Mega Themes

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary China’s Property Bust To Dwarf Japan’s China’s confluence of internal and external risks will continue to weigh on markets in 2022. Internally China’s property sector turmoil is one important indication of a challenging economic transition. The Xi administration will clinch another term but sociopolitical risks are underrated. Externally China faces economic and strategic pressure from the US and its allies. The US is distracted with other issues in 2022 but US-China confrontation will revive beyond that. China will strengthen relations with Russia and Iran, though it will not encourage belligerence. It needs their help to execute its Eurasian strategy to bypass US naval dominance and improve its supply security over the long run. China will ease monetary and fiscal policies in 2022 but it has no interest in a massive stimulus. Policy easing will be frontloaded in the first half of the year. Featured Trade: Strategically stay short the renminbi versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and the euro. Stay short TWD-USD as well. Recommendation INCEPTION Date Return SHORT TWD / USD 2020-06-11 0.5% SHORT CNY / EQUAL-WEIGHTED BASKET OF EURO AND USD 2021-06-21 -3.9% Bottom Line: Beijing is easing policy to secure the post-pandemic recovery, which is positive for global growth and cyclical financial assets. But structural headwinds will still weigh on Chinese assets in 2022. China’s Historic Confluence Of Risks Global investors continue to clash over China’s outlook. Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, recently praised China’s “Common Prosperity” plan and argued that the US and “a lot of other countries” need to launch similar campaigns of wealth redistribution. He warned about the US’s 2024 elections and dismissed accusations of human rights abuses by saying that China’s government is a “strict parent.”1 By contrast George Soros, founder of the Open Society Foundations, recently warned against investing in China’s autocratic government and troubled property market. He predicted that General Secretary Xi Jinping would fail to secure another ten years in power in the Communist Party’s upcoming political reshuffle.2 Geopolitics can bring perspective to the debate: China is experiencing a historic confluence of internal (political) and external (geopolitical) risk, unlike anything since its reform era began in 1979. At home it is struggling with the Covid-19 pandemic and a difficult economic transition that began with the Great Recession of 2008-09. Abroad it faces rising supply insecurity and an increase in strategic pressure from the United States and its allies. The implication is that the 2020s will be an even rockier decade than the 2010s. In the face of these risks the Chinese Communist Party is using the power of the state to increase support for the economy and then repress any other sources of instability. Strict “zero Covid” policies will be maintained for political reasons as much as public health reasons. Arbitrary punitive measures will put pressure on the business elite and foreigners. The geopolitical outlook is negative over the long run but it will not worsen dramatically in 2022 given America’s preoccupation with Russia, Iran, and midterm elections. Bottom Line: Global investor sentiment toward China will remain pessimistic for most of the year – but it will turn more optimistic toward foreign markets, especially emerging markets, that sell into China. China’s Internal Risks Chart 1China's Demographic Cliff By the end of 2021, China accounted for 17.7% of global economic output and 12.1% of global imports. However, the secular slowdown in economic growth threatens to generate opposition to the single-party regime, forcing the Communist Party to seek a new base of political legitimacy. Most countries saw a drop in fertility rates in the third quarter of the twentieth century but China’s “one child policy” created a demographic cliff (Chart 1). At first this generated savings needed for national development. But now it leaves China with excess capacity and insufficient household demand. Across the region, falling fertility rates have led to falling potential growth and falling rates of inflation. Excess savings increased production relative to consumption and drove down the rate of interest. The shift toward debt monetization in the US and Japan, in the post-pandemic context, is now threatening this trend with a spike in inflation. China is also monetizing debt after a decade of deflationary fears. But it remains to be seen whether inflation is sustainable when fertility remains below the replacement rate over the long run, as is projected for China as well as its neighbors (Chart 2). China’s domestic situation is fundamentally deflationary as a result of chronic over-investment over the past 40 years. China’s gross fixed capital formation stands at 43% of GDP, well above the historic trend of other major countries for the past 30 years (Chart 3). Chart 2Will Inflation Decouple From Falling Fertility?​​​​​​ Chart 3Over-Investment Is Deflationary, Not Inflationary Like other countries, China financed this buildup of fixed capital by means of debt, especially state-owned corporate debt. While building a vast infrastructure network and property sector, it also built a vast speculative bubble as investors lacked investment options outside of real estate. The growth in property prices has tracked the growth in private non-financial sector debt. The downside is that if property prices fall, debt holders will begin a long and painful process of deleveraging, just like Japan in the 1990s and 2000s. Japan only managed to reverse the drop in corporate investment in the 2010s via debt monetization (Chart 4). Chart 4Japan’s Property Bust Coincided With Debt Deleveraging ​​​​​​ Chart 5China's Debt Growth Halts Looking at the different measures of Chinese debt, it is likely that deleveraging has begun. Total debt, public and private, peaked and rolled over in 2020 at 290% of GDP. Corporate debt has peaked twice, in 2015 and again in 2020 at around 160% of GDP. Even households are taking on less debt, having gone on a binge over the past decade (Chart 5). In short China is following the Japanese and East Asian growth model: the stark drop in fertility and rise in savings created a huge manufacturing workshop and a highly valued property sector, albeit at the cost of enormous private and considerable public debt. If the private sector’s psychology continues to shift in favor of deleveraging, then the government will be forced to take on greater expenses and fund them through public borrowing to sustain aggregate demand, maximum employment, and social stability. The central bank will be forced to keep rates low to prevent interest rates from rising and stunting growth. China’s policymakers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. New regulations aimed at controlling the property bubble (the “three red lines”) precipitated distress across the sector, emblematized by the failure of the world’s most indebted property developer, Evergrande. Other property developers are looking to raise cash and stay solvent. Property prices peaked in 2015-16 and are now dropping, with third-tier cities on the verge of deflation (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Property Crisis Weighs On Construction As the property bubble tops out, Chinese policymakers are looking for new sources of productivity and growth. Chart 7Productivity In Decline​​​​​​ Productivity growth is subsiding after the export and property boom earlier in the decade, in keeping with that of other Asian economies. And sporadic initiatives to improve governance, market pricing, science, and technology have not succeeded in lifting total factor productivity (Chart 7). The initial goal of the Xi administration’s reforms, to rebalance the economy away from manufacturing toward services, has stumbled and will continue to face headwinds from the financial and real estate sectors that powered much of the recent growth in services (Chart 8). Chart 8China’s Structural Transition Falters Indeed the Communist Party is rediscovering the value of export-manufacturing in the wake of the pandemic, which led to a surge in durable goods orders as global consumers cut back on services and businesses initiated a new cycle of capital expenditures (Chart 9). The party encouraged the workforce to shift out of manufacturing over the past decade but is now rethinking that strategy in the face of the politically disruptive consequences of deindustrialization in the US and UK – such that the state can be expected to recommit to supporting manufacturing going forward (Chart 10). Policymakers are emphasizing economic self-sufficiency and “dual circulation” (import substitution) as solutions to the latent socioeconomic and political threat posed by disillusioned former manufacturing workers. Chart 9China Turns Back To Exports​​​​​​ Chart 10De-Industrialization Will Be Halted Even beyond ex-manufacturing workers, the country’s economic transition risks generating social instability. The middle class, defined as those who consume from $10 to $50 per day in purchasing power parity terms, now stands at 55% of total population, comparable to where it stood when populist and anti-populist political transformations occurred in Turkey, Thailand, and Brazil (Chart 11). China’s middle class may not be willing or able to intervene into the political process, but the government is still concerned about the long-term potential for discontent. Otherwise it would not have launched anti-corruption, anti-pollution, and anti-industrial measures in recent years. These measures vary in effectiveness but they all share the intention to boost the government’s legitimacy through social improvements and thus fall in line with the new mantra of “common prosperity.” For decades the ruling party claimed that the “principle contradiction” in society arose from a failure to meet the people’s “material needs,” but beginning in 2021 it emphasized that the principle contradiction is the people’s need for a “better life.” Real wages continue to grow but the pace of growth has downshifted from previous decades. The bigger problem is the stark rise in inequality, here proxied by skyrocketing housing prices. Hong Kong’s inequality erupted into social unrest in recent years even though it has a much higher level of GDP per capita than mainland China (Chart 12). In major cities on the mainland, housing prices have outpaced disposable income over the past two decades. Youth unemployment also concerns the authorities. Chart 11Social Instability A Genuine Risk Bottom Line: The Chinese regime faces historic social and political challenges as a result of a difficult structural economic transition. The ongoing emphasis on “common prosperity” reveals the regime’s fear of social instability. The underlying tendency is deflationary, though Beijing’s use of debt monetization introduces a long-term inflationary risk that should be monitored. Chart 12Causes Of Hong Kong Unrest Also Present In China​​​​​​ China’s External Risks Geopolitically speaking, China’s greatest challenge throughout history has been maintaining domestic stability. Because China is hemmed in by islands that superior foreign powers have often used as naval bases, it is isolated as if it is a landlocked state. A stark north-south division within its internal geography and society creates inherent political tension, while buffer regions are difficult to control. Hence foreign powers can meddle with internal affairs, undermine unity and territorial integrity, and exploit China’s large labor force and market. However, in the twenty-first century China has the potential to project power outward – as long as it can maintain internal stability. Power projection is increasingly necessary because China’s economy increasingly depends on imports of energy, leaving it vulnerable to western maritime powers (Chart 13). Beijing’s conversion of economic into military might has also created frictions with neighbors and aroused the antagonism of the United States, which increasingly seeks to maintain the strategic anchor in the western Pacific that it won in World War II. Chart 13Import Dependency A Strategic Security Threat As China’s influence expands into East Asia and the rest of Asia, conflicts with the US and its allies are increasingly likely, especially over critical sea lines of communication, including the Taiwan Strait. China’s reinforcement of its manufacturing prowess will also provoke the United States, while the US’s erratic attempts to retain its strategic position in Asia Pacific will threaten to contain China. Yet the US cannot concentrate exclusively on countering China – it is distracted by internal politics and confrontations with Russia and Iran, especially in 2022. China will strengthen relations with Russia and Iran. As an energy importer, China would prefer that neither Russia nor Iran take belligerent actions that cause a global energy shock. But both Moscow and Tehran are essential to China’s Eurasian strategy of bypassing American naval dominance to reduce its supply insecurity. And yet, in 2022 specifically, the US and China are both concerned about maintaining positive domestic political dynamics due to the midterm elections and twentieth national party congress. This includes a desire to reduce inflation. Hence both would prefer diplomacy over trade war, with regard to each other, and over real war, with regard to Ukraine and Iran. So there is a temporary overlap in interests that will discourage immediate confrontation. China might offer limited cooperation on Iranian or North Korean nuclear and missile talks. But the same domestic political dynamics prevent a significant improvement in US-China relations, as neither side will grant trade concessions in 2022, and the underlying strategic tensions will revive over the medium and long run. Bottom Line: China faces historic external risks stemming from import dependency and conflict with the United States. In the short run, the US conflicts with Russia and Iran might lead to energy shocks that harm China’s economy. Japan never recovered its rapid growth rates after the 1973 Arab oil embargo. In the long run, while Washington has little interest in fighting a war with China, its strategic competition will focus on galvanizing allies to penalize China’s economy and to substitute away from China, in favor of India and ASEAN. China’s Macro Policy In 2022: Going “All In” For Stability In last year’s China Geopolitical Outlook, we maintained our underweight position on Chinese equities and warned that Beijing’s policy tightening posed a significant risk to global cyclical assets – and yet we concluded that policymakers would avoid overtightening policy to the extent of spoiling the global recovery. This view prevailed over the course of 2021. Policymakers tightened monetary and fiscal policy in the first half of the year, then started loosening up in the summer. Chinese equities crashed but global equities powered through the year. In December 2020, at the Central Economic Work Conference, policymakers stated that China would “maintain necessary policy support for economic recovery and avoid sharp turns in policy” in 2021. In the event they did the minimal necessary, though they did avoid sharp turns. For 2022, the key word is “stability.” At the Central Economic Work Conference last month, the final communique mentioned “stability” or “stabilize” 25 times (Table 1). Hence the main objective of Chinese policymakers this year is to prioritize both economic and social stability ahead of the twentieth national party congress. Authorities will avoid last year’s tight policies. Table 1Key Chinese Policy Guidance 2021-22 China’s quarterly GDP growth slipped to just 4% in Q4 2021, from rapid recovery growth of 18.3% in Q1 2021. Considering the low base effect of 2020, the average growth of 2020 and 2021 ranged from 5-5.5% (Chart 14). This growth rate is in line with the pre-pandemic trajectory of 2015-2019. In Jan 2022, the IMF cut China’s 2022 growth forecast to 4.8%, while the World Bank lowered its forecasts to 5.1%. Considering the two-year average growth and government’s goal of “all in for stability,” we see an implicit GDP target of 5-5.5%. Chart 14Breakdown Of China’s GDP Growth Does this target matter? Although China stopped announcing explicit GDP growth targets, understanding the implicit target helps investors predict the turning point in macro policy. Due to robust global demand, net exports are now making a sizable contribution to GDP growth. However, due to the high base effect of 2021, there is limited room for exports to grow in 2022. Hence economic growth has to rely on final consumption expenditure and gross capital formation. Yet as a result of policy tightening, gross capital formation’s contribution to GDP has decreased significantly, from positive in H1 2021 to a rare negative contribution to GDP in the second half. At the same time, the contribution from final consumption expenditure also slipped over the course of 2021, due