are maintaining our view that EUR/USD will eventually reach parity, but now see this as most likely to happen in the second half of next year. Many investors are skeptical that inflation will rise even if the unemployment rate continues to trend downwards. They argue that the relationship between economic slack and inflation - epitomized by the so-called Phillips curve - has completely broken down. We disagree with this assessment. As we argue below, not only is inflation likely to accelerate next year, but a number of powerful structural factors will propel inflation higher over a longer-term horizon. In fact, the 2020s could turn out to look a lot like the 1970s. Current market-based inflation expectations do not reflect this risk at all (Chart 1). Cyclical Forces Will Boost Inflation Spare capacity has declined significantly in most economies since 2009 (Chart 2). By many measures, the U.S. is now close to full employment (Table 1). Historically, diminished slack has corresponded with higher inflation (Chart 3). Chart 2Output Gaps Have Narrowed Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles Chart 3Diminished Slack Has Corresponded With Higher Inflation The fact that decreased spare capacity has not yet translated into higher inflation is not especially surprising. Inflation is a severely lagging indicator. As we noted last week, inflation typically does not peak until well after a recession has begun and does not bottom until well after it has ended (Chart 4).2 Trying to infer the true level of economic slack from today's inflation rate is like trying to read the speedometer of an automobile when there is a 30-second delay between what the dial says and when you step on the accelerator. Chart 4Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Moreover, the relationship between slack and inflation tends to be highly non-linear. When there is a lot of spare capacity, reducing it modestly tends not to have much of an effect on inflation. However, when there is little or no slack, even a small reduction in spare capacity can lead to a big jump in inflation. The 1960s provide an extreme example of what can happen (Chart 5). The unemployment rate steadily declined between 1960 and 1966. Yet, core inflation remained remarkably stable during this period, consistently hovering between 1.5% and 2%. In early 1966, the unemployment rate finally broke below 4%. Within the span of 12 months, core inflation jumped from 1.5% to 3.7%. Such a rapid burst in inflation is unlikely in the near term. Inflation expectations are better anchored and unions have less power today than in the 1960s. Moreover, unlike then, some of the excess in aggregate demand can be absorbed through a larger trade deficit rather than through higher prices for goods and services. Nevertheless, as slack elsewhere in the world comes down, global inflation will rise. Our "pipeline inflation" indices, comprised of such variables as core PPI inflation and unit labor costs, are already pointing in that direction (Chart 6). The cyclical pressure on inflation will only intensify if crude prices grind higher, as our energy strategists expect they will. Chart 5Inflation In The 1960s Took Off Once ##br##The Unemployment Rate Fell Below 4% Chart 6Pickup In Global Pipeline Measures Of Inflation Structural Trends Are Becoming More Inflationary Meanwhile, several structural forces will slowly lift inflation over a longer-term horizon of five-to-fifteen years. Weaker productivity growth is one of them (Chart 7). We have argued in the past that much of the decline in global productivity growth reflects structural factors.3 As a matter of arithmetic, gross domestic output (GDP) must equal gross domestic income (GDI). If productivity growth stays weak, slow income growth could end up depressing savings by more than it depresses investment. This could push up equilibrium real interest rates. Unless central banks respond by raising policy rates, inflation will rise. The retirement of millions of highly paid baby boomers could also lead to labor shortages and lower aggregate savings. Chart 8 shows the estimated consumption and income profile for a typical U.S. individual over a lifetime. Notice that consumption tends to peak very late in life due to rising health care expenditures. Chart 7Productivity Growth Has Fallen, ##br##Particularly In Developed Economies Chart 8Spending And Saving Over The Lifecycle Using existing demographic projections, we can compute the impact that population aging is likely to have on savings. The effect is substantial. In the U.S., aging will reduce the household saving rate by about four percentage points between now and 2030. In Germany, the saving rate will sink by six points, while in China it will decline by five points. This will reduce the massive current account surpluses in these two countries, which have been major contributors to the global savings glut and the corresponding low level of real interest rates. The Japan Experience Japan's household saving rate will also continue to fall, having already declined from 14% in the late 1980s to 2% today. Amazingly, the decline in Japan's saving rate over the past few decades has occurred even though a larger share of the population is employed today than in 1980 (Chart 9). Rising female participation accounts for this. However, now that Japan's female employment rate has surpassed America's and Europe's, this demographic tailwind will dissipate (Chart 10). As a result, Japan's labor force will begin to shrink in earnest, while spending on health care and pensions will keep rising. What will be left is a large government debt burden. Chart 9Japan: Saving Rate Has Fallen Despite Rising Employment/Population Chart 10Japan: Female Employment-To-Population ##br##Has Surpassed The U.S. And Euro Area Whether debt is inflationary or deflationary depends both on economic and political considerations. On the one hand, a high degree of indebtedness may restrain spending throughout the economy. That is deflationary. On the other hand, high debt levels may provide an incentive for governments to crank up inflation in order to reduce the real value of outstanding debt obligations. Historically at least, the latter factor has often won out. One can debate whether Japan would have welcomed higher inflation even if it had the means to generate it. There are good arguments for both sides of the issue. But, in practice, the Bank of Japan's ability to create inflation was cut off very early into its first lost decade. This is because falling property prices and pervasive corporate deleveraging pushed the neutral nominal interest rate deep into negative territory. This meant that even an interest rate of zero was not enough to boost inflation. Now that property prices appear to be bottoming, corporate balance sheets are in reasonably good shape, and the prospect of significant labor shortages looms on the horizon, Japan may finally be able to gain some traction over monetary policy. Such an outcome would come as a complete surprise to most investors. The Benefits Of Higher Inflation Japan's struggles illustrate the pitfalls of excessively low inflation. Had Japanese inflation been higher in the early 1990s, the Bank of Japan might have been able to bring real rates far enough into negative territory without ever encountering the zero-bound constraint on nominal rates. This may have prevented a vicious circle where falling inflation put upward pressure on real rates, leading to weaker growth and even lower inflation. Fast forward to the present and what was once regarded as a uniquely Japanese problem is now seen as a concern in many countries. It is not surprising, therefore, that a growing chorus of economists is advocating that central banks aim for a higher inflation target than the standard 2%. The logic is straightforward: If inflation is 4% and a deep economic downturn requires that central bankers temporarily bring real rates down to -3%, this can be achieved by cutting nominal rates to 1%. In contrast, if inflation is 2%, it may be difficult to cut nominal rates to -1% since people could choose to hold cash over a negative-yielding asset. Another lesson that central bankers have learned from both the Great Recession and the recession that followed the dotcom boom is that burst asset bubbles can cause significant harm to economies. Here again, a bit more inflation can provide a safety valve of sorts. If the trend rate of inflation had been higher going into the housing bust, nominal home prices would have fallen less for any given change in real prices. This implies that fewer mortgages would have gone underwater. A higher underlying inflation rate would have also made it more difficult for lenders to offer zero-interest mortgages since their funding costs in real terms would have been greater. This would have imposed more discipline on lenders and borrowers alike. Then there is the labor market. The reluctance of workers to accept nominal wage cuts makes it difficult for real wages to adjust downwards in the face of adverse economic shocks when underlying inflation is very low. If inflation is higher, that problem diminishes. This point is especially relevant for the euro area, where labor markets are quite inflexible to begin with and many countries do not have the ability to respond to adverse shocks with either countercyclical fiscal policy or currency depreciation. Inflation As A Political Choice It is sometimes said that low inflation or even outright deflation is the natural state of affairs in capitalist economies. This is arguably true under monetary regimes such as the gold standard, but it is not true in a world of fiat money. Inflation took off in the late sixties because policymakers who grew up during the 1930s were more concerned about propping up aggregate demand than keeping a lid on prices. In contrast, the generation that reached adulthood in the 1970s was more worried about runaway inflation. It is this latter group that has run the world's central banks for the better part of the past few decades. As they step aside, they will be replaced by a younger cohort whose formative years were shaped by the financial crisis and the deflation shock that followed. Things have come full circle again. A recent NBER paper documented that age plays a major role in determining whether central bankers turn out to be dovish or hawkish.4 Those who witnessed stagflation in the 1970s as adults are much more likely to express a hawkish bias than those who were still in diapers back then. The implication is the future generation of central bankers is likely to see the world through a more dovish lens than its predecessors. Globalization In Retreat, Populism Ascendant Globalization has been a strong deflationary force through history. That force is now waning, as evidenced by the stagnation in global trade (Chart 11). In contrast, political populism - historically, a highly inflationary force - is on the rise. Much of the slowdown in globalization can be attributed to structural factors. Tariff rates fell steadily in the second half of the 20th century, helping to boost global trade in the process (Chart 12). Now that most goods cross borders duty free, further efforts at trade liberalization will be subject to diminishing returns. The same goes for outsourcing. In fact, growing evidence suggests that many firms have outsourced too much, leaving them with an unwieldy maze of suppliers around the world. Chart 11Globalization Has Stalled Chart 12Global Trade Was Boosted By Falling Tariffs ##br## In The Second Half Of The 20th Century Likewise, the integration of Eastern Europe and China into the capitalist economy brought a billion additional workers into the global labor force, giving globalization a huge boost (Chart 13). Nothing similar awaits over the horizon. Chart 13The Transition To Capitalism Enlarged The Global Labor Force Politics represents another headwind to globalization. Trade