Mega Themes

Feature BCA Research (aka The Bank Credit Analyst) published its first report in 1949, a remarkable 70 years ago. This probably makes us the longest-running independent investment research firm in the world. As we age, it is normal to occasionally reflect on how the world has changed over the course of our lives. It is an interesting exercise in the case of BCA. We need to start with a little history. The Bank Credit Analyst began life as a small-circulation newsletter produced by Hamilton Bolton, a Montreal-based money manager. He had been sending out investment commentary to his clients for some time and was encouraged to start catering to a wider audience. Bolton was a visionary because he was one of the few market analysts at that time to understand the importance of money and credit in driving economic and market cycles. In those days, banks were the dominant financial intermediary, so an analysis of flows through the banking system provided accurate and leading signals about economic and market trends. That is why he named his new service “The Bank Credit Analyst”. Bolton developed a series of monetary-based indicators that allowed him to make some great market calls. He passed away in 1967, but his valuable contribution to financial research was acknowledged in 1987 when the CFA Institute posthumously awarded him the prestigious “Outstanding Contribution to Investment Research Award”.1 Hamilton Bolton was a product of his times in that his worldview was influenced heavily by having lived through the Great Depression. Like many of his generation, he had a strong aversion to excessive debt growth, and was highly sensitive to any buildup of financial imbalances that could tip the economy back into a severe downturn. In fact, widespread fears of renewed depression did not really fade until the late 1950s. That psychology helps explain why policymakers were complicit in allowing inflation to take hold in the 1960s because there is a common tendency to fight the last war. As long as depression/deflation is seen as the primary threat, then there will be complacency about inflation risks. Does This Sound Familiar? Let’s look at some of the conditions that existed in 1949, when The Bank Credit Analyst started publication. The U.S. long-term Treasury yield had been capped at 2.5% since April 1942. At the request of the Treasury Department, the Fed had given up control of the money supply by buying whatever bonds were needed to keep yields below 2.5%, in order to support the financing of war-inflated budget deficits. The level of federal debt was down from its wartime peak of 106% of GDP, but was still at a historically high 77.5%. The European and Japanese economies were in a complete mess, having been devastated during the war. As already noted, fears of renewed deflation and depression were prevalent. Inflation was tame with the U.S. personal consumption deflator declining by 0.8% in 1949 and rising by only 1.2% in 1950. There was considerable geopolitical upheaval. Most notably, the Cold War intensified as Russia extended its control over East Europe and other countries. Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China in October 1949 after his communist forces defeated the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek. There were serious border clashes between North and South Korea in August 1949, a prelude to the North’s invasion in June 1950. It does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to see some parallels with the current environment. We currently are having (or have had): Massive central bank purchases of government debt (i.e. quantitative easing) and the explicit pegging of bond yields by the Bank of Japan. A huge increase in government debt levels, albeit not because of war-related spending. In a remarkable coincidence, U.S. federal debt reached 77.8% of GDP in fiscal 2018, almost exactly the same level as in 1949. The European and Japanese economies are moribund. However, unlike in 1949, this reflects structural forces, not war-related devastation. There are widespread fears about the long-run economic growth outlook, well captured by the secular stagnation thesis, promoted by Larry Summers. Central bankers are concerned that inflation is too low. Geopolitical concerns abound. These include U.S.-China tensions, Brexit, Korea (again), rising populism and Russia’s more aggressive stance on the world stage. In the end, the fears of 70 years ago that the world might slip back into depression proved unfounded. The 1950s and 1960s, for the most part, turned out to be golden decades for consumers, businesses and equity investors. Unfortunately, this does not mean that we can look forward to a repeat experience in the decades ahead, because we must now turn to the major differences between the present and the past. The Past Worked Out Just Fine The conditions for an economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s could hardly have been better. The U.S. armed forces employed more than 12 million men and women at the end of WWII, 7.6 million of whom were stationed overseas. After the war, these people were desperate to get back to a normal life, with civilian jobs, marriage and children. The inevitable result was a