to worsening Covid conditions, one of the three pressures stated by the government. What does that mean? It means that loosening up macro policies is the pre-condition for stabilizing growth and the economy. Just like the officials said (see Table 1), the Chinese economy is “facing triple pressure from demand contraction, supply shocks, and weakening expectations,” so that “all sides need to take the initiative and launch policies conducive to economic stability.” Bottom Line: It is reasonable to expect accommodative fiscal and monetary policies in 2022, at least until the party congress ends. In fact, authorities have already started to make these adjustments since Q4 2021. China Avoids Monetary Overtightening Credit growth can be seen as an indicator for gross capital formation. In the second half of 2021, China’s total social financing (total private credit) growth plunged below 12% (Chart 15), the threshold we identified for determining whether authorities overtightened policy. Correspondingly, gross capital formation’s contribution to GDP dropped into the negative zone (see Chart 14 above). However, money growth did not dip below the threshold, and authorities are now trying to boost credit growth. Starting from December 2021, the market has seen marginally positive news out of the People’s Bank of China: December 15, 2021: The PBOC conducted its second reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut in 2021. The 50 bps cut was expected to release $188 billion in liquidity to support the real economy. December 20, 2021: The PBOC conducted its first interest rate cut since April 2020 by cutting 1-Year LPR by 5 bps on December 20 (Chart 16). Chart 15China's Money And Credit Growth Hits Pain Threshold​​​​​​ Chart 16China Monetary Policy Easing​​​​​​ January 17, 2022: The PBOC cut the interest rate on medium-term lending facility (MLF) loans and 7-day reverse repurchase (repos) rate both by 10 bps. January 20, 2022: The PBOC further lowered the 1-year LPR by 10 basis points and cut the 5-year LPR by 5 basis points, the first cut since April 2020. Chart 17China Policy Easing Will Boost Import Volumes The timing and size of the last two rate cuts came as a surprise to the market, signaling more comprehensive easing than was expected (confirming our expectations).3 The market saw a clear turning point: Chinese authorities are now fully aware of the need to loosen up monetary policy to counter intensifying downward pressure on the economy. Incidentally, the fine-tuning of the different lending facilities suggests the government aims to lower borrowing costs and stimulate the market without over-heating the property sector again. PBOC officials claim there is still some space for further cuts, though narrower now, when asked about if there is any room to further cut the RRR and interest rates in Q1. They added that the PBOC should “stay ahead of the market curve” and “not procrastinate.”4 Recent movements have validated this point. Going forward, M2 growth should stay above 8%. Total social financing growth should move up above our “too tight” threshold, although weak sentiment among private borrowers could force authorities to ease further to ensure that credit growth picks up. If the government is still committed to fighting housing speculation, as before, then we could see a smaller adjustment to the 5-Year LPR in the future. Otherwise the government is taking its foot off the brake for stability reasons, at least temporarily. Bottom Line: China will keep easing monetary policy in 2022, at least in the first half. This will result in an improvement in Chinese import volumes and ultimately emerging market corporate earnings, albeit with a six-to-12-month lag (Chart 17). China Avoids Fiscal Overtightening China will also avoid over-tightening fiscal policy in 2022. In December the government stressed the need to “maintain the intensity of fiscal spending, accelerate the pace, and moderately advance infrastructure investment.” In 2021, local government bond issuance did not pick up until the second half of the year. Considering the time lag of construction projects, it was too late for local government investment to stimulate the economy. By Q3 2021, local government bond issuance had just completed roughly 70% of the annual quota. By comparison, in 2018-2020, local governments all completed more than 95% of the annual quota by the end of September each year (Chart 18A). Chart 18AChina: No Pause In Local Bond Issuance In H1 2022​​​​​ Chart 18BChina: No Pause In Local Bond Issuance In H1 2022​​​​​​ There are several reasons behind the slow pace last year. The central government refused to pre-approve and pre-authorize the quota for bond issuance at the beginning of the year in 2021, in order to restore discipline after the massive 2020 stimulus measures. The quota was not released until after the Two Sessions in March, which means local government bond issuance did not pick up until April 2021, causing a 3-month vacuum in local government fiscal support (see Chart 18B). In contrast, for 2019 and 2020, the central government pre-authorized the bond issuance quota ahead of time to try to provide fiscal support evenly throughout the year. Starting from 2020, the central government strengthened supervision and evaluation of local government investment projects, again to instill discipline. Previously local governments could easily issue general-purpose bonds and the funds were theirs to spend. But now local governments are required to increase the transparency of their investment projects and mainly finance these projects via special-purpose bonds, i.e. targeted money for authorized projects (Table 2). In 2021 local governments were less willing to issue bonds. At the April 2021 Politburo meeting, the central government vowed to “establish a disposal mechanism that will hold local government officials accountable for fiscal and financial risks.” This triggered risk-aversion. Beijing wanted to prevent a growth “splurge” in the wake of its emergency stimulus, like what happened in 2008-11. The fiscal turning point came in the second half of the year. The central government called for accelerating local government bond issuance several times from July to October. The pace significantly picked up in the second half of 2021 and Q4 accounted for a significant portion of annual issuance (Chart 18). As a result, fixed asset investment and fiscal impulse should pick up in Q1 2022. Thus, unlike last year, authorities are trying to avoid a sharp drop in the fiscal impulse. The Ministry of Finance has already frontloaded 1.46 trillion yuan ($229 billion) from the 2022 special purpose bonds quota. This amount is part of the 2022 annual local government bond issuance quota, with the rest to be released at the Two Sessions in March. Pulling these funds forward indicates the rising pressure to stabilize economic growth in Q1 this year. That being said, investors should differentiate easing up fiscal policy and “flood-like” stimulus in the past. The government still claims it will “contain increases in implicit local government debts.” In fact, pilot programs to clean up implicit debts have already started in Shanghai and Guangdong. This means, China will not reverse past efforts on curbing hidden debts. Hence fiscal support will be more tightly controlled in future, like water taps in the hands of the central government. The risk of fiscal tightening is backloaded in 2022. The tremendous amount of local government bonds issued in Q4 2021 will start to kick in early 2022. These will combine with the frontloaded special purposed bonds. Fiscal impulse should tick up in Q1. However, fiscal impulse might decelerate in the second half. A total of $2.7 trillion yuan worth of local government bonds will reach maturity this year, with $2.2 trillion yuan reaching maturity after June 2022 (Table 3). This means that in the second half, local governments will need to issue more re-financing bonds to prevent insolvency risk, thus undermining fiscal support for the economy. And this last point underscores the threat of economic and financial instability that China faces over the long run. Table 2Breakdown Of China Local Government Bond Issuance Bottom Line: Stability is the top priority in 2022. China will continue to easy up monetary and fiscal policy in H1, to combat the economic downward pressure ahead of the twentieth national party congress (Chart 19). Policy tightening risk is backloaded. Structural reforms will likely subside for now until the Xi administration re-consolidates power for the next ten years. Table 3China: Local Government Debt Maturity Schedule​​​​​​ Chart 19Policy Support Expected For 20th Party Congress Note: An error in an earlier version of this report has been corrected. Chinese fixed asset investment in Chart 19 is growing at 0.1%, not 57.6% as originally shown. The chart has been adjusted. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Bei Hu and Bloomberg, “Ray Dalio thinks the U.S. needs more of China’s common prosperity drive to create a ‘fairer system,’” Fortune, January 10, 2022, fortune.com. 2     See George Soros, “China’s Challenges,” Project Syndicate, January 31, 2022, project-syndicate.org. 3     The 5-year LPR had remained unchanged after the December 2021 cut. At that time, only the 1-Year LPR was cut by 5bps. Furthermore, the different magnitudes of the January 20 LPR cut also have some implications. The 1-Year LPR mostly affects new and outstanding loans, short-term liquidity loans of firms, and consumer loans of households. In comparison, the 5-Year LPR has a larger impact, affecting the borrowing costs of total social financing, including mortgage loans, medium- to long-term investment loans, etc. The MLF rate was cut by 10 basis points on January 17; in theory the LPR should also be cut by the same size. However, the 5-Year LPR adjustments was very cautious and was only cut by 5 bps, smaller than the MLF cut and the 1-Year LPR cut. The 5-year LPR serves as the benchmark lending rate for mortgage loans. 4     To combat the negative shock caused by the initial outburst of COVID-19, altogether China lowered the MLF and 1-year LPR by 30 bps and 5-year LPR by 15 bps in H1 2020. This also suggests that there is still room for future interest rate cuts or RRR cuts in the coming months. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast series ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong?' I do hope you can join. Executive Summary Spending on goods is in freefall while spending on services is struggling to regain its pre-pandemic trend.  If spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then there will be a substantial shortfall in demand. The good news is that the freefall in goods spending is leading inflation. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year. Underweight the goods-dominated consumer discretionary sector, and underweight semiconductors versus the broader technology sector. Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Bottom Line: As spending on goods crashes back to earth, so will inflation, consumer discretionary stocks, semiconductors, and overbought commodities. Feature The pandemic has unleashed a great experiment in our spending behaviour. After a binge on consumer goods, will there be a massive hangover? We are about to find out. The pandemic binge on consumer goods, peaking in the US at a 26 percent overspend, is unprecedented in modern economic history. Hence, we cannot be certain what happens next, but there are three possibilities: We sustain the binge on goods, at least partly. Spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend. There is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend. The answer to this question will have a huge bearing on growth and inflation in 2022-23. After The Binge Comes The Hangover… The pandemic’s constraints on socialising, movement, and in-person contact caused a slump in spending on many services: recreation, hospitality, travel, in-person shopping, and in-person healthcare. Nevertheless, with incomes propped up by massive stimulus, we displaced our spending to items that could be enjoyed within the pandemic’s confines; namely, goods – on which, we binged (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Is In Freefall Gradually, we learned to live with SARS-CoV-2, and spending on services bounced back. At the same time, we made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping. Additionally, a significant minority of people changed their behaviour, shunning activities that require close contact with strangers – going to the cinema or to amusement parks, using public transport, or going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments. The result is that spending on services is levelling off well short of its pre-pandemic trend (Charts I-2-Chart I-5). Chart I-2Spending On Recreation Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-3Spending On Public Transport Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Spending On Dental Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-5Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Arithmetically therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods must stay above its pre-pandemic trend. Yet spending on goods is crashing back to earth. The simple reason is that durables, by their very definition, are durable. Even nondurables such as clothes and shoes are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can binge on before reaching saturation. Indeed, to the extent that our bingeing has brought forward future purchases, the big risk is a period of underspending on goods. Countering The Counterarguments Let’s address some counterarguments to the hangover thesis. One counterargument is that some goods are a substitute for services: for example, eating-in (food at home) substitutes for eating-out; and recreational goods substitute for recreational services. So, if there is a shortfall in services spending, there will be an automatic substitution into goods spending. The problem is that the substitutes are not mirror-image substitutes. Spending on eating-in tends to be much less than on eating-out. And once you have bought your recreational goods, you don’t keep buying them! A second counterargument is that provided the savings rate does not rise, there will be no shortfall in spending. Yet this is a tautology. The savings rate is simply the residual of income less spending. So, to the extent that there is a structural shortfall in services spending combined with a hangover in goods spending, the savings rate must rise – as it has in the past two months. A third counterargument is that the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic will unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it hasn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Previous Episodes Of Excess Savings Had No Impact On Spending The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. This points out that we segment our money into different ‘mental accounts’. And that the main factor that establishes whether we spend our money is which mental account it resides in. The moment we move money from our ‘income’ account into our ‘wealth’ account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Specifically, we will spend most of the money in our ‘income’ mental account, but we will spend little of the money in our ‘wealth’ mental account. Hence, the moment we move money from our income account into our wealth account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Still, this brings us to a fourth counterargument, which claims that even though the ‘wealth effect’ is small, it isn’t zero. Therefore, the recent boom in household wealth will bolster growth. Yet as we explained in The Wealth Impulse Has Peaked, the impact of your wealth on your spending growth does not come from your wealth change. It comes from your wealth impulse, which is fading fast (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked Analogous to the more widely-used credit impulse, the wealth impulse compares your capital gain in any year with your capital gain in the preceding year. It is this change in your capital gain – and not the capital gain per se – that establishes the growth in your ‘wealth effect’ spending. Unfortunately, the wealth impulse has peaked, meaning its impact on spending growth will not be a tailwind. It will be a headwind. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation, Consumer Discretionary Stocks, And Overbought Commodities In the fourth quarter of 2021, US consumer spending dipped to below its pre-pandemic trend and the savings rate increased. Begging the question, how did the US economy manage to grow at a stellar 6.7 percent (annualised) rate? The simple answer is that inventory restocking contributed almost 5 percent to the 6.7 percent growth rate. In fact, removing inventory restocking, US final demand came to a virtual standstill in the second half of 2021, growing at just a 1 percent (annualised) rate. Growth that is dependent on inventory restocking is a concern because inventory restocking averages to zero in the long run, and after a massive positive contribution there tends to come a symmetrical negative contribution. If, as we expect, spending on services fails to catch up to its pre-pandemic trend while spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall. And if there is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then the demand shortfall could be substantial. As inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities. The good news is that the freefall in durable goods spending is leading inflation. In this regard, you might be surprised to learn that the US core (6-month) inflation rate has already been declining for five consecutive months. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year (Chart I-8). Chart I-8As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Given that the level (rather than the inflation) of commodity prices is irrationally tracking the inflation rate, the likely explanation is that investors have piled into commodities as a hedge against inflation. Hence, as inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities (Chart I-9). Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Chart I-9Overbought Commodities Are Particularly Vulnerable Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. To reiterate, overbought base metals are vulnerable, and the 70 percent outperformance of nickel versus silver through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-10). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short nickel versus silver, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 20 percent.  Chart I-10Short Nickel Versus Silver A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Biotech Approaching A Major Buy CAD/SEK Approaching A Sell EUR/CZK At A Bottom Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations      