among rich countries tends to have smaller distributional consequences than trade between rich and poor countries. As emerging markets have become larger players in the global trading system, the impact on less-skilled workers in developed countries has grown. People in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voted for Trumpism, not Trump. The problem is that Trump does not understand this, as his cyberbullying of Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week demonstrates. If Trump deserts his base, his base will find someone more to their liking. Either way, populism will prevail. For their part, the Democrats are also honing their populist message. Their "Better Deal" agenda harkens back to the populist roots of FDR's New Deal. It promises to "raise the wages and incomes of American workers," "crack down on unfair foreign trade and fight back against corporations that outsource American jobs," and root out "monopolies and the concentration of economic power," while also making sure that "Wall Street never endangers Main Street again."5 Bernie Sanders may have lost the Democratic nomination, but he won the soul of the Democratic party. European populists have been on the back foot over the past year, having suffered defeats in the Dutch, Austrian, and French elections. Yet, it would be a mistake to count them out. Populists do best when times are tough. European growth is strong these days and unemployment is falling. When the next recession rolls around, populist parties will gain favor. This will especially be the case if the migrant crisis re-escalates, as seems likely. Investment Conclusions Getting inflation up to 2% - let alone something higher - has seemed like "mission impossible" for most of the past eight years because of elevated levels of economic slack. However, as this slack is absorbed, boosting inflation will become easier. Central banks only need to raise rates by less than standard Taylor rules imply. As we discussed last week, the Fed, the Bank of Canada, the Swedish Riksbank, and the central banks of Australia and New Zealand are all somewhat behind the curve in raising rates.6 As inflation in these economies picks up next year, they will be forced to raise rates more aggressively than what the markets are currently discounting, causing bond yields to rise and their currencies to strengthen. This could sow the seeds of a slowdown or even a recession in 2019. The recession is unlikely to be especially severe since financial and economic imbalances are not as pronounced today as they were a decade ago. Yet, the policy reaction will be disproportionately large: Interest rates will be cut and talk of additional asset purchases will begin to swirl. Inflation will come down, but not all the way back to current levels. Likewise, bond yields will fall, but nowhere close to the secular lows recorded in mid-2016. As in previous inflationary episodes, the path for nominal bond yields over the next 15 years will be marked by higher highs and higher lows. Fixed-income investors should pare back duration and increase exposure to inflation-indexed securities. Gold will become a valuable hedge once the dollar peaks next year. Equities will suffer in a stagflationary environment. We remain cyclically overweight global stocks for now, as reflected in our asset allocation recommendations (Appendix 1). However, we will be looking to reduce exposure significantly next summer. Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It?" dated July 21, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?" dated May 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 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). 5 Chuck Schumer, "A Better Deal for American Workers," The New York Times, July 24, 2017, and "A Better Deal," available at http://www.democraticleader.gov. 6 Please see footnote 2. Appendix 1 Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update To complement our analysis, we use a variety of time-tested models to assess the global investment outlook. At present, these models generally favor global equities over bonds over a three-month horizon (Appendix Table 1). Our business cycle equity indicators remain firmly in bullish territory, as reflected in strong global growth and rising corporate earnings. The monetary and financial indicators are also flashing green. In contrast, our sentiment readings are sending mixed signals. Low implied equity volatility points to a heightened risk of complacency, while continued investor skepticism towards the rally (especially among retail investors) suggests that stocks have further to run. As has been the case for some time, our valuation measures are saying stocks are expensive, but these are typically useful only for horizons beyond one or two years. Calendar effects are also negative at the moment due to the tendency of stocks to underperform during the summer months. Regionally, we see more upside in more cyclically-exposed, higher-beta equity markets such as those in Europe and Japan. Canada also looks attractive based on our cyclically positive outlook for crude prices. Emerging market equities are fairly valued, although China still appears cheap based on our measures. Within the fixed-income arena, U.S. Treasurys remain overvalued based on the cyclical outlook, as do, to a lesser extent, most European bonds. Japanese bonds are the default winners simply because JGB yields are likely to remain flat on account of the BoJ's interventions. Appendix Table 1BCA's Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations* Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The "Trump Put" rumbles on, spurring equities, driving U.S. Treasury yields down, and hurting the dollar; White House incompetence, which underpins the "Trump Put," is about quantitative and qualitative staffing decisions, not the Russia collusion investigation; Tax reform will happen, but Congress is now in charge; Watch for the next Fed Chair nomination, more dollar downside could be ahead; China has preempted the next financial crisis with new regulatory oversight; The death of Abenomics is overstated. Feature We introduced the "Trump Put" in a recent report as a risk to our view that President Trump would get his populist economic agenda through Congress.1 The Trump Put posits that White House disarray and congressional incompetence will combine with decent earnings growth and steady global growth to produce Goldilocks conditions for U.S. equities, while simultaneously weakening the USD and supporting Treasuries. Thus far, the Trump Put continues to be in effect (Chart 1). Our House Views of further yield-curve steepening and a stronger USD have suffered from the ongoing "gong show" that is the Trump administration. The saving grace has been our high-conviction bullish equity view (Chart 2).2 Chart 1The Trump Put: Good For Equities,##br## Bad For Everything Else Chart 2S&P 500 Does Not##br## Care About Russia That said, we maintain our high-conviction view that the GOP will pass tax legislation in Q1 2018. Why? First, the failure to repeal Obamacare means that congressional Republicans will enter the midterm election season with no legislative wins. That is extraordinary given Republican control of both chambers of Congress and the executive. The House GOP members will not want to face an angry electorate in primary elections a year from now, or the general election, without a single major accomplishment. Second, Trump's low popularity will be an albatross around the neck of GOP candidates in the November 2018 elections, with potentially ominous results (Chart 3). Trump needs to pass a major piece of legislation; GOP congressmen have an interest in lifting Trump's popularity. Third, the House has passed the FY2017 budget resolution, which includes reconciliation instructions for tax reform. Given that only one budget resolution can be effective at any one time, the Obamacare replacement effort will end with the current fiscal year, on October 1.3 Chart 3GOP Is Running Out Of Time While we remain confident that some form of tax legislation will ultimately pass - either watered down tax reform or mere tax cuts - we are far less confident that it will be stimulative. In other words, it will be done according to the congressional, not the White House, blueprint. House Speaker Paul Ryan has long demanded revenue-neutral reform. The just-passed budget resolution calls for $203 billion in spending cuts in order to make tax cuts revenue-neutral. This is a reversion to form after the period earlier this year in which several fiscal conservatives, like Representatives Kevin Brady and Mark Meadows, intoned that they would be comfortable with tax reform that was not revenue-neutral. At the beginning of the year, it looked like Trump would be able to use his bully pulpit to cajole the Congressional Republicans into stimulative tax reform or tax cuts. Previous Presidents, including Obama with the Affordable Care Act, have been able to punish overly ideological legislators for the sake of pragmatism and/or expediency. Certainly Trump remains popular with GOP voters (Chart 4), suggesting that he might be able to do so as well. Chart 4Trump Retains Political ##br##Capital With GOP Voters Six months into his presidency, however, Trump remains a no-show in terms of leadership. This is not merely the result of distraction with the "Russian collusion" charges against his campaign team and inner circle. The White House is simply not playing its traditional coordinating role to shepherd key bills through Congress. Political insiders, even the ones close to Trump, are signaling privately and via the media that the White House is in disarray and understaffed both quantitatively and qualitatively. It is in no shape, in other words, to coordinate the legislative process and play the role of peacemaker between the different congressional factions. At the heart of the disarray is an elite dispute within the White House itself between what we call the "Goldman" and "Breitbart" factions of the administration. The Goldman Clique: Donald Trump has staffed his administration with several financial sector luminaries whom he met while building his business empire. At the head of this faction is Gary Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council and leading candidate for the next Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (more on that later). Other members are Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and the most recent addition to the administration, the new White House Communications Director Anthony "the Mooch" Scaramucci. This faction is pragmatic, un-ideological (Cohn and "the Mooch" are essentially Democrats), and focused on passing tax reform and pro-business regulation. They prefer tax reform to mere tax cuts, and want middle class tax cuts to be balanced with pro-business corporate tax reform. The Breitbart Clique: Most commentators see the Goldman clique as the more powerful of the two White House factions, but Trump owes his electoral victory to a campaign molded along the ideological bent in line with the Breitbart faction. This group is led by Chief Strategist Steven Bannon and policy advisor Steven Miller.4 Behind the scenes, Bannon and Miller have managed to staff the White House with several Breitbart alumni, such as presidential advisors Sebastian Gorka and Julia Hahn, and (until her departure this month) Security Council Deputy Chief of Staff Tera Dahl. Factional fighting is not new to the White House. For example, the Obama administration was divided between foreign policy hawks - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - and doves - National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. White House policy is often a product of compromise between different factions, producing sub-optimal outcomes. The problem with the Trump administration, however, is that the Breitbart faction is severely outmatched and unqualified for the job of coordinating legislative policy. Putting aside its ideological zealotry, this faction consists mainly of journalists without policy experience. This inexperience came to light with Trump's original executive order banning entry into the U.S. of nationals of several countries, penned by Bannon and Miller, which would have barred green card holders from entry. While that order may or may not have been constitutional, it was clearly impractical and aggressive. Another clear problem for the Trump administration is that its current Chief of Staff, former RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is weak and ineffective. Priebus was a compromise candidate between the two factions and someone seen as acceptable to Republicans in Congress. Since his appointment, however, he has been a no-show. It was his idea to focus on replacing Obamacare ahead of tax reform (despite the absence of a GOP blueprint for the former and the existence of a blueprint for the latter), and it was his idea to give the overmatched Sean Spicer the role of managing the press. The chief of staff should be a force of nature, capable of instilling fear into the president's congressional allies in order to get legislation moving and reduce cliquish in-fighting. A successful chief of staff is usually a controversial and abrasive figure, such as Rahm Emanuel at the beginning of President Obama's first term. He bullied and cajoled Democrats into passing Obamacare with legendary brutality. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy rarely delves into personality-driven analysis. It is too idiosyncratic, not systematic. However, as a country's political leadership becomes more "charismatic"5 - driven by personality rather than institutions - individuals, factions, and court intrigue matter more. What does all of this mean for investors? First, the White House is failing in its coordinating role. As such, Republicans in the House will take the lead on tax reform. Revenue neutrality will be emphasized. For this to change, the White House would have to reshuffle its personnel more extensively, including replacing Priebus. Second, if fiscal policy fails to take off, Trump will put greater stock in monetary policy. Our colleagues - who are economists, not political analysts - believe that the U.S. is likely to enter into recession in 2019, as the 2020 electoral campaign heats up. However, folks like Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin can see the same writing on the wall, and will probably try to avoid such a badly timed recession. Chart 5 shows that household debt has continued to decline as a share of disposable income; the share of national income going to labor has increased; and wage growth among lower-income workers who tend to spend most of their paychecks has accelerated. All of this should give consumers the wherewithal to spend more, warranting higher interest rates. Meanwhile, financial conditions have significantly eased due to USD weakness and declining bond-yields, which should boost growth in the second half of this year (Chart 6). Chart 5Households Have The ##br##Wherewithal To Spend More Chart 6Financial Conditions##br## Have Eased With Congress increasingly in charge of fiscal policy and a recession possible in 2019, we would expect Trump to do everything he can to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias when Chair Janet Yellen's term expires on February 3. This means that he is likely to favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, like Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional, and hawkish, Republican candidates. While there is some speculation regarding Cohn's policy preference, we are yet to find an insider (either of the FOMC or the White House) who denies that he is a dove. The intrigue should not last long. Both Yellen and Bernanke were nominated with considerable lead time: 114 days before the end of her predecessor's term for Yellen, and 91 days for Bernanke (Chart 7). We would therefore expect the next Fed Chair to be known by Thanksgiving. Is Cohn a controversial pick? Not really. As our colleague John Canally of BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy has pointed out, lack of Fed experience does not make Cohn particularly unique as a candidate. Since the late 1970s, presidents have tended to select the Fed Chair based on their relationship with a candidate, not previous central banking experience (Table 1).6 Cohn would only break the orthodoxy by being the first candidate to be appointed from across the ideological aisle, given that he is a Democrat. (Although several chairs have been reappointed by presidents from opposing political parties.) Chart 7How Long Does It Take To Confirm The Fed Chair? Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 A number of previous Fed chairs were selected for loyalty over academic merit or central banking experience. President Nixon's pick for the chair, Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970-1978), was the head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to Nixon before being appointed. William Miller (Chair from 1978-1979), although having served as an outside director for the Boston Fed, was appointed largely because of his work on the political campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) served as Chair of President Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, Chair of President Ford's CEA, and advised Nixon's campaign in 1968. Only Volcker, Bernanke, and Yellen had previously held posts in the Federal Reserve System. The market cares about the appointment of the Fed chair. In 2013, for example, Larry Summers and Janet Yellen were in the running for the position, with Summers viewed as the more hawkish of the two. When he withdrew from the race on September 15, the market's expected pace of rate hikes plunged and long-dated TIPS breakevens surged on the expectations of a more dovish Fed (Chart 8). Given that the market is currently discounting just 27.4 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, down from the recent peak of 36 bps (Chart 9), there may not be much room to get more dovish.7 Chart 8Yellen Vs. Summers Drove Markets In 2013 Chart 9Market May Be Right? Nonetheless, President Trump may not want to gamble with his Fed appointments. If we are right to assume that he is an economic populist, and that his fiscally stimulative agenda is slipping away, then we would expect the White House to err on the side of Fed appointments that would be behind the proverbial curve. In addition to Yellen, Trump will have the opportunity to appoint a new Vice Chairman of the Fed in place of Stanley Fischer on June 12, 2018 (Diagram 1), as well as another candidate for the Board of Governors (after already having nominated Marvin Goodfriend and Randal Quarels). By mid-2018, the Fed will start to take on a new composition altogether. Diagram 1Federal Reserve Board Of Governors Calendar Staffing the Fed with doves fits at least two of President Trump's campaign promises. First, if the Fed were to fall behind the curve, nominal GDP would likely surprise to the upside. Second, the USD would continue its downward trajectory, helping rebalance America's trade deficit. As such, we take the potential nomination of Gary Cohn seriously. And we expect the market will as well. That said, a Cohn-led Fed would not be a fundamental break with the past. In fact, Yellen has herself intoned that the Fed may want to let inflation run above 2% in past speeches. In addition, Trump's first two nominees to the Fed do not fit a dovish mold. Conservative economist Marvin Goodfriend is a hawk and favors rule-based policymaking. Randal Quarels will focus on regulating the financial sector, or rather deregulating it, although his policy orientation is largely unknown. Furthermore, other potential Fed Chair nominees, such as Kevin Warsh and Richard Fisher, would be more hawkish than Yellen. And if they are not selected to replace Yellen, they could replace the current Vice-Chairman Fischer. As such, investors should not overreact to a Cohn appointment. However, currency markets might, given that the Trump White House has been highly unorthodox. Bottom Line: There is likely more downside to the USD over the rest of the year. China: A Preemptive Dodd-Frank Last week we argued that China is likely to escalate financial regulation considerably over the next 6-12 months.8 Essentially, the "financial crackdown" or "deleveraging campaign" seen in H1 of this year was just a dress rehearsal for what is to come. The larger policy shift will exert downward pressure on economic growth in H2 2017 and throughout 2018, essentially putting a cap of about 7% on China's growth rate. True, the Chinese government will strive to avoid letting the new regulatory push lead to a sharp slowdown, i.e., shattering its preexisting commitment to an average GDP growth rate of 6.5% per year through 2020. However, the risks lie to the downside over the next 18 months due to the combination of unaddressed structural imbalances, cyclically fading economic tailwinds, and further policy tightening. We have outlined the structural flaws before. In brief, they include: Demographics: The working-age population is declining, yet the social systems to improve productivity are not yet adequate. Economic model: The investment-led model has become inefficient, requiring China to add more and more debt in order to generate the same amount of growth, in a manner reminiscent of South Korea prior to the Asian Financial Crisis (Chart 10). The transition to consumer-led growth is incomplete, with households still reluctant to take over from corporates in driving spending. Financial transmission: China's banking sector has expanded quickly, leading to a rise in bad loans and "special mention" assets, as losses from large companies remain elevated (Chart 11). The shadow banking sector is highly leveraged, poorly regulated, and extremely risky, and has mushroomed since 2008. Fiscal system: Local governments lack stable sources of funding and therefore rely on SOE debt and manipulation of the land market in order to fund their 85% share of China's fiscal spending. The government's recent fiscal reforms (the VAT extension) have actually further deprived local governments of revenues. Inequality and social ills: Wealth inequality, social immobility, regressive taxation (Chart 12), and an inadequate social safety net have hindered the development of the consumer society as well as innovation and entrepreneurship. Centralized authoritarianism: The political system perpetuates the above ills by disallowing free speech, free association, free movement, and other freedoms that would encourage innovation and total factor productivity. Chart 10More And More Reliant On Debt For Growth Chart 11Bad Loans Rising Chart 12Communism Fails To Redistribute Income Meanwhile, we have several reasons for anticipating a larger, less accommodative policy shift over the next six-to-twelve months: Policy drift: China's economic policy has been adrift over the past year and a half, as reflected by elevated economic policy uncertainty. While President Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign is no longer relevant in a macroeconomic sense - and this theoretically opens the way for him to pursue his ambitious economic reform agenda - he has so far chosen stimulus over restructuring due to the instability of 2015-16. Now, as the latest stimulus measures fade (Chart 13), the question of how to go forward is pressing, since to re-apply the same policy mix in 2018 would be to forgo his reform agenda until 2019 ... and probably once and for all. Warning signs: The central government's launch of a deleveraging campaign this year was risky and surprising. It was risky because central financial authorities in any country threaten a liquidity squeeze when they tighten financial conditions into large and rapidly growing