Highlights The selloff in equities since the start of the year marks a long overdue correction rather than the start of a bear market. Stocks often suffer a period of indigestion when bond yields rise suddenly, but usually bounce back as long as yields do not move into economically restrictive territory. BCA’s bond strategists expect the 10-year yield to rise to 2%-to-2.25% by the end of the year, which is well below the level that could trigger a recession. While valuations in the US remain stretched, they are much more favorable abroad. Investors should overweight non-US markets, value stocks, and small caps in 2022. Go long homebuilders versus the S&P 500. US homebuilders are trading at only 6.5-times forward earnings and will benefit from tight housing supply conditions and a moderation in input costs. FAQ On Recent Market Action The selloff in stocks since the start of the year has garnered a lot of attention. In this week’s report, we address some of the key questions clients are asking.   Q: What do you see as the main reasons for the equity selloff? A: At the start of the year, the S&P 500 had gone 61 straight weeks without experiencing a 6% drawdown, the third longest stretch over the past two decades. Stocks were ripe for a pullback. The backup in bond yields provided a catalyst for the sellers to come out. Not surprisingly, growth stocks fell hardest, as they are most vulnerable to changes in the long-term discount rate. At last count, the S&P 500 Growth index was down 13.7% YTD, compared to 4.1% for the Value index. Our research has found that stocks often suffer a period of indigestion when bond yields rise suddenly, but usually bounce back as long as yields do not move into economically restrictive territory (Table 1). BCA’s bond strategists expect the 10-year yield to rise to 2%-to-2.25% by the end of the year, which is well below the level that could trigger a recession. Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Should Recover Historically, equity bear markets have coincided with recessions (Chart 1). Corrections can occur outside of recessionary periods, but for stocks to go down and stay down, corporate earnings need to fall. That almost never happens unless there is a major economic downturn (Chart 2). In fact, the only time in the last 50 years the US stock market fell by more than 20% outside of a recessionary environment was in October 1987. Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Go Hand In Hand Chart 2Business Cycles Drive Earnings Chart 3The Bull-Bear Ratio Is Below Its Pandemic Lows It is impossible to know when this correction will end. However, considering that the bull-bear spread in this week’s AAII survey fell below the trough reached both in March 2020 and December 2018, our guess is that it will be sooner rather than later (Chart 3). With global growth likely to remain solid, equity prices should rise. Q: What gives you confidence that growth will hold up? A: Households are sitting on a lot of excess savings – $2.3 trillion in the US and a similar amount abroad. That is a lot of dry powder. Banks are also actively looking to expand credit, as the recent easing in lending standards demonstrates (Chart 4). Leading indicators of capital spending are at buoyant levels (Chart 5). Chart 4US Banks Are Easing Lending Standards Chart 5The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright It is striking how well the global economy has handled the Omicron wave. While service PMIs have come down, manufacturing PMIs have remained firm. In fact, the euro area manufacturing PMI reached 59 in January versus expectations of 57.5. It was the strongest manufacturing print for the region since August. The manufacturing PMI also ticked up slightly in Japan. The China Caixin/Markit PMI and the official PMI published by the National Bureau of Statistics also ticked higher. After dipping below zero last August, the Citi global economic surprise index has swung back into positive territory (Chart 6). Chart 6The Omicron Wave Did Not Drag Down The Global Economy Markets are also not pricing in much of a growth slowdown (Chart 7). Growth-sensitive industrial stocks have outperformed the overall index by 1.1% in the US so far this year. EM equities have outperformed the global benchmark by 5.9%. The Bloomberg Commodity Spot index has risen 7.2%. Credit spreads have barely increased. Chart 7Markets Are Not Discounting Much Of A Growth Slowdown   Q: What is your early read on the earnings season? A: Nothing spectacular, but certainly not bad enough to justify the steep drop in equity prices. According to Refinitiv, of the 145 S&P 500 companies that have reported Q4 earnings, 79% have beat analyst expectations while 19% reported earnings below expectations. Usually, 66% of companies report earnings above analyst estimates, while 20% miss expectations. In aggregate, the reported earnings are coming in 3.2% above estimates, slightly lower than the historic average of 4.1%. Guidance has been lackluster. However, outside of a few tech names like Netflix, earnings disappointments have generally been driven by higher-than-expected expenses, rather than weaker sales. Overall EPS estimates for 2022 have climbed 0.4% in the US and by 1.1% in foreign markets since the start of the year (Chart 8).   Q: To the extent that the Fed is trying to engineer tighter financial conditions, doesn’t this imply that stocks must continue falling? A: That would be true if the Fed really did want to tighten financial conditions, either via lower stock prices, a stronger dollar, higher bond yields, or wider credit spreads. However, we do not think that this is what the Fed wants. Despite all the chatter about inflation, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has fallen to 2.05%, which is 25 basis points below the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 9).1 Chart 8Earnings Expectations Have Not Been Revised Lower Chart 9Market-Based Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Chart 10The Terminal Fed Funds Rate Seen At 2%-2.5% Chart 11The Market Thinks The Fed Will Not Be Able To Lift Rates Above 2% Remember that the Fed’s estimate of the neutral rate, R*, is very low. The Fed thinks it will only be able to raise rates to 2.5% during this tightening cycle, which would barely bring real rates into positive territory (Chart 10). The market does not think the Fed will be able to raise rates to even 2% (Chart 11). The last thing the Fed wants to do is inadvertently invert the yield curve. In the past, an inverted yield curve has reliably predicted a recession (Chart 12). Chart 12A Yield Curve Inversion Usually Signals The End Of A Business Cycle (And Can Even Predict A Pandemic) The Fed is about to start raising rates and shrinking its balance sheet not because it wants to slow growth, but because it wants to maintain its credibility. While the Fed will never admit it, it is very much attuned to the direction in which the political winds are blowing. The rise in inflation, and the Fed’s failure to predict it, has been embarrassing for the FOMC. Doing nothing is no longer an option. However, doing “something” does not necessarily imply having to raise rates more than the market is already discounting. Contrary to the consensus view that the Fed has turned hawkish, we think that the main takeaway from this week’s FOMC meeting is that Jay Powell, aka Nimble Jay, wants more flexibility in how the Fed conducts monetary policy. This makes perfect sense, as layer upon layer of forward guidance merely served to confuse market participants while unnecessarily tying the Fed’s hands.   Q: How confident are you that inflation will fall without a meaningful tightening in financial conditions? A: If we are talking about a horizon of 2-to-3 years, not very confident. As we discussed two weeks ago in a report entitled The New Neutral, the interest rate consistent with stable inflation and full employment is substantially higher than either the Fed believes or the market is pricing in. This means that the Fed is likely to keep rates too low for too long. However, if we are talking about a 12-month horizon, there is a high probability that inflation will fall dramatically, even if monetary policy stays very accommodative. Today’s inflation is largely driven by rising durable goods prices. Durables are the one category of the CPI basket where prices usually fall over time, so this is not a sustainable source of inflation (Chart 13). As demand shifts back from goods to services and supply bottlenecks abate, durable goods inflation will wane. Chart 14 shows that the price indices for a number of prominent categories of goods – including new and used vehicles, furniture and furnishings, building supplies, and IT equipment – are well above their trendlines. Not only is inflation in these categories likely to fall, but it is apt to turn negative, as the absolute level of prices reverts back to trend. This will put significant downward pressure on inflation. Chart 13Durable Goods Prices Are The Main Driver Of Inflation Chart 14Some Of These Prices Will Fall Outright Chart 15Wage Growth Has Picked Up, Especially At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Granted, service inflation will accelerate this year as the labor market continues to tighten. However, rising service inflation is unlikely to offset falling goods inflation. While wage growth has accelerated, wage pressures have been concentrated at the bottom end of the wage distribution (Chart 15). According to the Census Household Pulse Survey, a record 8.75 million workers – many of them in relatively low-paid service jobs – were not working in the second week of January due to pandemic-related reasons (Chart 16). As the Omicron wave fades, most of these workers will re-enter the labor force. This should help boost labor participation among low-wage workers, which has recovered much less than for higher paid workers (Chart 17).   Chart 16The Pandemic Is Still Affecting Labor Supply Chart 17Employment In Low-Wage Industries Has Not Fully Recovered Q: Tensions between Ukraine and Russia have risen to a fever pitch. Could this destabilize global markets? Chart 18Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns A: In a note published earlier today, Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, increased his odds that Russia will invade Ukraine from 50% to 75%. However, of that 75% war risk, he gives only 10% odds to Russia invading and conquering all of Ukraine. A much more likely scenario is one where Russia invades Donbas and perhaps a few other regions in Eastern or Southern Ukraine where there are large Russian-speaking populations and/or valuable coastal territory. While such a limited incursion would still invite sanctions from the West, Matt does not think that Russia will retaliate by cutting off oil and natural gas exports to Europe. Not only would such a retaliation deprive Russia of its main source of export earnings, but it could lead to a hostile response from countries such as Germany which so far have pushed for a more measured approach than the US has championed.   Q: Valuations are still very stretched. Even if the conflict in Ukraine does not spiral out of control and the goldilocks macroeconomic scenario of above-trend global growth and falling inflation comes to pass, hasn’t much of the good news already been discounted? A: US stocks are quite pricey. Both the Shiller PE ratio and households’ allocations to equities point to near-zero total returns for stocks over a 10-year horizon (Chart 18). That said, valuations are not a useful timing tool. The business cycle, rather than valuations, tends to dictate the path of stocks over medium-term horizons of 6-to-12 months (Chart 19). Chart 19AThe Business Cycle Drives The Stock Market Over Medium-Term Horizons (I) Chart 19BThe Business Cycle Drives The Stock Market Over Medium-Term Horizons (II) Moreover, stocks are not expensive everywhere. While US equities trade at 20.8-times forward earnings, non-US stocks trade at a more respectable 14.1-times. The valuation gap is even more extreme based on other measures such as normalized earnings, price-to-book, and price-to-sales (Chart 20). Chart 20AUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) Chart 20BUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) In terms of equity styles, both small caps and value stocks trade at a substantial discount to large caps and growth stocks (Chart 21). We recommend that investors overweight these cheaper areas of the market in 2022. Trade Recommendation: Go Long US Homebuilders Versus The S&P 500 US homebuilder stocks have fallen by 19.4% since December 10th. Beyond the general market malaise, worries about rising mortgage rates and soaring input costs have weighed on the sector. Yet, current valuations more than adequately discount these risks. The sector trades at 6.5-times forward earnings, a steep discount to the S&P 500. Whereas demand for new homes is near record high levels according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) survey, the homeowner vacancy rate is at a multi-decade low. The supply of recently completed new homes is half of what it was on the eve of the pandemic (Chart 22). With demand continuing to outstrip supply, home prices will maintain their upward trend. As building material prices stabilize and worries about an overly aggressive Fed recede, homebuilder stocks will rally. Chart 21Value Stocks And Small Caps Are Cheap Chart 22US Homebuilders Looking Attractive Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Feature Is the worst over for US and EM equities? Clearly, the risk-reward of stocks has somewhat improved, given they are no longer overbought and some bad news has already been priced in. However, conditions for a durable bottom and a sustainable and lasting rally do not yet exist. In the case of the S&P 500, our capitulation indicator has not yet reached the lows that marked the major bottoms of the past 12 years (Chart 1). Chart 1US Stocks Have Not Reached Their Selling Climax Yet Chart 2Components Of US Equity Capitulation Indicator None of its four components – the advance/decline line, momentum, breadth and investor sentiment – are back to their lows of 2010, 2011, 2015-16 and 2018 (Chart 2). In the past three cases, the S&P 500 corrected by 17-20%. A correction of this magnitude is our base case for the S&P 500 at the moment. The S&P drawdown has so far been half of this. US inflation and the Fed’s policy remain the key headwinds to US share prices. Core consumer price inflation is substantially above the Fed’s preferred range (2-2.25%) and wage growth is accelerating. As a result, the Fed will lose credibility if it does not sound ready to hike interest rates materially. The US equity market is vulnerable to such a not-dovish stance from the Fed because it is still very expensive. Inflation has also become a political problem. One reason Biden’s popularity has been sliding in the polls is the rapid pace of consumer price increases. Heading into the mid-term elections in the fall, the White House and the Democrats will not oppose the Fed raising interest rates to fight inflation. Overall, BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team believes markets/investors are underestimating inflation risks in the US. Core inflation will not drop below 3% unless the economy slows down and employment/wages slump. High and rising trimmed-mean and median CPI measures suggest inflation is broad-based. Normalization in supply-side factors will not be enough to lower core inflation below 3%. Importantly, the median and trimmed-mean core inflation measures strip out goods and services that post abnormal fluctuations. Their elevated readings corroborate that inflation is genuine and broad-based. Hence, pressure on the Fed to tighten will remain substantial. This is bad news for a still overvalued US stock market. Chart 3EM EPS Is Set To Dissapoint Concerning EM equities and currencies, economic growth in EM will disappoint. Chart 3 suggests that EM corporate profits are set to deteriorate materially in the coming six months or so. Besides, investor sentiment on EM equities is not downbeat – it is neutral (Chart 28 below). From a contrarian perspective, there is not yet a case to buy EM stocks in absolute terms. China’s business cycle recovery is still several months away. In other EM countries, monetary policy has tightened substantially, real interest rates remain high, or the banking system is too unhealthy to support growth. Finally, fiscal policy will be slightly tight this year in the majority of EM. As domestic demand in China and in mainstream EMs disappoint and the Fed does not do a dovish pivot soon, EM currencies will resume their depreciation versus the US dollar. Chart 4 shows that China’s credit and fiscal impulse leads EM currency cycles and is presently pointing to more EM currency depreciation. Charts 32 and 33 (below) are pointing to further greenback strength. Finally, EM growth disappointments and a strong greenback will pressure EM fixed income markets. EM high-yield (HY) credit – both sovereign and corporate – has been selling off, but investment-grade (IG) credit has been holding up (Chart 5). This is a sign that investors have been reluctant to offload EM IG credit and points to lingering positive sentiment on EM and lack of capitulation. Sluggish EM growth and an appreciating US dollar are headwinds for EM credit markets. Chart 4EM Currencies Remain At Risk Chart 5EM Credit Markets: The Selloff Will Broaden Bottom Line: We continue to recommend a defensive strategy for absolute return investors. For global equity portfolios, we recommend underweighting EM and the US, and overweighting Europe and Japan. The path of least resistance for the US dollar is up for now. The charts on the following pages are the most important ones for investors today. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com US Stocks Have Not Reached Their Selling Climax Yet Even though only 17% of the NASDAQ’s stocks are above their 200-day moving average, the same measure for the NYSE index is 38%, well above its previous lows. Besides, the NYSE’s advance/decline line has broken down, signifying a broadening equity rout. Finally, the US median stock has broken below its 200-day moving average after going sideways for 9-12 months. When such a profile occurs, the sell-off lasts more than a couple of weeks. Chart 6 Chart 7 Chart 8 Chart 9 Non-US Stocks Are Not Oversold Yet Neither global ex-US nor EM stocks are very oversold. Global ex-US and European share prices in SDR terms have been moving sideways for about 9-12 months prior to breaking down recently. Such a breakdown means a weakness in share prices that will likely last for a while. Chart 10 Chart 11 Chart 12 Chart 13 Growth Stocks Have Broken Down Various indexes of growth/TMT stocks have broken below their moving averages that have served as a support since spring 2020. This along with the fact that US interest rates will likely rise suggests that the bull market in growth stocks is either over or in for a prolonged hibernation. Chart 14 Chart 15 Chart 16 Chart 17 Is FAANGM A Bubble? In the past 12 years, US FAANGM stocks rose as much as the previous bubbles. When those bubbles peaked, their prices did not move sideways but rather collapsed. We do not assert that US FAANGM stocks will drop by more than 35% (we simply do not know). The point we would like to emphasize is that the bull market is over for now. At best, US growth stocks will likely be in a trading range in the coming 12-24 months.  Chart 18 Chart 19 US Share Prices And Corporate Margins: Defying Gravity? From a very long-term perspective, the US equity market is rather overextended. Share prices in real terms are almost two standard deviations above their time trend. Similarly, corporate profits in real terms are also very elevated, not least in their reflection of record-high profit margins. The key questions for US equity investors are: (1) how persistent/sticky core inflation will be; and (2) how low corporate profit margins will drop. Wages are the key to both inflation and corporate margins. We believe wage growth will accelerate materially. That will be bad for the outlook of inflation and corporate profit margins, although it will be good news for corporate top lines. Chart 20 Chart 21 The Levels of EM Share Prices And Corporate Profits Have Been Flat For 12 years Contrary to the US, EM share prices are not overextended – they have been flat in absolute terms for the past 12 years. The reason for such dismal performance has been stagnant corporate profits. The latter have been flat-to-down in real terms for the past 12-14 years. A breakout in EM share prices in absolute terms will require their EPS entering a secular uptrend. While this is not impossible this decade, it is not imminent. Chart 22 Chart 23 Long-Term Equity Valuations (Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio) Based on a cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio, EM stocks are close to their fair value. In contrast, based on the same measure, US equities are very overvalued. As a result, the relative CAPE ratio of EM versus the US is at a record low. Hence, on a multi-year horizon, odds are that EM share prices will outperform their US peers. In a nutshell, EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan currencies are also close to their fair value. We will be looking to upgrade EM in the coming months. Chart 24 Chart 25 Chart 26 Chart 27 Investors Are Not Bearish On EM And Europe One missing factor to upgrade EM (non-US markets in general) is investor sentiment. Sentiment is neutral on EM stocks and is fairly upbeat on Europe. In brief, a capitulation has also not yet occurred in non-US markets. On the whole, the current EM sell-off will likely linger until sentiment becomes downbeat. Chart 28 Chart 29 Directional Indicators For EM Stocks Points To More Downside The cross rate between SEK (a pro-cyclical currency) and CHF (a defensive one) moves in tandem with EM share prices. The same holds for the NZD versus the USD. The rationale is as follows: all of these currencies correlate with the global business cycle and global risk-on/off trends. Presently, the SEK/CHF cross and the NZD point to lower EM share prices. Chart 30 Chart 31 The US Dollar Is To Rally Further The Fed’s willingness (for now) to hike rates is positive for the greenback. The trend in relative TIPS yields between the US and Germany heralds further USD strength against the euro. Also, the cross rate between SEK (a pro-cyclical currency) and CHF (a defensive one) entails more upside in the broad trade-weighted US dollar. Chart 32 Chart 33 Worrisome Market Profiles Several markets such as EM non-TMT share prices, Korean tech stocks, the Chinese onshore CSI300 stock index and silver prices have all failed to break above their 200-day moving averages and are now relapsing. Such a profile is often consistent with new cyclical lows in these markets. Chart 34 Chart 35 Chart 36 Chart 37 China’s Liquidity And Credit Cycles Even though China has heightened the pace of monetary easing, it will take several months before its credit impulse rebounds. On average, it takes about six months for reductions in the required reserve ratio (liquidity injections) to produce a meaningful recovery in the credit impulse. So far, the excess reserve ratio has stabilized but not improved. This means the credit impulse will continue stabilizing in the coming months, but a major rise is unlikely in the near term. In turn, the credit cycle leads share prices by several months. All in all, a risk window for China-related plays remains open in the coming months. Chart 38 Chart 39   Footnotes

Highlights In the short term, the US stock market price will track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond price by 2.5 percent. We think that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. In the next few years, the structural bull market will continue, ending only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. But on a 5-year horizon, the blockchain will be the undoing of the US stock market – by undermining the vast profits that the US tech behemoths make from owning, controlling, and manipulating our data and the digital content that we create. In that sense, the blockchain will ultimately reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal trading watchlist: We add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Feature Chart of the WeekIf The Market Is Not Far From Its Fundamentals, Can This Really Be A 'Super Bubble'? Why has the stock market started 2022 on such a poor footing? Chart I-2 and Chart I-3 identify the main culprit. Through the past year, the tech-heavy Nasdaq index has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price on a one-for-one basis, while the broader S&P 500 shows a connection that is almost as good. Chart I-2The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One... Chart I-3…The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price Therefore, as the 30-year T-bond price has taken a tumble, so have growth-heavy stock markets. Put simply, the ‘bond component’ of these stock markets has been dominating recent performance, overwhelming the ‘profits component’ which tends to move more glacially. It follows that the short-term direction of the stock market has been set – and will continue to be set – by the direction of the 30-year T-bond price. Stocks And Bonds Are Nearing A ‘Pinch Point’ The next few paragraphs are necessarily technical, but worth absorbing – as they are fundamental to understanding the stock market’s recent sell-off, as well as its future evolution. The duration of any investment quantifies how far into the future its cashflows lie, by averaging those cashflows into one theoretical future ‘lump sum’. For a bond, the duration also equals the percentage change in the bond price for every 1 percent change in its yield.1 Crucially, the duration of the US stock market is the same as that of the 30-year T-bond, at around 25 years. Therefore, if all else were equal, the US stock market price should track the 30-year T-bond price, with every 10 bps move in the yield moving the stock market and bond prices by 2.5 percent. In the long run of course, all else is not equal. The 30-year T-bond generates a fixed income stream, whereas the stock market generates income that tracks profits. Allowing for this difference, the US stock market should track: (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (profits expected in the year ahead) multiplied by (a constant) In which the constant expresses the theoretical lump-sum payment 25 years ahead as a multiple of the profits in the year ahead – and thereby quantifies the expected structural growth in profits. We can ignore this constant if the structural growth in profits does not change. Nevertheless, remember this constant, as we will come back to it later when we discuss a putative ‘super bubble’. The ‘bond component’ of the stock market has been dominating recent performance. This model for the stock market seems simplistic. Yet it provides an excellent explanation for the market’s evolution through the past 40 years (Chart I-4), as well as through the past year in which, to repeat, the bond component has been the dominant driver. Chart I-4The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Price Multiplied By Profits In the short term then, given the 25 year duration of the US stock market, every 10 bps rise in the 30-year T-bond yield will drag down the stock market by 2.5 percent. We can also deduce that the sell-off will be self-limiting and self-correcting, because at some ‘pinch point’ the bond market will assess that the deflationary impulse from financial instability will snuff out the recent inflationary impulse in the economy. Where is that pinch point? Our sense is that the bond market will not allow the stock market to suffer a peak-to-trough decline of more than 15-20 percent. Given that the drawdown is already 10 percent, it equates to no more than 20-40 bps of upside for the 30-year T-bond yield, to a level of 2.3-2.5 percent. Hence, we are quite close to an entry-point for both stocks and long-duration bonds. The Case Against A ‘Super Bubble’ (And The Case For) As is typical, the recent market setback has unleashed narratives of an almighty bubble starting to pop. Stealing the headlines is value investor Jeremy Grantham of GMO, who claims that “today in the US we are in the fourth super bubble of the last hundred years.” Is there any merit to Mr. Grantham’s claim? An investment is in a bubble if its price has completely broken free from its fundamentals. For example, in the dot com boom, the stock market did become a super bubble. But as we have just shown, the US stock market today is not that far removed from its fundamental components of the 30-year T-bond price multiplied by profits. At first glance then, Mr. Grantham appears to be wrong (Chart of the Week). Still, if the underlying components – the 30-year T-bond and/or profits – were in a bubble, then the stock market would also be in a bubble. In this regard, isn’t the deeply negative real yield on long-dated bonds a sure sign of a bubble? The answer is, not necessarily. As we explained last week in Time To Get Real About Real Interest Rates, the deeply negative real yield on Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) is premised on an expected rate of inflation that we should take with a huge dose of salt. Putting in a more realistic forward inflation rate, the real yield on long-dated bonds is positive, albeit just. What about profits – are they in a bubble? The US (and world) profit margin stands at an all-time high, around 20 percent greater than its post-GFC average (Chart I-5). But a 20 percent excess is not quite what we mean by a bubble. Chart I-5Profit Margins Are At An All-Time High There is one final way that Mr. Grantham could be right, and for this we must come back to the previously mentioned constant which quantifies the expected long-term growth in profits. If this expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. This is precisely what happened to the non-US stock market after the dot com bust, when the expected structural growth – and therefore the structural valuation – phase-shifted sharply lower (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). As a result, the non-US stock market also phase-shifted sharply lower from the previous relationship with its fundamentals (Chart I-8). Could the same ultimately happen to the US stock market? Chart I-6The Structural Growth And Valuation Of Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Down... Chart I-7...Could The Same Happen To ##br##US Stocks? Chart I-8Non-US Stocks Phase-Shifted Lower From Their Previous Relationship With Fundamentals The answer is yes – and the main risk comes from the blockchain and its threat to the pseudo-monopoly status that the US tech behemoths have in owning, controlling, manipulating, and monetising our data and the digital content that we create. If the blockchain returned that ownership and control back to us, it would devastate the profits of Facebook, Google, and the other behemoths that dominate the US stock market. If the expected structural growth were to collapse, then the stock market would also collapse. That said, the blockchain is a long-term risk to the stock market, likely to manifest itself on a 5-year horizon. Before we get there, in the next deflationary shock, the 30-year T-bond yield has the scope to decline by at least 150 bps, equating to a 40 percent increase in the ‘bond component’ of the US stock market. To conclude, the structural bull market will end only at the ultimate low in the 30-year bond yield. And then, the blockchain will reveal – and pop – a ‘super bubble’. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we add Korea and CAD/SEK, and update bitcoin, biotech, and nickel versus silver. Of note, the near 30 percent underperformance of Korea through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that has signalled previous major reversals in 2015, 2017 and 2019 (Chart I-9). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long Korea versus the world (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent.  Chart I-9Korea Is Approaching A Turning Point Versus The World Korea Approaching A Turning Point Versus EM CAD/SEK Could Reverse Bitcoin Near A First Support Level Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Nickel Approaching A Sell Versus Silver Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