leverage. It was surprising because the authorities chose to do so when a mistake could have upset political stability in advance of the midterm party congress. The implication is: (1) authorities intended a limited campaign from the beginning; (2) the newly appointed leaders of financial regulatory bodies are no-nonsense people.9 They take very seriously, as we do, China's systemic financial risks. They believe risky measures are necessary to prevent the dangerous credit excesses. The National Financial Work Conference: The conference concluded with Xi putting his imprimatur on a renewed policy focus on the financial sector: Reducing systemic risk, reducing speculation (lending to the real economy), and eventually putting the sector back on the path of liberalization. The specific outcomes amount to something like a preemptive Dodd Frank: The People's Bank of China will take on a larger role in identifying and monitoring systemically important institutions; it will also host a new inter-agency body - the Financial Stability and Development Committee (FSDC) - that will ostensibly ensure better cooperation and coordination between the regulators of banks, stock markets, insurance, etc. Finally, the meeting signaled that this year's deleveraging campaign would expand (beyond shadow banking, insurance companies, and private companies roving overseas) to affect over-leveraged SOEs and local government financing vehicles. Significantly, local government officials will be made accountable for excessive debt. This last point should not be underrated. At the height of the anti-corruption campaign, in late 2014, fiscal spending numbers remained depressed and government agency cash deposits continued rising even after the central government tried to encourage faster growth (Chart 14), suggesting that local officials were refraining from spending due to fears that they would be punished for it.10 We consider these announcements to be substantive - i.e., not the usual propaganda - even if they take some time to get off the ground. The financial conference was frowned upon by much of the mainstream media because some interpret the FSDC as failing to live up to the rumor that China would create a new "financial super-ministry." But the rise of super-ministries under the Hu Jintao administration resulted in very little substantive change to Chinese policy. By contrast, Xi Jinping signaled that the PBoC would be the chief instrument of the new financial regulatory push, and he has already shown he can operate exceedingly effectively through existing institutions - namely the Central Discipline and Inspection Commission (CDIC), which went from being an ineffective intra-party corruption watchdog to a nationwide vehicle for the party's most aggressive corruption investigations and personnel purges in recent memory. We are willing to bet that the PBoC's new powers, including the new financial stability committee, will be more aggressive than the merely status quo multiplication of administrative functions that the financial media and markets apparently expect. The changing of the PBoC's Guard: It is not a coincidence that greater regulatory powers are being planned for the PBoC in the final months of Governor Zhou Xiaochuan's term. Zhou has been in office since late 2002. He has been a cornerstone figure in China's financial stability and reform throughout this period, including during the global crisis and the various financial panics from 2010-16. He has allegedly desired a more muscular central bank to tackle the country's ballooning credit risks. By handing off the baton, he clears the way for a new, ambitious governor to succeed him, one who will maintain policy continuity while also taking the opportunity of the transition to implement a new and tougher regulatory framework. Consider that after Xi put the ambitious Guo Shuqing in charge of the China Banking Regulatory Committee in February, Guo immediately launched a notable crackdown on shadow banking.11 Guo is a possible contender for the central banker position; the other likely contenders have strong credentials in regulatory oversight as well as banking. The 19th National Party Congress: The midterm leadership reshuffle will mark Xi's consolidation of power, which will enable him to pursue his policy preferences more effectively in 2018-22. He could still be prevented by exogenous events, but domestic politics should be less of an obstacle for him going forward. Chart 13China's Economic##br## Tailwinds Fading Chart 14Anti-Corruption Campaign Hindered##br## Local Government Spending What about Xi's political capital within the top Communist Party bodies? We are in the thick of major decisions as we go to press. The highest level of leadership - the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) - is expected to have its members chosen, in secret, in August when the current PSC and other party heavyweights will likely convene at Beidaihe to settle the list. The fall of Chongqing Party Secretary Sun Zhengcai in mid-July gives a few hints as to what might occur. Sun was ostensibly sympathetic with Xi, and until now the likeliest candidate for Premier Li Keqiang's replacement in 2022. His ouster means that four of the top five candidates on the PSC come from the rival camp to President Xi, i.e., the "Hu Jintao faction," which is rooted in the Chinese Communist Youth League (CCYL) (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Lineup Of New Politburo Standing Committee Yet To Take Shape - Factions Evenly Balanced? There are two likely pathways from here: either Sun's fall is part of a bargaining process and other CCYL members will soon be removed from the running for the PSC; or they will not be removed, which would mean that Xi gets along much better with the top CCYL members than is generally believed. The latter is unlikely, but possible, given that Xi and former President Hu Jintao did cooperate on critical power arrangements in the 2012 leadership transition. However, the most recent reports suggest that several CCYL members who were seen as rising stars (for 2022 leadership and beyond) have not received invitations to the party congress, including the current party secretary of the CCYL.12 If this proves to be the case, then it strongly suggests that Xi is continuing to undercut the CCYL. That, in turn, suggests that Xi will not tolerate the current scenario in which he stands to be outnumbered four-to-one on a five-member PSC. Instead, we should expect at least one major CCYL contender for the PSC to be removed in the coming months. This would enable Xi to gain the balance on a seven-member PSC. If the PSC is to be reduced to five members, then he would have to oust two major CCYL members - a more dramatic power play, but presumably within his reach given what he has achieved so far. Ultimately it is impossible to predict the PSC (and broader Politburo) membership precisely. All we can point out is that a failure by Xi to consolidate control on the top bodies - which is no longer our baseline view - would have bullish short-term but bearish long-term implications for growth. It would suggest, first, that Xi is weaker than he appears; second, that the aggressive financial regulatory drive outlined above, as well as other painful but necessary reforms, will be watered down as a result of resistance at top levels; third, that China is increasingly resisting the "creative destruction" that Xi threatens to bring about in the pursuit of making China more efficient. Bottom Line: A number of signs suggest that Chinese politics will become a headwind, rather than tailwind, to growth after the party congress. Xi's move to undercut the opposing CCYL faction ahead of the party congress confirms this view. His new policy will focus on deleveraging and financial sector restrictions. The commitment to stability will remain in place, however. Japan: Abe Is Not Yet Dead, Long Live Abenomics Shinzo Abe's approval rating has plummeted since June (Chart 15). His Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has also seen its popularity fall. This has been notable in relation to the flat polling of the LDP's main coalition partner, New Komeito (Chart 16). Chart 15Abe's Luck Runs Out? Chart 16Ruling LDP Also In Trouble Abe has been buffeted by a combination of spiraling corruption scandals and the loss of the Tokyo Metropolitan legislature in the local election of July 2. As if this were not bad enough, the Japanese economy is set to slow down (Chart 17).13 Chart 17A Slowdown In Japan Our readers will recall that we think there is a deeper cause for Abe's sudden loss of popularity: his proposed constitutional revisions, which he laid out in detail in May. Ever since he secured a virtual two-thirds supermajority in the House of Councillors (the Upper House) in July 2016, we have maintained that he would push ahead with controversial constitutional revisions that aim to enshrine the Japanese military. We expected that these changes would sap Abe's support - as did the debate over the new national security law in 2015 (Chart 18), only bigger this time because the matter is constitutional.14 However, the Tokyo election loss does not portend the death of Abe, and regardless, Abenomics itself will survive. Why? Because it is Abe's constitutional and security agenda that is unpopular, not Abenomics. Understood as economic reflation with elements of restructuring, like wage growth, Abenomics will actually intensify over the next year and a half as a result of the new threats to Abe's and the LDP's popularity and agenda, to which they will respond. Abe is more deeply committed to this constitutional mission than to Abenomics. It is his most ambitious plan and his economic policy supports it. Revising the constitution is about Japan seizing its own destiny again as a sovereign nation and also locking in the American alliance by offering greater military assistance to the U.S. Hence, at this point, economic reflation is not only an end in itself but also a means to a constitutional end. First, note that Abe's coalition in the upper house is not as "super" of a super-majority as is widely believed. He needs the support of smaller right-wing parties that are sympathetic toward his constitutional revisions to cross the 162-seat threshold for a two-thirds vote in the upper House of Councillors to approve constitutional reforms. But the LDP's three partner parties that are in favor of revision, as well as at least one independent, could raise objections and that would sink the revisions (Diagram 3). There are others with misgivings. Economic slowdown is not a recipe for Diet members to make big political sacrifices on Abe's account, so we expect monetary and fiscal policy to remain easy. Chart 18Abe Loses Support When He Talks ##br##Security Instead Of Economy Diagram 3Super-Majority ##br##Barely Within Reach Second, if the constitutional changes pass the upper and lower houses of the Diet by two-thirds votes, they must pass a nationwide referendum. While there is majority support for revisions of some sort, there is a roughly 50-50 division on the question of altering Article 9 (Chart 19), the article that forbids Japan to maintain military forces. This is the bullseye of Abe's proposal. The need for 50% of the nation to vote "yes" is an even bigger reason for Abe to pull policy levers to keep the economy humming before a potential referendum date in December 2018. Finally, even in the unlikely scenario that Abe's approval rating drops into the mid-20s or below and the LDP ousts him, we do not expect the next LDP leader to alter Abenomics in any significant way. The frontrunners for Abe's replacement in the September 2018 LDP party leadership poll, such as Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, would likely soften their predecessor's policy on remilitarization and constitutional revision, but would also launch a substantively similar economic policy that the media would promptly dub "Kishidanomics," "Ishibanomics," or "Asonomics." Thus, on fiscal policy, the focus will remain on fiscal support and lifting wages and social spending. Rules calling for fiscal restraint will be relaxed. On monetary policy, BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda is eligible for reappointment on April 8, 2018. So are his two deputies. Furthermore, the monetary policy committee members appointed since Kuroda have also been ultra-dovish like him.15 In short, the BoJ underwent a regime change in 2012 and will not revert back to the norms that prevailed before the global financial crisis, before the LDP lost power to a serious opposition party (2009), and before the shock to the national psyche that occurred during the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis. Further, Japanese households are only hardly net savers anymore (Chart 20), and have for five years voted for a more reflationary policy. And aside from the current path of stealth debt monetization, there is no other way of managing the nation's debt other than fiscal austerity, which is not an option for an increasingly elderly population dependent on government social spending. The era of BoJ unorthodoxy is here to stay, at least as long as the LDP is in power (December 2018), if not longer. Chart 19Revise The Constitution? Yes.##br## End Pacifism? Maybe. Chart 20Japanese No Longer ##br##Savers Who Fear Inflation Bottom Line: Abe's downfall is not assured, and would portend the end of Abenomics in name only. The next LDP government would maintain Abenomics, as it is driven by structurally limited options. Fade any selloff in Japanese equities. However, in the long run, Abenomics may prove a failure in terms of defeating deflation. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 As a reminder to the uninitiated readers, Breitbart is a conservative magazine that has been a platform for a slew of unorthodox right-wing views more in line with modern nationalist European political movements than the American conservative movement. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration," dated July 17, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Every Which Way But Loose," dated July 18, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "Questions From The Road," dated July 1, 2015, and "Policy Mistakes And A Silver Lining," dated October 7, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Gabriel Wildau, "China bank overseer launches 'regulatory windstorm,'" Financial Times, April 18, 2017, available at www.ft.com. 12 Please see Jun Mai, "Guess who's not invited to China's key Communist Party congress," South China Morning Post, July 23, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 13 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "A Soft-Spoken Yellen," dated July 14, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see footnote 11 above. 15 The last two dissenters, Takehiro Sato and Takehide Kiuchi, stepped down when their terms expired on July 23, 2017. They were replaced by Goshi Kataoka and Hitoshi Suzuki, who are expected to support Governor Haruhiko Kuroda's dovish approach. Now all nine policy board members have been appointed by the Abe administration. Please see "Two new Bank of Japan policymakers join board," Japan Times, July 24, 2017, available at www.japantimes.co.jp.
Highlights Yellen pointed out that the U.S. R-star is low but that it will rise as temporary depressing factors pass. The Fed is determined to push rates toward 3% over time. The euro area R-star is substantially lower than that of the U.S., limiting the capacity of the ECB to follow the Fed's path and pace. Traders are massively long the euro. Abe's woes do not signal the end of Abenomics, in fact they point toward more stimulus. The BoC has hiked and will keep doing so, continue to favor the CAD. Feature Janet Yellen offered both a fascinating and telling glimpse on the Federal Reserve's thinking this week. She argued that the equilibrium fed funds rate is currently very depressed, which is limiting the pace at which the FOMC can increase interest rates before plunging the economy into recession. However, she also noted that the Fed anticipates equilibrium interest rates will continue to rise over time, which means the actual fed funds rate has more upside on a multi-year horizon, despite what will be a slow pace of increases. With this additional information on the Fed's mindset, investors should be even more comfortable in their assessment that the period of maximum policy divergence between the euro area and the U.S. is behind us, which justified bullish bets on the euro. However, the broader picture is a bit more complex. Different Equilibria The idea that the neutral fed funds rate is still low but rising explains why the Fed is still pegging its terminal rate at 3%. Currently, the Laubach and Williams formulation of the neutral real fed funds rate (also known as R-star) is at 0.4%, while the current real fed funds rate stands at -0.5%, which implies 0.9% upside in real rates over the next two years or so (Chart I-1). Moreover, if as we expect core inflation moves back toward 2% over the Fed's forecast horizon, the upside to rates would be closer to 150 basis points. In the euro area, however, the same long-term R-star stands at -0.1%, depressed by lower population growth, a higher savings rate and lower structural productivity gains. Since the real policy rate is at -0.7%, this signifies that the gap between the actual real policy rate and its equilibrium is a smaller 0.6% (Chart I-2). This means that euro area rates have much less upside than U.S. ones before generating a deleterious impact on growth. Chart I-1U.S. R-Star Vs. Policy Rates Chart I-2Euro Area R-Star Vs. Policy Rates It is easy to argue that R-star differences are nice theoretical concepts, with little practical implications for currency investors. After all, interest rate differentials at the long end of the curve are clearly a function of the relative GDP per capita between the euro area and the U.S. (Chart I-3). These same GDP-dynamics also have an impact - albeit a less tight one - on EUR/USD. Chart I-3Yield Differentials And Relative GDP Chart I-4How R-Star And GDP Tango Yet, R-star spreads do affect growth differentials between the euro area and the U.S. As Chart I-4 illustrates, when the euro area real policy rate crosses above its equilibrium, euro area real GDP per capita growth sags soon after. The same holds true for the U.S. This suggests the capacity of European GDP per capita to outperform that of the U.S. is currently limited, or at the very least needs rates in Europe to remain quite low relative to the U.S., anchored lower by the depressed level of the R-star in Europe vis-a-vis the U.S. Moreover, the recent outperformance of European GDP per capita relative to the U.S. has a lot to do with the poor performance of U.S. GDP in 2016. However, U.S. GDP should firm in the coming quarters, particularly since household income levels are well supported. As Chart I-5 shows, based on an average of the pay-related and hiring-related components of the NFIB small businesses survey, the aggregate wages and salaries received by U.S. households are set to accelerate, both in nominal and real terms. This represents a boost to aggregate income and should support consumption, or almost 70% of the U.S. economy. Additionally, the rebound in U.S. capex should continue. Both the NFIB and the various regional Fed capex intention surveys remain healthy. This, along with labor market tightness, should be accretive to per capita GDP. As Chart I-6 shows, a composite indicator based on the NFIB survey capex and "jobs hard to fill" components is very strong, which historically has led to an acceleration of real-GDP-per capita growth. Chart I-5U.S. Household Income Will Accelerate Chart I-6U.S. Real GDP Per Capita Will Strengthen As a result, we are inclined to bet on a renewal of strength in the U.S. economy, which will support R-star there and help the Fed hike rates by more than the 43 basis points currently anticipated over the next 24 months. Bottom Line: The U.S. long-term equilibrium real fed funds rate is low, but remains substantially higher than the R-star in the euro area. This suggests that U.S. rates have more upside than European ones. Moreover, the outlook for U.S. per capita GDP is healthy, while that of Europe will continue to require low rates to remain on an upward path. Tactical Considerations Around EUR/USD EUR/USD is well bid, and our base case scenario remains that the 1.15 to 1.16 zone will be retested. However, some technical indicators have made us leery to chase this move, and might even prevent this target zone from ever being breached. To begin with, the number of long speculative bets on the euro has hit a record high, while the number of short bets has collapsed (Chart I-7). Net long speculative positions are not at a record high yet, but are in the upper echelons of the distribution of the past 17 years. Interestingly - and some would argue almost mechanically - while speculators' optimist or pessimist extremes can be used as contrarian indicators, commercial traders tend to be disproportionally short or long the euro at the appropriate time - i.e., when the euro is set to plummet or rally, respectively. Theoretically, commercial and non-commercial traders' positions should be in perfect balance as they are counterparties to one another, but in practice this is rarely the case. Because of this observation, we decided to amplify the message of both series by subtracting the net long commercial positions from net long non-commercial ones. This indicator tends to work best at highlighting tops in EUR/USD. The current reading has been indicative of an upcoming period of weakness in this pair (Chart I-8). The only exception was in 2007, a period when unlike today, the Fed was cutting rates while the ECB policy rate was being lifted all the way to July 2008. Chart I-7Record Longs In The Euro Chart I-8Aggregate Positioning Points To A Lower Euro Moreover, the buying pressure on EUR/USD may be exhausting itself. Wednesday, despite a seemingly dovish message from Fed Chair Yellen and despite stronger-than-anticipated industrial production numbers out of the euro area, EUR/USD weakened 0.6% instead of appreciating. In fact, our European Investment Strategy Senior Vice President Dhaval Joshi's Fractal Dimension indicator - a measure of group-think in the market - is now at 1.25, a level that also warns of an imminent trend change (Chart I-9).1 Chart I-9A Risk Of Reversal As a result, we do not yet think it is time to be betting aggressively on a fall in EUR/USD, especially as next week's ECB meeting might give an occasion for President Mario Draghi to re-affirm his optimism, giving the euro its final push toward 1.15-1.16. However, nimble traders should begin building small short positions in the euro on the optic of expanding their bets if the EUR/USD gathers downward momentum. Bottom Line: The euro may well hit the 1.15-1.16 range, but positioning in EUR/USD is currently extremely overstretched, and the euro's trading action suggests that groupthink has become prevalent, confirming the message of positioning. This means the euro is at risk. Nimble traders should begin building small short positions in EUR/USD, but it is not yet time to bet aggressively on this pair. Shinzo's Troubles Are Not The Demise Of Abenomics Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's popularity has been in freefall in recent weeks, hitting the most dismal levels of his current premiership (Chart I-10). The flogging received by the LDP in the recent Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly election is indeed being perceived as a rejection of the party's policy stance since 2012. Does this represent the coup de grace that will end Abenomics? We doubt it. The key behind the recent dip in Abe's popularity is not his