  Dear Client, The subject of cryptocurrencies elicits more emotion that any topic I can think of. As is true for the broader investment community, there is no unanimity of opinion among BCA strategists on the matter. This week, our Global Asset Allocation team is publishing a report taking a favorable view on NFTs. My report is far less sanguine on NFTs and the broader crypto landscape. I hope you enjoy the spirited debate. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has become increasingly correlated with the direction of equities. Stocks should recover over the coming months as bond markets stabilize and corporate earnings continue to expand thanks to a resurgent global economy. This could give cryptos a temporary lift. The long-term outlook for cryptocurrencies remains daunting, however. In most cases, anything that cryptocurrencies can do, the existing financial system can do better. Many of the most hyped blockchain applications, from DeFi to NFTs, will turn out to be duds. Concerns that cryptocurrencies are harming the environment, contributing to crime, and enriching a small group of early investors at the expense of everyone else will lead to increased regulatory scrutiny. Our long-term target for Bitcoin is $5,000. Investors looking to hedge their risks should consider going long Cardano, Solana, and Polkadot (three up-and-coming “proof of stake” coins) versus Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Doge (three doomed “proof of work” coins). The Cost Of Crypto Who pays for cryptocurrencies? That may seem like a simple question with a simple answer: The people who buy them! Yet, as economists have long known, purchases can produce externalities – costs or benefits that are borne by someone other than the person making the purchase. Some purchases can produce positive externalities, such as when you buy nice flowers to plant in front of your house. Other purchases produce negative externalities, such as when you buy a product that harms the environment. The negative externalities arising from Bitcoin mining are well known. A single Bitcoin transaction consumes 14 times as much energy as 100,000 Visa transactions (Chart 1). Bitcoin’s annual electricity consumption exceeds that of Pakistan and its 217 million inhabitants (Chart 2). The growth in crypto mining is one reason why electricity prices are so high in many countries.    Crime is another negative externality that cryptocurrencies facilitate. Bitcoin first entered the popular lexicon in 2013 when its price briefly eclipsed $1,000 due to rising demand for the currency as a medium of exchange on Silk Road and other parts of the so-called dark web. Fast forward to today and crime continues to be a major problem for the crypto industry. According to Chainalysis, illicit addresses received $14 billion in 2021, almost double 2020 levels (Chart 3). Scamming revenue grew 82% while cryptocurrency theft rose 516%.   Don’t Feed The Whales There is another cost arising from cryptocurrencies that is rarely mentioned – a cost borne by people who have never bought cryptocurrencies and probably assume they are immune from the vagaries of crypto markets: The holders of regular fiat money. Early investors in today’s most popular cryptocurrencies are sitting on huge profits. A recent study found that 1% of Bitcoin holders control 27% of supply. Ownership is even more concentrated for most other cryptocurrencies (Chart 4). If these whales were to sell their coins, they could purchase billions of dollars of goods and services. But since there is no indication yet that the proliferation of cryptocurrencies has expanded the aggregate supply of goods and services, their purchasing power must come at someone else’s expense.1  Still Waiting Cryptocurrency proponents would counter that blockchain technologies will usher in a golden age of innovation. Based on this perspective, Bitcoin is a lot like Amazon, a company that created immense wealth for Jeff Bezos and other early shareholders, but has reshaped the global economy in a way that arguably left most people, including those who never bought Amazon stock, better off. The problem with this argument is that Bitcoin is nothing like Amazon. Chainalysis estimates that online merchants processed less than $3 billion in cryptocurrency transactions in 2020, a number that has barely grown over time (Chart 5). While updated numbers for 2021 will be released in February, our analysis of data from Coinmap suggests that the number of merchants accepting cryptocurrency increased less last year than in either 2017 or 2018 (Chart 6). This is consistent with anecdotal evidence which suggests that the vast majority of cryptocurrency transactions continue to be motivated by investment flows rather than e-commerce. A Feature Not A Bug “Just wait and see,” crypto evangelists say. “Sure, Bitcoin has been around since 2008, but new applications are just around the corner.” There are good reasons to be skeptical of such pronouncements. The Bitcoin network can barely process five transactions per second, compared to over 20,000 for the Visa network (Chart 7). The fee for a Bitcoin transaction can fluctuate significantly, and is typically much greater than for a debit card (Chart 8). Chart 7We Apologize For The Wait Chart 8It Costs A Lot To Fill Up The Crypto Tank Bitcoin’s sluggishness is inherent to how it was designed. Due to their decentralized nature, blockchains must rely on elaborate procedures to prevent bad actors from taking control. Bitcoin and other popular cryptocurrencies such as Doge use the so-called “proof of work” algorithm. To see how this algorithm works in simple terms, think of spam email. One way of eliminating spam is to require everyone to waste $10 in electricity to send a single email. That is effectively how Bitcoin functions. It is secure, but it is also very clunky. An alternative to “proof of work” is “proof of stake.” Smaller cryptocurrencies such as Cardano and Solana use this algorithm, and Ethereum is in the process of migrating to it. Continuing with the spam analogy, imagine requiring everyone to put $10 down before they send an email. If the email is opened, the $10 is returned. If the email is deleted, the $10 is forfeited. A Solution In Search Of A Problem Proof of stake systems are arguably superior to proof of work systems since the former do not require wasteful energy consumption. But are they superior to the current financial system? That is far from clear. Listening to crypto enthusiasts, one would think that everyone is still using paper money, or perhaps shells or cattle, to make transactions. In fact, the global financial system is already nearly 100% digital. Digital transfer systems such as Zelle in the US and Interac in Canada permit instantaneous transfers at very little cost. Granted, cross-border payments are far from seamless. However, this largely reflects anti-money laundering rules and other regulations that banks must follow rather than some inherent technological limitations with, say, the SWIFT system. The DeFi Delusion Decentralized Finance, or DeFi, has become a hot topic of late. Like most things involving cryptocurrencies, there is more hype than substance. The idea that there will ever be large-scale crypto-denominated lending is wishful thinking. To see why, put yourself in the position of someone contemplating lending 25 bitcoins to a borrower who is interested in buying a house for, say, $1,000,000. On the one hand, if the price of bitcoin drops, you will likely be repaid, but in depreciated coins. On the other hand, if the price of bitcoin rises, you might not be repaid at all since the value of the loan will exceed the value of the house. Any way you cut it, there is no incentive to make the loan. There are other potential DeFi applications, such as those involving smart contracts, that could potentially prove useful. The Ethereum blockchain, where many of these contracts reside, is secured by ether (ETH). The market cap of ETH is currently $370 billion. How much ether is held for investment purposes and how much is held by people looking to make transactions on the Ethereum blockchain? It is impossible to be sure, but it would not surprise us if investment demand accounts for well over 90% of ETH holdings. It would be as if the price of oil rose to $1,000 per barrel, with 90% of that value driven by investment demand. Most people would agree that this would not be a sustainable situation. NFTs: Why So Ugly? Chart 9NFTs Have Taken Off The popularity of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has soared over the past year. During the past four weeks, more than $250 million of NFTs were traded on average every day, up from almost nothing at the beginning of 2021 (Chart 9). NFTs allow artists to transform their work into verifiable assets that can be listed and sold on the blockchain. Or at least that is the claim. When they were first introduced, the expectation was that the most desirable NFTs would turn out to be unique and beautiful. Instead, as the CryptoPunks collection aptly demonstrates, many turned out to be repetitive and ugly. Why? One plausible answer is that many NFT buyers are not really looking to acquire digital art. Instead, they are looking to buy supercharged proxies for the cryptocurrency in which the NFT is denominated. As evidence, consider that 99% of the discussions in NFT forums are about how much money NFT buyers hope to make rather than about the “art” itself. Shadow Crypto Supply If this interpretation is correct, it undermines one of the main selling points of cryptocurrencies: That they are limited in supply. Just like banks can create money out of thin air whenever they make loans, the blockchain can spawn synthetic assets such as NFTs that increase the effective supply of the underlying cryptocurrency.2 And that is just for a single cryptocurrency. There is nothing that obliges someone to list a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain as opposed to any other blockchain. Indeed, there is no limit to the number of blockchains, and by extension, the number of cryptocurrencies that can be created. Chart 10 shows that there are currently more than 9,000 cryptocurrencies in circulation, up from 1,000 in 2017 and less than 100 in 2013. At least with gold, they are not adding any new elements to the periodic table. The Paradox Of Low Gas Fees Competition among blockchains will favor those that offer the lowest “gas fees,” that is, those that require only a small amount of cryptocurrency to update their ledgers. As users abandon blockchains with high gas fees, the prices of their cryptocurrencies will fall. The cryptocurrencies of the more efficient blockchains will benefit, but probably not as much as one might assume. Just as the demand for petrol would decline if automobiles became much more fuel efficient but miles driven did not rise much, falling gas fees could reduce demand for cryptocurrencies unless activity on their blockchains increased proportionately more than the decline in prices. Crypto prices may fall dramatically if governments offer blockchain networks as a public good. The rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could pave the way for this development. Concluding Thoughts On The Current Market Environment And Long-Term Outlook For Cryptos The price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has become increasingly correlated with the direction of equities (Chart 11). As we noted in our first report of the new year, average returns for the S&P 500 in January have been negative since 2000. This year has been especially trying given the rapid ascent in bond yields. Our end-2022 target for the US 10-year Treasury yield is 2.25%. Hence, while we expect yields to rise over the remainder of the year, the process should be a lot more gradual than over the past few weeks. Equities often experience a period of indigestion when yields rise sharply. However, as we stressed last week, stocks typically rebound as long as yields do not end up rising to prohibitive levels. The bull-bear spread in this week’s AAII poll fell back to its pandemic lows, a positive contrarian indicator for stocks (Chart 12). With global growth still firmly above trend, corporate earnings should rise by enough to propel stocks into positive territory for the year. A rebound in stock prices, in turn, could give cryptocurrencies a temporary lift. Chart 11Cryptocurrency Prices Have Become Increasingly Correlated With Stocks Chart 12The Bull-Bear Ratio Is Back To Its Pandemic Lows   Nevertheless, the long-term outlook for cryptocurrencies remains daunting. In most cases, anything that cryptocurrencies can do, the existing financial system can do better. Many of the most hyped blockchain applications, from DeFi to NFTs, will turn out to be duds. Meanwhile, concerns that cryptocurrencies are harming the environment, contributing to crime, and enriching a small group of early investors at the expense of everyone else will lead to increased regulatory scrutiny. Chart 13New Money Versus Old Money The prices of the most popular cryptocurrencies do not reflect this eventuality. Even after falling 32% from its highs, the aggregate market capitalization of cryptocurrencies is still only slightly less than the value of the entire stock of US dollars in circulation (Chart 13). Our long-term target for Bitcoin is $5,000. Investors looking to hedge their risks should consider going long Cardano, Solana, and Polkadot (three up-and-coming “proof of stake” coins) versus Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Doge (three doomed “proof of work” coins).   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     One way that holders of fiat money could suffer is if the presence of cryptocurrencies reduced the demand for dollars, euros, and other central bank issued currencies. If that were to happen, inflation would rise as people sought to dispose of unwanted fiat currency by buying goods and services. Alternatively, if central banks wanted to constrain inflation, they would have to shrink the money supply by selling income-generating assets. Either way, the public would be worse off. 2     For instance, consider Alice and Bob. Both wish to have a certain amount of exposure to ETH in their investment portfolios. Suppose Bob uses some of his ETH to buy an item from the “Dopey Duck” collection that Alice has just  minted. If Bob regards his NFT as a substitute for the ETH he previously held, he will not want to buy more ETH to replace the ETH he lost. In contrast, Alice will end up with more ETH than she previously owned, and hence, will need to sell some of it. All things equal, this will lead to a lower price for ETH. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights The bond market assumes that when recent inflation has been high, it will be higher than average for the next ten years. Yet the reality is the exact opposite. High inflation is followed by lower than average inflation. This means that the ex-post real yield delivered by 10-year T-bonds will turn out to be much higher than the negative ex-ante real yield that 10-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are now offering. Long-term investors should overweight 10-year T-bonds versus 10-year TIPS. Underweight (or outright short) US TIPS. Underweight commodities, and especially underweight those commodities that have not yet corrected. Fractal trading watchlist: the US dollar, alternative energy, biotech, nickel versus silver, and an update on semiconductors. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Real Yield Turns Out To Be Higher Than Expected Real interest rates are negative. Or are they? Given that real interest rates form the foundation of most asset prices, getting this question right is of paramount importance. Over the short term, yes, real interest rates are negative. Policy interest rates in the major developed economies are unlikely to rise quickly from their current near-zero levels. So, they will remain below the rate of inflation. But what about over the longer term, say ten years – are long-term real interest rates truly negative? The Real Bond Yield Is The Mirror Image Of Backward-Looking Inflation The negative US real 10-year bond yield of -0.7 percent comprises the nominal yield of 1.8 percent minus an expected inflation rate of 2.5 percent. This means that the negativity of the real bond yield hinges on the expectation for inflation over the next ten years. Therein lies the big problem. Many people believe that the bond market’s expected 10-year inflation rate is an independent and forward-looking assessment of how inflation will evolve. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The bond market’s expected inflation is just the result of an algorithm that uses historic inflation. And at that, an extremely short period of historic inflation, just six months.1  The bond market’s expected inflation is just the result of an algorithm that uses historic inflation. Specifically, in the pandemic era, the bond market has derived its expected 10-year inflation rate from the historic six month (annualized) inflation rate, which it assumes will gradually converge to a long-term rate of just below 2 percent during the first four years, then stay there for the remaining six years2 (Figure I-1). We recommend that readers replicate this simple calculation for themselves to shatter any illusion that there is anything forward-looking about the bond market’s inflation expectation! (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Expected 10-Year Inflation Is Just Based On The Last 6 Months Of Inflation! The upshot is that when the backward-looking six month inflation rate is low, like it was in the depths of the global financial crisis in late 2008 or the pandemic recession in early 2020, the market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be low. And when the backward-looking six-month inflation rate is high, like now or in early-2008, the bond market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be high. In other words, the bond market extrapolates the last six months of inflation into the next ten years. This observation leads to an immediate investment conclusion. The US six-month inflation rate has already peaked. As it cools, it will also cool the expected 10-year inflation rate, thereby putting upward pressure on the mirror image Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) real yield. It follows that investors should underweight (or outright short) US 10-year TIPS (Chart I-3). Chart I-3As Inflation Cools, TIPS Will Underperform The Real Bond Yield Is Based On A False Expectation There is a more fundamental issue at stake. The market assumes that when recent inflation has been low, it will be lower than average for the next ten years. And when recent inflation has been high, it will be higher than average for the next ten years. Yet the reality is the exact opposite. Low inflation is followed by higher than average inflation, and high inflation is followed by lower than average inflation. The price level is lower than the 2012 expectation of where it would stand in 2022! Another way of putting this is that the market assumes that any breakout of the consumer price index (CPI) will be amplified over the following ten years (Chart I-4). Yet the reality is that any breakout of the price level tends to trend-revert over the following ten years. This means that after the CPI’s decline in late 2008, the market massively underestimated where the price level would be ten years later. But earlier in 2008, when the CPI had surged, the market massively overestimated where the price level would be ten years later. Chart I-4The Market Exaggerates Any Deviations In The CPI Into The Distant Future Today in 2022, the price level seems to be uncomfortably high. But the remarkable thing is that it is still lower than the 2012 expectation of where it would stand in 2022! (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Market Overestimates Where The Price Level Will Stand 10 Years Ahead The crucial point is that after surges in the price level, realised 10-year inflation turns out to be at least 1 percent lower than the bond market’s expectation (Chart I-6). This means that the ex-post real yield delivered by 10-year T-bonds turns out to be at least 1 percent higher than the ex-ante real yield that 10-year TIPS offered at the start of the ten year period (Chart of the Week). Chart I-6Actual Inflation Turns Out To Be Lower Than Expected It follows that after the current surge in the price level, the (actual) real yield that will be delivered by 10-year T-bonds over the next ten years will not be the -0.7 percent indicated by the TIPS 10-year real yield. Instead, if history is any guide, it will be at least +0.3 percent. Therefore, in answer to our original question, the real long-term interest rate is almost certainly not negative. Of course, the obvious comeback is that ‘this time is different’. But we really wouldn’t bet the farm on it. Many people thought this time is different during the price level surge in early 2008 as well as the lows in late 2008 and early 2020. But those times were not different. And our bet is that this time isn’t any different either. This means that the real yield on T-bonds will turn out to be much higher than that on TIPS. Long-term investors should overweight T-bonds versus TIPS. Commodities Are Vulnerable A final important observation relates to commodities. Commodity prices have been tightly tracking the 6-month inflation rate, but which way does the causality run in this tight relationship? At first glance, it might seem that the causality runs from commodity prices to the inflation rate. Yet on further consideration, this cannot be right. It is not the commodity price level that drives the overall inflation rate, it is the commodity inflation rate that drives the overall inflation rate. And in the past year, overall inflation has decoupled (upwards) from commodity inflation (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7Inflation Is Tracking ##br##Commodity Prices... Chart I-8...But Inflation Should Be Tracking Commodity Inflation Therefore, the causality in the tight relationship between the 6-month inflation rate and commodity prices must run from backward-looking inflation to commodity prices. And the likely explanation is that investors are bidding up commodity prices as a hedge against the backward-looking inflation which they are incorrectly extrapolating into the future. Low inflation is followed by higher than average inflation, and high inflation is followed by lower than average inflation. It follows that as 6-month inflation cools, so will commodity prices. The investment conclusion is to underweight commodities, and especially to underweight those commodities that have not yet corrected. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s observations relate to the US dollar, alternative energy, biotech, nickel versus silver, and an update on semiconductors. The US dollar reached a point of fragility in early December, from which it experienced a classic short-term countertrend sell-off. As such, the countertrend sell-off is mostly done. Alternative energy versus old energy is approaching a major buying point. Biotech versus the market is very close to a major buying point. Nickel versus silver is very close to a major selling point. Semiconductors versus technology was on our sell watchlist last week, and has now hit its point of maximum fragility (Chart I-9). Therefore, the recommended trade is to short semiconductors versus broad technology, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6 percent. Chart 9Semiconductors Are Due A Reversal Fractal Trading Watchlist Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The expected 10-year inflation rate = (deviation of 6-month annualized inflation from 1.6)*0.2 + 1.6. 2 Inflation is based on the PCE deflator. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The neutral rate of interest in the US is 3%-to-4% in nominal terms or 1%-to-2% in real terms, which is substantially higher than the Fed believes and the market is discounting. The end of the household deleveraging cycle, rising wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand. In addition, deglobalization and population aging are depleting global savings, raising the neutral rate in the process. A higher neutral rate implies that monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. This is good news for stocks, as it reduces the near-term odds of a recession. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too loose for too long, causing the US economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Investors should overweight stocks in 2022 but look to turn more defensive in late 2023. We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade, which is up 17.3% since inception. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it.  The Neutral Rate Matters At first glance, the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – seems like a concept only an egghead economist would care about. After all, unlike actual interest rates, the neutral rate cannot be observed in real time. The best one can do is deduce it after the fact, something that does not seem very relevant for investment decisions. While this perspective is understandable, it is misguided. The yield on a long-term bond is largely a function of what investors expect short-term rates to be over the life of the bond. Today, investors expect the Fed to raise rates to only 1.75% during this tightening cycle, a far cry from previous peaks in interest rates (Chart 1). Chart 2Investor Worries That The Fed Will Tighten Too Much Has Led To A Flattening Of The Yield Curve Chart 1Expected Rate Hikes Are A Far Cry From Previous Peaks In Interest Rates     Far from worrying that the Fed will keep rates too low for too long in the face of high inflation, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is the main reason why the yield curve has flattened over the past three months and the 20-year/30-year portion of the yield curve has inverted (Chart 2). Secular Stagnation Remains The Consensus View Why are so many investors convinced that the Fed will be unable to raise rates all that much over the next few years? The answer is that most investors have bought into the secular stagnation thesis, which posits that the neutral rate of interest has fallen dramatically over time. The secular stagnation thesis comes in two versions: The first or “strong form” describes an economy that needs a deeply negative – and hence unattainable – nominal interest rate to reach full employment. Japan comes to mind as an example. The country has had near-zero interest rates since the mid-1990s; and yet it continues to suffer from deflation. The second or "weak form" describes the case where a country needs a low, but still positive, interest rate to reach full employment. Such an interest rate is attainable by the central bank, and hence creates a goldilocks outlook for investors where profits return to normal, but asset prices continue to get propped up by an ultra-low discount rate. The “weak form” version of the secular stagnation thesis arguably describes the United States. Post-GFC Deleveraging Pushed Down The Neutral Rate One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates aggregate demand with aggregate supply at full employment. If something causes the aggregate demand curve to shift inwards, a lower real interest rate would be required to bring demand back up (Chart 3). Like many other countries, the US experienced a prolonged deleveraging cycle following the Global Financial Crisis. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP has declined by 23 percentage points since 2008. The need for households to repair their balance sheets weighed on spending, thus necessitating a lower interest rate. Admittedly, corporate debt has risen over the past decade, with the result that overall private debt has remained broadly stable as a share of GDP (Chart 4). However, the drag on aggregate demand from declining household debt was not offset by the boost to demand from rising corporate debt. Whereas falling household debt curbed consumer spending, rising corporate debt did little to boost investment spending. This is because most of the additional corporate debt went into financial engineering – including share buybacks and M&A activity – rather than capex. In fact, the average age of the private-sector capital stock has increased from 21 years in 2010 to 23.4 years at present (Chart 5). Chart 4Household Debt Has Fallen From Its Highs, While Corporate Debt Has Risen Since The GFC Chart 5The Average Age Of Capital Stock Has Been Increasing Buoyant Consumer And Business Spending Will Prop Up The Neutral Rate Today, the US economy finds itself in a far different spot than 12 years ago. Households are borrowing again. Consumer credit rose by $40 billion in November, the largest monthly increase on record, and double the consensus estimate (Chart 6). Banks are easing lending standards across all consumer loan categories (Chart 7). Chart 6Big Jump In Consumer Credit Chart 7Banks Are Easing Lending Standards For All Consumer Loans Chart 8Net Worth Has Soared Over The Past Two Years Meanwhile, years of easy money have pushed up asset prices, a dynamic that was only supercharged by the pandemic. We estimate that household wealth rose by 145% of GDP between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021 – the largest two-year increase on record (Chart 8). A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that this increase in wealth could boost aggregate demand by 5%.1 Reacting to the prospect of stronger final demand, businesses are ramping up capex (Chart 9). After moving sideways for two decades, capital goods orders have soared. Surveys of capex intentions remain at elevated levels. Against the backdrop of empty shelves and warehouses, inventory investment should also remain robust. Residential investment will increase (Chart 10). The homeowner vacancy rate has dropped to a record low, as have inventories of new and existing homes for sale. Homebuilder sentiment rose to a 10-month high in December. Building permits are 11% above pre-pandemic levels. Amazingly, homebuilders are trading at only 7-times forward earnings. We recommend owning the sector. Chart 9Investment Spending Will Stay Strong Chart 10US Housing Will Remain Well Supported Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Chart 11Chinese Credit Impulse Seems To Be Bottoming As in most other countries, the US budget deficit will decline over the next few years, as pandemic-related measures roll off and tax receipts increase on the back of a strengthening economy. Nevertheless, we expect the structural budget deficit to remain 1%-to-2% of GDP larger in the post-pandemic period, following the passage of the infrastructure bill last November and what is likely to be a slimmed down social spending package focusing on green energy, universal pre-kindergarten, and health insurance subsidies. The shift towards structurally more accommodative fiscal policies will play out in most other major economies. In the euro area, spending under the Next Generation EU recovery fund will accelerate later this year, with southern Europe being the primary beneficiary. In Japan, the government has approved a US$315 billion supplementary budget. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, expects Prime Minister Kishida to pursue a quasi-populist agenda ahead of the upper house election on July 25th.  China is also set to loosen policy. The Ministry of Finance has indicated that it intends to “proactively” support growth in 2022. For its part, the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 basis points on December 6th. The 6-month credit impulse has already turned up (Chart 11). More Than The Sum Of Their Parts Chart 12The Labor Share Typically Rises When Unemployment Falls As discussed above, the end of the deleveraging cycle, rising household wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand in the US. While each of these factors have independently raised the neutral rate of interest, taken together, the impact has been even greater. For example, stronger consumption has undoubtedly incentivized greater investment by firms eager to expand capacity. Strong GDP growth, in turn, has pushed up asset prices, leading to even more spending. Furthermore, a tighter labor market has propped up wage growth, especially among low-wage workers. Historically, labor’s share of overall national income has increased when unemployment has fallen (Chart 12). To the extent that workers spend more of their income than capital owners, a higher labor share raises aggregate demand, thus putting upward pressure on the neutral rate. The Retreat From Globalization Will Push Up The Neutral Rate… Chart 13The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Been Flat For Over A Decade Globalization lowered the neutral rate of interest both because it shifted the balance of power from workers to businesses; and also because it allowed countries such as the US, which run chronic current account deficits, to import foreign capital rather than relying exclusively on domestic savings.  The era of hyperglobalization has ended, however. The ratio of global trade-to-manufacturing output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 13). Looking out, the ratio could decline as geopolitical tensions between China and the rest of the world continue to simmer, and more companies shift production back home in order to gain greater control over the supply chains of essential goods. … As Will Population Aging Chart 14Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Taken Place Aging populations can affect the neutral rate either by dragging down investment demand or by reducing savings. The former would lead to a lower neutral rate, while the latter would lead to a higher rate. As Chart 14 shows, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred. According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today, mainly due to slower labor force growth. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down to 1.7% over the next few decades. In contrast, the depletion of national savings from an aging population is just beginning. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 15). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will fall, leading to a higher neutral rate. The pandemic has accelerated this trend insomuch as it has caused about 1.2 million workers to retire earlier than they would have otherwise (Chart 16). Chart 16Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic To What Extent Are Higher Rates Self-Limiting? Some commentators contend that any effort by central banks to bring policy rates towards neutral would reduce aggregate demand by so much that it would undermine the rationale for why the neutral rate had increased in the first place. In particular, they argue that higher rates would drag down asset prices, thus curbing the magnitude of the wealth effect. While there is some truth to this argument, its proponents overstate their case. History suggests that stocks tend to brush off rising bond yields, provided that yields do not rise to prohibitively high levels (Table 1). Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover Chart 17The Equity Risk Premium Remains High The last five weeks are a case in point. Both 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have risen nearly 40 bps since December 3rd. Yet, the S&P 500 has gained 2.7% since then. Keep in mind that the forward earnings yield for US stocks still exceeds the real bond yield by 552 bps, which is quite high by historic standards. The gap between earnings yields and real bond yields is even greater abroad (Chart 17). Thus, stocks have scope to absorb an increase in bond yields without a significant PE multiple contraction. Investment Implications Our analysis suggests that the neutral rate of interest in the US is substantially higher than widely believed. How much higher is difficult to gauge, but our guess is that in real terms, it is between 1% and 2%. This is substantially higher than survey measures of the neutral rate, which peg it at close to 0% in real terms (Chart 18). It is also significantly higher than 10-year and 30-year TIPS yields, which stand at -0.73% and -0.17%, respectively (Chart 19). The neutral rate has also increased in other economies, although not as much as in the US. Chart 18Both The Fed And Investors Have Lowered Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Chart 19Long-Term Real Rates Remain Depressed If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than the consensus view, then monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. That is good news for stocks, as it would reduce the near-term odds of a recession. Hence, we remain positive on stocks over a 12-month horizon, with a preference for non-US equities. In terms of sector preferences, we maintain our bias for banks over tech. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too easy, causing the economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Such a day of reckoning could be reached by late 2023. Two Trade Updates We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade by cutting our position by 50%. The trade is up 17.3% since inception. Bob Ryan, BCA’s Chief Commodity Strategist, still sees upside for oil prices, so we are keeping the other half of our position for the time being. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it. While the outlook for both companies remains challenging, there is an outside chance that they will find a way to leverage their meme status to create profitable businesses. This makes us inclined to move to the sidelines.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In line with published estimates, we assume that households spend 5 cents of every one dollar increase in housing wealth, 2 cents of every dollar increase in equity wealth, 10 cents out of bank deposits, and 2 cents out of other assets. Of the 145% of GDP in increased household net worth between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021, 19% stemmed from higher housing wealth, 52% from higher equity wealth, 12% from higher bank deposits, and 17% from other categories.    View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Chinese stocks are currently trading close to their fair value in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the direction of the next move in stocks depends on the profit outlook. Chinese corporate earnings are set to contract in the next six months. This means that the risk-reward profile of Chinese stocks in absolute terms is not yet attractive. Historically, share prices lagged the turning points in China’s money/credit impulses by several months. Even though the money/credit cycle is now bottoming, a buying opportunity in stocks will likely transpire in the coming months at a lower level. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. The secular outlook for corporate profitability among listed Chinese companies remains uninspiring. Hence, a structural re-rating of China stock indexes is unlikely. Feature With Chinese share prices down considerably in the past 12 months, a pertinent question is whether they offer an attractive entry point. Dissecting both valuations and the corporate earnings outlook are the key to getting the cyclical view right. This report aims to do this for both the MSCI Investable and MSCI A-share equity indexes. Our conclusion is as follows: in absolute terms, the Chinese MSCI Investable and A-share indexes have neutral valuations. Yet, the risk window for share prices remains open because corporate profits are set to contract. Also, bottoms and peaks in the money/credit cycle lead share prices by several months as illustrated in Chart 1. Hence, a tentative bottom in money/credit indicators does not always herald an imminent and sustainable equity rally. Valuations Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral. Specifically: 1. According to our aggregate composite valuation indicators, onshore A shares are fairly valued while the MSCI Investable index is slightly above its historical mean (Chart 2). This aggregate composite valuation indicator for both equity indexes is composed of three components: based on (1) median multiples; (2) 20% trimmed-mean multiples; and (3) equal-weighted multiples. The latter uses equal weights rather than market cap weights for sub-sectors in the calculation. In turn, each component is constructed using the averages of the trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings,1 price-to-book value (PBV) and price-to-dividend ratios. The 20%-trimmed mean excludes the top 10% and the bottom 10% of sub-sectors, i.e., it removes outliers. 2. We have also calculated a cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for both A shares and MSCI Investable stocks. The CAPE ratio for A shares is slightly below its historical mean (Chart 3), and the one for the MSCI Investable index is one standard deviation below its mean (Chart 4). The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove the cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio. The CAPE model gauges stock valuations under the assumption that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS converges to its trend line. Importantly, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model, i.e., it works over the long run. Only investors with a time horizon greater than 3-5 years should use CAPE in their investment decisions. Below, we discuss the risks to Chinese corporate profits from both cyclical and structural viewpoints. We contend that a low CAPE ratio might not be unreasonable for listed Chinese companies, as their profitability has deteriorated over the past 10-12 years and their secular profit outlook is very uncertain. 3. The equity risk premium incorporates interest rates into valuations. We computed the equity risk premium by subtracting Chinese onshore government bond yields in real terms (deflated by headline CPI) from the trailing earnings yield of stocks. Chart 5 demonstrates that the equity risk premiums for A shares and investable stocks are near their historical mean, signifying neutral Chinese equity valuations at present. Relative to DM and EM equities, Chinese valuations appear to be attractive as Chinese share prices have massively underperformed their EM and DM peers in the past 12 months (Chart 6). Bottom Line: Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the next move in share prices depends on the profit outlook. If profits expand/contract, stocks will rally/sell off. Corporate Earnings: The Cyclical Outlook Chinese corporate profits are set to contract in this downturn. Chart 7 shows that Chinese aggregate industrial profits will shrink by single digits in the next nine months from a year ago. This model is based on a regression of aggregate industrial profits on China’s credit impulse. A similar model that regresses A-share non-financial companies’ net profits on narrow money (M1) growth is also pointing to a roughly 5% corporate earnings contraction in the months ahead (Chart 8). Is government stimulus sufficient to produce a recovery in the business cycle and in company earnings? So far, government stimulus has been insufficient to produce a meaningful recovery in H1 2022. In particular, the changes in the excess reserve ratio lead the credit impulse by six months, and the latter signifies only a stabilization, but not a meaningful improvement in the credit impulse prior to May 2022 (Chart 9). Given that the credit impulse leads industrial companies’ earnings by about nine months (please refer to Chart 7 above), odds are that corporate profits will not bottom until H2 2022. As for service industries, online retail sales of goods and services remain weak, reflecting sluggish household income growth (Chart 10). There has also been another factor weighing on China’s business cycle – a declining marginal propensity to spend among both households and companies (Chart 11). The marginal propensity to spend depends on sentiment and confidence among consumers and companies. A declining propensity to spend will dampen the positive effects from government stimulus. Notably, there has been a dramatic profit divergence in industrial sectors. Commodity-producing sectors – metals and mining, steel, energy and coal – have posted an earnings windfall. In contrast, industries consuming commodities – machinery, construction materials, autos, IT and food/beverages – have seen their profits plunge (Chart 12).           The reason for this industrial earnings dichotomy is that commodity prices have not fallen despite the weakness in China’s business cycle and its commodity imports (Chart 13). Critically, commodity users have not been able to pass on higher input costs to their customers due to weak demand. Consequently, commodity users have experienced a drastic profit margin squeeze and their earnings have plummeted. If commodity prices drop meaningfully, the profit divergence between these two groups of industrial enterprises will narrow. Yet, it will not improve the level of overall industrial profits in China. The rationale is that in the past six months, industrial profits of commodity users have accounted for 20% of aggregate industrial profits, while those of commodity producers have accounted for 80%. This reinforces the importance of commodity prices in driving China’s industrial profit cycles. Our view on commodity prices is as follows: Commodity prices have so far ignored China’s slowdown. However, the Fed’s tightening and the US dollar’s persistent strength amid the lack of a meaningful recovery in the Chinese business cycle will eventually produce a drawdown in resource prices in the coming months, as we discussed in last week’s report. Bottom Line: As policy stimulus gets more aggressive, China’s growth and corporate earnings will recover in H2. Yet, in H1 corporate profits are set to disappoint. This implies that Chinese share prices will remain in a risk window for now. Corporate Profitability: The Structural Outlook Investors reward companies with high or rising return on equity by bidding up their equity multiples, and vice versa. One of the main reasons why the structural valuation measures for Chinese equity indexes (like the CAPE ratio) have declined in the past 10 years is worsening corporate profitability. Specifically, the return on assets (RoA) and the return on equity (RoE) for non-financial companies included in the MSCI A-share and Investable indexes have been falling since 2011 (Chart 14, top and middle panels). Periodic government stimulus improved corporate profitability temporarily. Yet, as stimulus waned, corporate profitability deteriorated. Consistently, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have produced zero price appreciation in absolute terms since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). In the past 10 years, there has been a structural deterioration in the financial performance metrics of industrial companies. Their RoE and RoA have fallen as have turnover in account assets (sales/assets), inventory (sales/inventory) and account receivables (sales/account receivables) (Chart 15). It is unclear if this secular trend of deteriorating corporate financial performance will reverse if authorities repeatedly rescue the economy by unleashing large stimulus. As for technology/internet/platform companies, we maintain that the regulatory changes affecting Chinese internet stocks are structural rather than cyclical in nature. There could be periods when the pace of regulatory clampdown eases, but these regulations will not be rolled back in any meaningful way. Authorities will cap these companies’ profitability like regulators do with monopolies and oligopolies, which heralds a lower return on equity and low multiples. For very different reasons, US and Chinese authorities do not want Chinese companies to be listed in the US. And when Chinese and US authorities do not want to see some of these stocks listed in the US, they will not be. Odds are rising that a few of them might be delisted in the coming years. In such a scenario, many US institutional investors will likely offload their holdings of these companies. Finally, Chinese bank stocks are cheap for a reason. They have not recognized a massive amount of non-performing loans and have not provisioned for them. Going forward, another roadblock to shareholders of Chinese stocks is the common prosperity policies that the Chinese government has championed. These policies will redistribute income away from shareholders to the general population. Chart 16 illustrates the share of labor compensation has been rising since 2011 while the share of profits has been declining. Not surprisingly, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have been doing very poorly since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). The common prosperity policies will only reinforce the existing trend of a rising share of labor compensation at the expense of shareholders in the coming years. This bodes ill for structural profitability and justifies low equity multiples. In short, a low CAPE ratio for Chinese stocks might not be out of line with such a downbeat secular outlook. Bottom Line: Even if there have been – and still will be – great companies in China that deliver phenomenal performance, their shareholders might not be in a position to reap the benefits of such solid performance. In short, the structural outlook for profitability among listed companies remains uncertain. Investment Recommendations Chinese stocks, especially investable ones, are oversold and might rebound in the very near term in absolute terms. However, the three-to-six-month outlook for absolute performance remains poor. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities are very oversold and offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. Onshore Chinese stocks will underperform onshore government bonds. Within the Chinese equity universe, we have been recommending the following strategies and they remain intact: Long A shares/short MSCI Investable index since March 4, 2021 (Chart 17, top panel). This relative ratio is overbought and will likely pull back in the near term. However, the cyclical and structural outlook continues to favor onshore stocks versus the investable universe. Short Chinese investable value stocks/long global value stocks since November 26, 2020 (Chart 17, middle panel). This strategy remains intact. Short onshore and investable property stocks versus their respective benchmarks since May 9, 2019 (Chart 17, bottom panel). The woes of property developers are not over. Please refer to our Special Report on the Chinese property market. Long large banks/short medium and small listed banks since October 2016. Small and medium banks are exposed to the continuous woes in the property market much more than the large ones. Also, their profitability will be more negatively affected by the retrenchment in shadow banking activities. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    MSCI defines cash earnings as earnings per share including depreciation and amortization as reported by the company.