economic policy but his move away from it. Instead, his focus on changing the pacifist constitution of post-war Japan is the source of the LDP's and Abe's woes, as this topic remains anathema with the Japanese public. Moreover, we are not willing to bet on the demise of the LDP. The Tokyo election was a one-off event. The new Tomin First no Kai (Tokyoites First) party that is now the largest force in the regional assembly is led by the very popular Tokyo governor Yuriko Koike, and will rely on the pacifist Komeito to control the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly. At the national level, the DPJ remains in tatters, and no potential new party is in place to carry the torch of the opposition. Japan is still effectively a one-party democracy. So what are the market implications of these political developments? We expect a doubling down by Abe on economic stimulus. If Abe ever wants a passing chance to have, let alone win, a referendum to increase Japan's militarism, the economy needs to be stronger than it is. Thus, we think this boot of unpopularity will be key to unlocking more fiscal stimulus out of Tokyo. When more fiscal stimulus finally does materialize, if it boosts growth, it will also lift long-term inflation expectations (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Abe's Plummeting##br## Popularity Chart I-11If Fiscal Stimulus Is Implemented ##br##CPI Expectations Will Rise... In this context, we would expect continued pressure on the Bank of Japan to remain one of the two most dovish central banks in the G10, as to not undo the benefits of fiscal stimulus. Moreover, the BoJ cannot remove stimulus, as realized CPI excluding food and energy remains in negative territory. Tokyo's CPI report, which offers a one-month lead on the national release, shows that core inflation is still in negative territory. National summer wage negotiations point to negative wage growth next year, making a revival of domestically generated inflation a remote event without an easing of financial conditions (Chart I-12). Additionally, the recent rollover in the leading diffusion index suggests the economic upswing may already be fading (Chart I-13). Continued BoJ support and higher inflation expectations would hurt Japanese real yields and handicap the yen. Chart I-12...But That Will Also Require Easy Monetary##br## And Financial Conditions Chart I-13A Slowdown ##br##In Japan The recent upswing in global bond yields is thus likely to continue to weigh on the yen, leading to a higher USD/JPY. As this week illustrated, rising global yields are forcing the BoJ to increase its amount of JGB purchases to cap the upside in Japanese 10-year yields. Tactically, USD/JPY has been in an upswing, but has hit an important resistance close to 114.5. A few more days of weakness could ensue, but such weakness should be used by investors to sell the yen. Bottom Line: Abe's political problems do not represent the end of Abenomics. Instead, they illustrate the Japanese public's lack of appetite toward abandoning Japan's post-war pacifism. If Abe is serious about holding a referendum on this topic, he will have to support growth going forward - which implies higher fiscal stimulus and inflation expectations. Meanwhile, the absence of inflation in Japan continues to hamstring the BoJ in keeping policy extremely supportive, limiting the upside to nominal interest rates across the Japanese yield curve. Real rate differentials will continue to support USD/JPY. Use any weakness in this pair to buy the dollar versus the yen. Canada: Poloz Delivers The Bank of Canada on Wednesday increased interest rates by 25 basis points to 0.75%, the first central bank to follow the Fed's lead. Our analysis two weeks ago suggested that the BoC was faced with some of the most supportive conditions in the world to follow the Fed's path.2 More interesting than the decision itself was the accompanying quarterly Monetary Policy Report. In the report, the BoC moved forward its estimation of the closure of the output gap from 2018 to 2017. Additionally, despite expecting a slowdown in household consumption in 2018, the BoC upgraded its GDP forecast by 0.2% in 2017 and 0.1% in 2018, to 2.8% and 2%, respectively. Obviously, the market took note of these views, with USD/CAD falling three big figures on the news. The tone of the report was quite bullish on the Canadian economy, highlighting robust as well as broad-based growth and increasing signs of vanishing slack. In fact, the message reiterated that of the summer Business Outlook Survey, which showed strong growth, growing difficulty meeting demand, and growing and intensifying labor shortages (Chart I-14). As a result, the BoC expects the weak Canadian CPI to rebound, after the transitory effects of low food inflation, automobile rebates, and Ontario's electricity subsidies dissipate. We are inclined to agree with this assessment. At 2% per annum, Canadian employment growth is robust and the unemployment rate has fallen significantly. Now that oil prices have stabilized, employment is improving, suggesting that even the weakest regions of the economy are participating in the party. Additionally, our Canadian economic diffusion index - based on retail trade, manufacturing sales, building permits and employment data in the 10 provinces - has sharply accelerated, pointing to a continued rise in GDP growth (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Canada Is Booming And Slack Is Shrinking Chart I-15Strong Data Across The Board USD/CAD continues to trade at a discount to real interest rate differentials, signaling further upside on the CAD. Also, while investors have begun to curtail their shorts on the loonie, there do remain enough stale shorts for the CAD advance to persevere. We continue to prefer playing the CAD's strength on its crosses such as versus the AUD and the EUR, as the risk profile seems cleaner on these pairs than versus the USD. Short EUR/CAD looks particularly attractive. Our long CAD/NOK trade is near its target, and we are closing this position. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada has not only hiked rates, but it has also highlighted that the Canadian economy is strong and inching closer to full capacity. The market has taken note, with the loonie rallying violently. The CAD has more upside going forward, especially against the euro and the AUD. We are booking profits on our long CAD/NOK position. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see European Investment Strategy Special Report titled, "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model", dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy And Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report titled, "Who Hikes Next?", dated June 30, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The greenback has largely been flat this week, despite Yellen's statements regarding rate hikes and balance sheet normalization at her Congressional Testimony, even if, 10-year yields went down. U.S. economic data has a soft tone: NFIB Business Optimism Index came in lower than expected at 103.6, reflecting broad-based softness in the details of the survey; JOLTS job openings also came in lower than expected at 5.666 mn; Initial jobless claims underperformed expectations, coming in at 247,000; Additionally, continuing jobless claims were higher than expected at 1.945 mn. While data remains mixed, the Fed is still intent on tightening policy. The dollar will follow suit, especially if inflation moves as the Fed expects. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Data out of Europe this week was reasonably strong: Both exports and imports increased at a 1.4% and 1.2% monthly pace, respectively; The current account beat expectations; Industrial production increased by 4%, more than the expected 3.6%; However, despite this upbeat data, the euro remained largely flat this week. This behavior is justified from a technical perspective: the RSI is close to overbought levels; the MACD line is rolling over and closing the gap with the signal line; the number of speculators with long positions is at its highest level ever. The considerable weakness in EUR/SEK and EUR/NOK on Thursday shows underlying weakness in the euro. This decreases the likelihood that EUR/USD breaches the 1.15-1.16 zone. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Labor cash earnings yearly growth outperformed expectations and grew from last month, coming in at 0.7%. However, machinery orders yearly growth was far below expectations, coming in at 0.6%. In spite of the selloff in the dollar, USD/JPY has rallied by more than 1% since last week, stopping its ascent after hitting a key technical level at 114.5. We continue to be yen bears, even in the face of the declining popularity of Shinzo Abe: the champion for expansionary fiscal policy in Japan. Instead, we are confident that Abe will double down on fiscal spending as his decline in popularity has been precisely because he has strayed away from this key policy pillar which made him so popular. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Halifax House prices grew by only 2.6% YoY, underperforming expectations of 3.1%. Industrial Production contracted by 0.2% year-on-year, also underperforming expectations. While the unemployment rate decreased, coming in at 4.5% and also beating expectations, average earning growth fell to 1.8%. After appreciating by almost 2% this week, and reaching 0.895, EUR/GBP has come down to 0.885, but the pound is likely to have short term downside against the euro. Furthermore, GBP/USD is also likely to have downside, as the pound is not as attractive as it was in the beginning of the year from a valuation standpoint. Indeed, sentiment has turned much more positive on the outcome of Brexit, which means that the significant discount in the pound has disappeared. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The AUD has seen a broad-based increase this week, except for against the CAD. This increase has largely been a factor of Chinese data, although domestic conditions also played a role: Chinese exports and imports both increased at a 11.3% and 17.2% annual pace, respectively; China's trade balance in June was USD 42.77 bn, better than expected; Chinese new loans came in at RMB 1,540 bn; NAB Business Conditions and Confidence both beat expectations; However, investment lending for homes is still contracting at 1.4%, albeit at a lesser than expected pace of 2.3%; Also, home loans are increasing at a lesser than expected pace of 1%. We retain our view of the inherent weakness in the Australian economy, which will restrict the RBA from changing its view. This will weigh on the AUD in the near future. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 AUD/NZD has rallied by almost 1.3% since last week. This in part, was the market reaction to an approved housing infrastructure fund by Prime Minister Bill English worth NZ$1 Billion aimed at increasing the supply of housing in the country. This measure provides the RBNZ with some breathing room, as it is a policy aimed at cooling housing market, which has prices growing at a 14% rate. The increase in housing supply alleviates the pent up demand generated by the dramatic increase in population in New Zealand in recent years. The RBNZ is unlikely to join the BoC and the Fed this year, as they remain cautious, and have opted for macro prudential measures to eliminate any imbalances in the economy. Stay short the NZD against the dollar and the yen. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canada followed the footsteps of its partner in the south, joining the U.S. as the only two central banks in the G10 space raising interest rates. The Bank of Canada highlighted that "the adjustment to lower oil prices is largely complete" and that "both the goods and services sectors are expanding". Alberta's economy validates this stance as all sectors of the economy are growing at a very brisk pace. The BoC estimates that the output gap will now close at the end of 2017, instead of the previous forecast of the first half of 2018, further escalating their hawkish rhetoric. The press release noted that the recent restrain in inflationary pressures will be transitory, as "excess capacity is absorbed". Recent data corroborates this view with strong employment data and stronger than expected housing starts. USD/CAD declined 1.3% at the end of the day of the hike, and outperformed all other currencies. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Unemployment remains very low, coming in at 3.2% However, producer and import prices contracted by 0.1% year-on-year, coming below expectations and decreasing from the previous month. The low unemployment number is not the only indicator that shows a tight labor market, as employment is also growing at an astonishing 5% yearly rate. However, this tightness in the labor market is not translating to higher wages, as wages are growing at a paltry 0.6%, anchored by strong deflationary forces. Thus, the SNB will continue with their ultra-dovish monetary policy and with their interventions in the currency market. Nevertheless, we will monitor if the recent plunge in the CHF against the euro creates any kind of inflationary dynamics in the economy, and causes the SNB to rethink their stance. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Manufacturing output contracted by 0.3%, falling sharply from last month number. Additionally, although both core and headline inflation came above expectations at 1.6% and 1.9% respectively, they still fell from last month reading. The Krone has appreciated sharply the past week, with USD/NOK falling by 1.45% and EUR/NOK falling by 1.15%. This has been a result of the rebound in oil prices caused by the massive draws in inventories the past couple of weeks. Indeed, last week's number, which showed an inventory draw of 7.6 million barrels was the biggest since 2011. Overall, we expect that OPEC should be able to continue managing supply, and therefore, oil should rise until the end of the year. This will be negative for EUR/NOK. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The Riksbank's change in rhetoric was perfectly timed, as Sweden's economy is increasingly showing signs of strength. Data has outperformed these past two weeks: Manufacturing PMI came in at 62.4, beating expectations of 59.8; Industrial production increased at a 8% annual pace in May; Inflation in Sweden is firming, coming in at 1.7% in June and beating expectations. The SEK appreciated 0.7% against EUR, and 0.6% against USD. Markets are pricing in stronger growth and a further escalation of hawkish rhetoric from the central bank, especially as Stefan Ingves as tabulated to leave this Riksbank in a few months. Part of the reason for Sweden's strength is also a stronger European economy. With Germany leading the pack, Sweden's largest export partner is also lifting the largest Scandinavian economy. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades
Highlights The G20 summit highlighted our theme of multipolarity, which encourages global instability; U.S.-China tensions have resumed their escalation after a brief pause; The Middle East is still a "red herring" for investors this year, but tail risks are rising; Any negative impact on oil production from these risks should be minor; Iran stands to benefit; Egypt is a buy on the back of cyclical recovery and Saudi support. Feature For the first time in the history of G20 summits, the "sherpas" (emissaries) who prepared the event failed to reach any notable policy agreements. Allegedly, the only policy that the U.S. administration endorsed prior to the summit was women's entrepreneurialism, Ivanka Trump's pet project. Why should investors care? G20 meetings have always been abstract, retroactive (as opposed to proactive), and barely able to move the markets. But they have occasionally mattered. The summits in Washington D.C. (November 2008) and London (April 2009) set the agenda for economic stimulus and global financial regulatory reform that brought the world back from the brink of abyss. The London summit, in particular, set the stage for coordinated, global, fiscal policy that reflated the economy. At the September 2009 Pittsburgh summit, the G20 replaced the Western-dominated G8 as the premier economic governance platform. (The latter is now the G7 because of Russia's exclusion after annexing Crimea.) The idea behind the expanded forum was to give emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil a say in the global economic architecture. It was the forum's expansion that ultimately doomed its effectiveness. To our knowledge, no multilateral framework has ever successfully coordinated global affairs. Global stability has always been underpinned by hegemony, which is why we have warned our readers since 2011 that emerging global multipolarity - caused by America's relative geopolitical decline - would lead to instability.1 The press will inevitably blame President Trump's "America First" for the failures of the G20. We do not disagree, but there is more to it than just politics. "America First" is a natural political reaction to the reality of American geopolitical decline. It is also a reaction to nearly two decades of foreign policy decisions to commit massive amounts of U.S. hard and soft power to pursuing nation-building policies in the Middle East. As such, "America First" is a symptom, not the cause, of global multipolarity. The "Trump Doctrine" could indeed be highly destabilizing, if followed through to its logical conclusion.2 Ostensibly, President Trump seeks to renegotiate global security and economic arrangements that have taken advantage of American magnanimity. But it was America that initially designed these arrangements, at the height of its power in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, to secure its own interests. Institutions like NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank underpin, they do not undermine, American hegemony. Without these institutions, American allies will seek their own negotiated arrangements more freely and frequently with U.S. adversaries, slowly eroding Washington's global influence. Over the long term, the Trump Doctrine could also undermine the U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency. The dollar's reserve currency status is a privilege that monetizes American geopolitical hegemony. America's allies are essentially already paying for American hegemony: through their investments in U.S. dollar assets.3 Chart 1 illustrates this so-called "exorbitant privilege."4 Foreigners hold U.S. assets because of the size of the economy, the sustainability of the market, and its deep liquidity, but also because the U.S. provides them with assurances of peace through security. If Washington raises barriers to its markets and becomes a doubtful provider of security, states may gradually see less of a payoff in holding U.S. assets and thus diversify more rapidly. They could also be forced to diversify by new security guarantors, regional hegemons, and geopolitical bullies. Chart 1Exorbitant Privilege The concept of exorbitant privilege - and its economic benefits - cannot easily be explained to voters. What voters understand is that China's rapid industrialization has been accomplished at the cost of American manufacturing jobs. Candidate Trump successfully tapped into this angst during the campaign. President Trump, however, initially shied away from seriously applying the "America First" doctrine. The April Trump-Xi summit at Mar-a-Lago was hailed as evidence that fears of global protectionism were overblown and that the "globalist" camp of advisers in the White House were prevailing over the nationalists. As we expected, however, the détente did not last long. Over the past several weeks, China and the U.S. have clashed over several key issues: Taiwan: On June 29, the U.S. announced that it will sell $1.42 billion worth of arms to the island nation.5 Secondary sanctions: At the end of June, the Trump administration sanctioned a Chinese shipping company, bank, and two citizens for their ties to North Korea. Human rights: Also at the end of June, the U.S. State Department announced it would list China among the worst human trafficking offenders, which could trigger punitive actions and complicate trade negotiations in the future. Steel tariffs: President Trump asked the Department of Commerce back in April to study whether steel imports were harming national security, under the authority of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and a potential decision by Trump on tariffs is due within days. While China only accounts for 2% of U.S. steel imports, new tariffs could set in motion more protectionist measures that target additional industries. Sovereignty claims: The U.S. Navy and Air Force have made sojourns into disputed maritime areas. The navy conducted a "freedom of navigation" operation in the South China Sea in July, with USS Stethem steaming within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island. The air force also conducted separate missions sending B-1 bombers over the South China Sea, and over the Korean peninsula and East China Sea along with Japanese and South Korean F-15 fighter jets. This flurry of brinkmanship has largely emanated from Washington, not Beijing. As Trump's domestic political agenda stalled - with both health care and tax reform now in doubt - the administration has set its sights on the policy realm where the U.S. president has few constraints: foreign and trade policy. That is not to say that Beijing has not invited these actions. It has continued to militarize its artificial islands in the South China Sea and has failed to impose meaningful sanctions on North Korea. The Trump administration is clearly disappointed that its Mar-a-Lago summit failed to produce any tangible effect on these fronts, particularly with North Korea having launched a purported intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time. It is the Trump administration itself, however, that is to be blamed for China's lack of enthusiasm. One of the first acts of the Trump administration was to bring into question Washington's "One China" policy. As we remarked at the time, this would have serious implications for Sino-American policies. Defending sovereignty is a core pillar of the Chinese Communist Party; it is part of its "creation myth," and this is nowhere truer than in regard to Taiwan. When Trump brought into question the "One China" principle, he signaled to Beijing policymakers that Washington is not to be trusted. North Korea is both formally and in practical terms a Chinese ally. Though the Xi administration evidently wishes that the North was not providing the U.S. with excuses to enhance the American position on the Korean Peninsula, nevertheless it is longstanding Chinese policy to avoid destabilizing the North Korean regime. A collapse, possibly followed by a unified Korean Peninsula, could benefit the U.S. in the region. In other words, China will pressure the North enough to encourage a new round of talks but not enough to risk fracturing the regime. Chart 2Mar-A-Lago Summit Is Over What investors are seeing today is the impact of words - "signaling" to be technical - in geopolitics. To be fair to President Trump, he has not pursued a revolutionary foreign policy yet. However, his mere words - literally dithering on NATO's Article V and calling into question the "One China" policy - have pushed other global powers into realignment. The rest of the world takes Trump very seriously because he may one day act on his unorthodox policies, or because American voters may elect someone in the future who will. The likely result is further erosion of U.S. global influence. Notably, the U.S. president stood alone on several crucial global issues at the G20 