Highlights Chinese stocks are currently trading close to their fair value in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the direction of the next move in stocks depends on the profit outlook. Chinese corporate earnings are set to contract in the next six months. This means that the risk-reward profile of Chinese stocks in absolute terms is not yet attractive. Historically, share prices lagged the turning points in China’s money/credit impulses by several months. Even though the money/credit cycle is now bottoming, a buying opportunity in stocks will likely transpire in the coming months at a lower level. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. The secular outlook for corporate profitability among listed Chinese companies remains uninspiring. Hence, a structural re-rating of China stock indexes is unlikely. Feature With Chinese share prices down considerably in the past 12 months, a pertinent question is whether they offer an attractive entry point. Dissecting both valuations and the corporate earnings outlook are the key to getting the cyclical view right. This report aims to do this for both the MSCI Investable and MSCI A-share equity indexes. Our conclusion is as follows: in absolute terms, the Chinese MSCI Investable and A-share indexes have neutral valuations. Yet, the risk window for share prices remains open because corporate profits are set to contract. Also, bottoms and peaks in the money/credit cycle lead share prices by several months as illustrated in Chart 1. Hence, a tentative bottom in money/credit indicators does not always herald an imminent and sustainable equity rally. Chart 1China: Lead-Lag Relationship Between Share Prices And Money/Credit Cycles Varies Valuations Chart 2Chinese Equity Valuation in Absolute Terms Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral. Specifically: 1. According to our aggregate composite valuation indicators, onshore A shares are fairly valued while the MSCI Investable index is slightly above its historical mean (Chart 2). This aggregate composite valuation indicator for both equity indexes is composed of three components: based on (1) median multiples; (2) 20% trimmed-mean multiples; and (3) equal-weighted multiples. The latter uses equal weights rather than market cap weights for sub-sectors in the calculation. In turn, each component is constructed using the averages of the trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings,1 price-to-book value (PBV) and price-to-dividend ratios. The 20%-trimmed mean excludes the top 10% and the bottom 10% of sub-sectors, i.e., it removes outliers. 2. We have also calculated a cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for both A shares and MSCI Investable stocks. The CAPE ratio for A shares is slightly below its historical mean (Chart 3), and the one for the MSCI Investable index is one standard deviation below its mean (Chart 4). Chart 3China A-Shares: CAPE Ratio Chart 4Chinese MSCI Investable Stocks: CAPE Ratio The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove the cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio. The CAPE model gauges stock valuations under the assumption that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS converges to its trend line. Importantly, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model, i.e., it works over the long run. Only investors with a time horizon greater than 3-5 years should use CAPE in their investment decisions. Below, we discuss the risks to Chinese corporate profits from both cyclical and structural viewpoints. We contend that a low CAPE ratio might not be unreasonable for listed Chinese companies, as their profitability has deteriorated over the past 10-12 years and their secular profit outlook is very uncertain. 3. The equity risk premium incorporates interest rates into valuations. We computed the equity risk premium by subtracting Chinese onshore government bond yields in real terms (deflated by headline CPI) from the trailing earnings yield of stocks. Chart 5 demonstrates that the equity risk premiums for A shares and investable stocks are near their historical mean, signifying neutral Chinese equity valuations at present. Relative to DM and EM equities, Chinese valuations appear to be attractive as Chinese share prices have massively underperformed their EM and DM peers in the past 12 months (Chart 6). Chart 5Equity Risk Premium For China Chart 6Chinese Equity Valuations Relative To EM And DM Bottom Line: Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the next move in share prices depends on the profit outlook. If profits expand/contract, stocks will rally/sell off. Corporate Earnings: The Cyclical Outlook Chinese corporate profits are set to contract in this downturn. Chart 7 shows that Chinese aggregate industrial profits will shrink by single digits in the next nine months from a year ago. This model is based on a regression of aggregate industrial profits on China’s credit impulse. A similar model that regresses A-share non-financial companies’ net profits on narrow money (M1) growth is also pointing to a roughly 5% corporate earnings contraction in the months ahead (Chart 8). Chart 7China: Industrial Profits Will Post A Single Digit Contraction Chart 8Chinese A-Share Profits Will Shrink In Mid-2022 Is government stimulus sufficient to produce a recovery in the business cycle and in company earnings? So far, government stimulus has been insufficient to produce a meaningful recovery in H1 2022. In particular, the changes in the excess reserve ratio lead the credit impulse by six months, and the latter signifies only a stabilization, but not a meaningful improvement in the credit impulse prior to May 2022 (Chart 9). Given that the credit impulse leads industrial companies’ earnings by about nine months (please refer to Chart 7 above), odds are that corporate profits will not bottom until H2 2022. As for service industries, online retail sales of goods and services remain weak, reflecting sluggish household income growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Liquidity Is Pointing To Stabilization But Not A Surge in The Credit Impulse Chart 10China: Internet Sales Are Disappointing There has also been another factor weighing on China’s business cycle – a declining marginal propensity to spend among both households and companies (Chart 11). The marginal propensity to spend depends on sentiment and confidence among consumers and companies. A declining propensity to spend will dampen the positive effects from government stimulus. Notably, there has been a dramatic profit divergence in industrial sectors. Commodity-producing sectors – metals and mining, steel, energy and coal – have posted an earnings windfall. In contrast, industries consuming commodities – machinery, construction materials, autos, IT and food/beverages – have seen their profits plunge (Chart 12). Chart 12Dramatic Profit Divergence Between Commodity Producers And Users Chart 11China: The Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Declining       Chart 13Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Have Shrunk Drastically     The reason for this industrial earnings dichotomy is that commodity prices have not fallen despite the weakness in China’s business cycle and its commodity imports (Chart 13). Critically, commodity users have not been able to pass on higher input costs to their customers due to weak demand. Consequently, commodity users have experienced a drastic profit margin squeeze and their earnings have plummeted. If commodity prices drop meaningfully, the profit divergence between these two groups of industrial enterprises will narrow. Yet, it will not improve the level of overall industrial profits in China. The rationale is that in the past six months, industrial profits of commodity users have accounted for 20% of aggregate industrial profits, while those of commodity producers have accounted for 80%. This reinforces the importance of commodity prices in driving China’s industrial profit cycles. Our view on commodity prices is as follows: Commodity prices have so far ignored China’s slowdown. However, the Fed’s tightening and the US dollar’s persistent strength amid the lack of a meaningful recovery in the Chinese business cycle will eventually produce a drawdown in resource prices in the coming months, as we discussed in last week’s report. Bottom Line: As policy stimulus gets more aggressive, China’s growth and corporate earnings will recover in H2. Yet, in H1 corporate profits are set to disappoint. This implies that Chinese share prices will remain in a risk window for now. Corporate Profitability: The Structural Outlook Investors reward companies with high or rising return on equity by bidding up their equity multiples, and vice versa. One of the main reasons why the structural valuation measures for Chinese equity indexes (like the CAPE ratio) have declined in the past 10 years is worsening corporate profitability. Specifically, the return on assets (RoA) and the return on equity (RoE) for non-financial companies included in the MSCI A-share and Investable indexes have been falling since 2011 (Chart 14, top and middle panels). Periodic government stimulus improved corporate profitability temporarily. Yet, as stimulus waned, corporate profitability deteriorated. Consistently, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have produced zero price appreciation in absolute terms since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). In the past 10 years, there has been a structural deterioration in the financial performance metrics of industrial companies. Their RoE and RoA have fallen as have turnover in account assets (sales/assets), inventory (sales/inventory) and account receivables (sales/account receivables) (Chart 15). It is unclear if this secular trend of deteriorating corporate financial performance will reverse if authorities repeatedly rescue the economy by unleashing large stimulus. Chart 14Worsening Profitability Has Been Behind Poor Equity Returns in China Chart 15Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Financial Performance As for technology/internet/platform companies, we maintain that the regulatory changes affecting Chinese internet stocks are structural rather than cyclical in nature. There could be periods when the pace of regulatory clampdown eases, but these regulations will not be rolled back in any meaningful way. Authorities will cap these companies’ profitability like regulators do with monopolies and oligopolies, which heralds a lower return on equity and low multiples. For very different reasons, US and Chinese authorities do not want Chinese companies to be listed in the US. And when Chinese and US authorities do not want to see some of these stocks listed in the US, they will not be. Odds are rising that a few of them might be delisted in the coming years. In such a scenario, many US institutional investors will likely offload their holdings of these companies. Finally, Chinese bank stocks are cheap for a reason. They have not recognized a massive amount of non-performing loans and have not provisioned for them. Going forward, another roadblock to shareholders of Chinese stocks is the common prosperity policies that the Chinese government has championed. These policies will redistribute income away from shareholders to the general population. Chart 16 illustrates the share of labor compensation has been rising since 2011 while the share of profits has been declining. Not surprisingly, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have been doing very poorly since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). Chart 16National Income Composition: Labor’s Share Will Continue Rising The common prosperity policies will only reinforce the existing trend of a rising share of labor compensation at the expense of shareholders in the coming years. This bodes ill for structural profitability and justifies low equity multiples. In short, a low CAPE ratio for Chinese stocks might not be out of line with such a downbeat secular outlook. Bottom Line: Even if there have been – and still will be – great companies in China that deliver phenomenal performance, their shareholders might not be in a position to reap the benefits of such solid performance. In short, the structural outlook for profitability among listed companies remains uncertain. Investment Recommendations Chart 17Our Recommendations For Chinese Equity Investors Chinese stocks, especially investable ones, are oversold and might rebound in the very near term in absolute terms. However, the three-to-six-month outlook for absolute performance remains poor. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities are very oversold and offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. Onshore Chinese stocks will underperform onshore government bonds. Within the Chinese equity universe, we have been recommending the following strategies and they remain intact: Long A shares/short MSCI Investable index since March 4, 2021 (Chart 17, top panel). This relative ratio is overbought and will likely pull back in the near term. However, the cyclical and structural outlook continues to favor onshore stocks versus the investable universe. Short Chinese investable value stocks/long global value stocks since November 26, 2020 (Chart 17, middle panel). This strategy remains intact. Short onshore and investable property stocks versus their respective benchmarks since May 9, 2019 (Chart 17, bottom panel). The woes of property developers are not over. Please refer to our Special Report on the Chinese property market. Long large banks/short medium and small listed banks since October 2016. Small and medium banks are exposed to the continuous woes in the property market much more than the large ones. Also, their profitability will be more negatively affected by the retrenchment in shadow banking activities. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    MSCI defines cash earnings as earnings per share including depreciation and amortization as reported by the company.