summit in Germany, making it look more like a "G19" summit. American isolation makes sense from Trump's short-term, domestic-political vantage. In the long term, however, it accelerates the drift toward geopolitical multipolarity and thus encourages global instability. Over the near term, we are particularly concerned that Sino-American tensions could escalate and spill over into a trade war. Since Donald Trump's election, and particularly since the Mar-a-Lago summit, the market has largely priced out economic tensions between the two superpowers, with China-exposed S&P 500 equities outperforming the market (Chart 2). We would bet against the continuation of this trend. Lack of cooperation over North Korea is a sign that the Sino-American relationship is systematically broken. Middle East Update: Watch Power Vacuums In Iraq And Syria At the beginning of this year, we made a forecast that geopolitics in the Middle East would not be investment relevant.6 So far we are correct. However, we continue to worry that vacuums in Iraq and Syria - in the Sunni-dominated territories formerly occupied by the now-collapsing Islamic State - could become greater sources of instability in the region. We are particularly concerned about three potential flash points: North Iraq, North Syria, and East Syria. East Syria In East Syria, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) loyal to President Bashar al-Assad - as well as its Lebanese Shia ally Hezbollah - has aggressively moved to establish control over the Syrian-Iraqi border. As indicated on Map 1, SAA forces have created a land-bridge through Islamic State territory to Tayyara on the Iraqi border. This has put SAA troops in close proximity to "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) forces operating in the southeast of the country. Map 1Syria's Army Has Created A Land-Bridge To Iraq The FSA was created by the U.S. and its allies. Its forces are trained by the U.S., and the U.S. Air Force provides cover for its territory. The recent downing of Syrian fighter jets and Iranian drones have occurred near the U.S. FSA base, which is based in the proximity of the FSA stronghold at Al Tanf. Without committing land troops, however, the best the U.S. can hope for is to limit SAA incursions into FSA-held territory. The push by SAA and Hezbollah to the Iraqi border creates an all-important land-bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. It allows Tehran to reinforce Assad's SAA and Hezbollah by land, rather than relying on sea routes - which can be intercepted by the U.S. and Israel's superior naval capabilities in the Mediterranean - or through air. Not only will Iran and Shia-dominated Iraq be able to supply Assad with weapons, but also with troops. After a five-year war of attrition, the main resource that has been depleted on all sides is manpower. A significant influx of "fresh blood" means that the power balance will shift more easily in favor of Assad. Following the collapse of the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq will be able to deploy significant resources from its Shia militias to Syria. This could be the game changer that ends the conflict in Syria in Assad's favor over the next 12 months. The SAA penetration to Tayyara has now set up the next target: Al Bukamal to the north and also on the Iraqi border. From there, the SAA will be able to round back deep into Islamic State territory and capture Deir ez-Zor. This will give Assad control over most of Syria's border with Iraq as well as the country's highway infrastructure. It will also pin the U.S.-backed FSA to a largely irrelevant corner of Syria. The success of Iranian and Russian-backed SAA in Eastern Syria is very important for the geopolitics of the region. By creating a land-bridge between Iran and the Mediterranean, Syrian forces have now opened up the possibility of one day hosting massive natural gas and oil pipeline infrastructure that would link natural gas from the Persian Gulf, developed jointly by Qatar and Iran, and oil from Iran and Iraq to European markets (Map 2). Map 2The Path Is Opening For Iranian Pipelines Through Syria Such an alternative route to Iranian energy exports would give Tehran an upper hand over Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies. In a hypothetical conflict scenario between Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, Tehran would be more willing to try to close shipping in the Straits of Hormuz if it possessed an alternative route for energy exports. This is clear to Saudi Arabia, which is why it has lashed out against Qatar in recent weeks. The main Saudi demand of Qatar is that it abandon its pro-Iranian foreign policy. It is becoming clear to Saudi Arabia that Iran's power is set to grow in the wake of the Islamic State's defeat in Iraq and Syria. As such, Saudi Arabia is trying to tie loose ends in its own coalition, starting with Qatar. Despite the reported Trump-Putin ceasefire agreed at the G19, U.S. and Russian forces could still become entangled as their proxies battle in the strategic regions near the Syrian-Iraqi border. SAA troops have also begun to operate near Raqqa, where the Kurdish forces supported by the U.S. are currently encircling the Islamic State capital. Final stages of wars tend to be erratic and even more violent. As belligerents glimpse the end of conflict they rush to seize as much territory as possible before negotiations begin. This is effectively what is happening in East Syria and around Raqqa today. Northern Syria In the Kurdish dominated northern Syria, the People's Protection Units (YPG) have massively increased the territory under their control. Supported by the U.S., YPG have encircled Raqqa and will soon defeat the Islamic State in the North. Assad's SAA will concede Raqqa in order to move onto the more strategic Resafa and Deir ez-Zor, effectively abandoning northern Syria to the Kurds to focus on establishing the land-bridge with Iraq. Turkey, however, is not interested in conceding northern Syria to YPG. The latter are allied to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that Ankara considers a terrorist organization. With SAA focused on controlling population centers and the Syrian-Iraqi border, northern Syria will descend further into Kurdish domination. This would give PKK militants a large territory from which to regroup and resupply operations in Turkey. It is therefore a real possibility that Turkey will invade YPG-controlled northern Syria as soon as the operations against the Islamic State end. This will put the U.S. into a difficult position. On one hand, Turkey is a NATO ally. On the other, the Kurds are informal U.S. allies. The YPG have fought valiantly against the Islamic State and are perhaps the group most deserving of thanks for the defeat of its so-called Caliphate. Northern Iraq In northern Iraq, a similar dynamic has emerged where the Kurds have benefited the most from the rise of the Islamic State (Map 3). Operations in Mosul will soon end the Islamic State's dominion over parts of Iraq, which will allow Iraqi forces to focus on two tasks. First, resupplying Assad's SAA with weapons and troops. Second, turning to Kurdish gains in the north, particularly in the city of Kirkuk. Map 3Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey Iraqi Kurds, for their part, have called an independence referendum for September 25, 2017. President Masoud Barzani will not necessarily proclaim an independent Kurdistan following the referendum. The exercise could be a bid to negotiate more autonomy with Baghdad or a pre-election ploy to secure a majority in upcoming general elections and bolster the eventual presidential bid of his nephew, Nechirvan Barzani (current Prime Minister of Iraqi Kurdistan). Iraqi Kurds may be able to find some sort of an arrangement with Baghdad for greater autonomy. The problem is that both sides claim parts of the region. Kirkuk, for example, is not officially part of Iraqi Kurdistan. However, Kurds see it as their ancient capital and thus seized it in June 2014 as a preventative move to ensure that it did not fall into the hands of the Islamic State. Not only is Kirkuk a major Iraqi population center, but it is also a significant oil-producing region. Investment Implications Over the next several months, we would expect tensions in these three geographies to increase. Given the proximity of Russian, Iranian, Turkish, and American forces, we would expect the probability of accidents to rise significantly. This could temporarily move the markets and assign some geopolitical risk premium to oil prices. However, investors should realize that the regions involved are not major producers of oil, aside from Iraqi Kurdistan where we do not expect large-scale warfare. As such, any effect on oil production would be a minor blip in the global supply. Over the long term, the clear winner in the region remains Iran. Bashar al-Assad, Iran's ally in Syria, will stay in power. It is also clear that the Sunni Islamic State Caliphate will disappear, giving back the Shia-dominated Iraqi government control over its territory. For Saudi Arabia, this is a reality that cannot be changed at the moment. As we have pointed out before, low oil prices are a constraint to war.7 They reduce government revenue and force leaders to focus on domestic stability. A major conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is therefore unlikely. However, Saudi Arabia will respond by building a Sunni alliance against Iran. With Syria and Iraq now in the Iranian sphere, the imperative for Saudi Arabia is to counter Iranian regional hegemony through alliances. Egypt will remain a clear beneficiary of this strategy. The country is already the Middle East's candidate for the "too big to fail" moniker. Its population, economy, demographics, and security challenges all make it the main candidate for chief regional security risk. As such, it will continue to receive support from the international community. For Saudi Arabia, Egypt is a way to diversify its security portfolio away from the aloof United States. As such, we would expect the Saudis to continue to prop up the Egyptian economy with loans and grants in return for being able to call on the Egyptian military in time of need. Given a cyclical recovery in Egypt, which BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy has recently elucidated, this creates a structural buying opportunity in the country's equity market.8 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist EM Equity Sector Strategy obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 The closest the world ever got to a powerful and effective multilateral structure was the nineteenth-century "Concert of Europe," which kept general peace in Europe for a century (1814-1914), but at the cost of dividing up the rest of the planet into imperial spheres of influence where European states could play out their mercantilist rivalries. Ultimately, even that architecture crumbled as the British hegemony that underpinned it weakened after the 1870s. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 While the U.S. runs a massively negative net international investment position, its net international income remains positive. In other words, foreigners receive almost nothing for holding U.S. assets, while the U.S. benefits from risk premia in foreign markets. 5 The deal is not particularly significant in a military sense, and it is smaller in value than the last deal in December 2015, but it still sends a signal that angers Beijing, which also expects more controversial deals to be forthcoming given the Trump administration's signals that it plans to strengthen the Taiwan alliance. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust?" dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report, "Egypt: A Cyclical Recovery Amid Lingering Structural Challenges," dated June 20, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com.