population boom and a surge in growth as pent-up demand for housing and consumer goods was unleashed. It was all aided by the 1944 G.I. Bill that provided low-cost mortgages and many other benefits. The improvement in economic growth boosted government tax receipts and, coupled with a drop in defense spending, this kept fiscal finances in check. During the 1950s and 1960s, the federal deficit averaged less than 1% of GDP and debt had fallen to less than 30% of GDP by 1969. This occurred despite a surge in federal infrastructure spending, helped by the Federal Highway Act of 1956 that authorized the construction of an interstate highway system. Meanwhile, the economy did not appear to be impeded by tax rates that were far above current levels. The reconstruction of the European economies was a monumental task that was beyond the financing capabilities of those shattered countries. However, between 1948 and 1951, the U.S. European Recovery Program (The Marshall Plan) transferred $100 billion in 2018 dollars to aid the recovery effort and this helped Europe get back on its feet. There also was a huge amount of U.S. aid to support the rebuilding of Japan. Economic growth in Japan averaged almost 9% a year in the 1950s and more than 10% in the 1960s. In Germany, the comparable figures were 7.7% and 4.2%. The growth of the world economy also was boosted by steady reductions in tariffs during the 1950s and 60s. The most notable was the Kennedy Round of 1964-67 that achieved a 38% weighted average drop in tariffs. Protectionism was in strong retreat in the decades after WWII. Finally, a word on the markets. At the end of 1949, the S&P 500 was trading at seven times trailing earnings while the dividend yield was at 6¾%. The market’s earnings yield of 14% compared to a 2.2% yield on 30-year Treasuries. In other words, stocks were incredibly cheap. Moreover, when the 1951 Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord ended the bond peg, yields inevitably rose steadily over the subsequent years, making bonds a poor investment. In the 1950s, U.S. equities delivered real compound returns of 16.6% a year compared to -3.3% for 30-year bonds. In the 1960s, the annualized real returns were a still-respectable 5.3% for stocks and -1.4% for bonds. In sum, the two decades after the launch of the BCA were a very favorable time and it was largely due to a very depressed starting point. However, the current environment is very different to that of 70 years ago. It’s a Different Picture Now Perhaps the most important difference with the past is the demographic outlook. In contrast to the post-WWII baby boom, the U.S. and most other developed economies face bleak population dynamics. Almost all developed economies – and many emerging ones – have seen the birth rate drop below replacement levels with the result that population growth has slowed dramatically. In many cases, populations are in actual decline – especially in the important working-age segment. That deprives economic growth of its main driver. The annual potential growth of U.S. real GDP averaged 4% in the 1950s and 4.3% in the 1960s. Potential growth in the next decade will average only 1.8% a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And it will be even lower in Europe and Japan. As far as pent-up demand is concerned, the picture also is very different. While the consumer industry works hard to develop new must-have goods and services, the reality is that demand is satiated for a lot of products. For example, in 2017, there were 259 million registered private and commercial autos and trucks in the U.S. compared to only 225 million licensed drivers. In 1950, the number of licensed drivers (62 million) far exceeded the number of registered vehicles (48 million). And it is hard to believe that the ownership penetration of most consumer durables has much upside. Turning to government finances, the current environment of bloated deficits and debt significantly constrains the room for fiscal stimulus. Yes, there is constant talk of the need for more infrastructure spending, but this has proven very difficult to implement without offsetting cuts in other spending or measures to boost revenues. The U.S. is saddled with unprecedented peacetime fiscal deficits and the CBO projects that federal debt will approach 100% of GDP within ten years, even without factoring in another recession. The comparison between the free trade era of the 1950s and 60s and the current situation speaks for itself. It is unclear at this stage just how far the move toward protectionism will go, but one thing seems clear. The rush toward globalization that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union and the entry of China into the global trading system is in retreat. This shows up not only in rising tariffs, but also in declining cross-border direct investment flows and increased antipathy to large-scale international migration. The irony is that the developed world needs more immigration to offset the weak growth in resident populations. What about the markets? The stock market certainly is not cheap, the way it was 70 years ago, with the S&P 500 trading at more than 18 times trailing operating earnings. Low interest rates are providing support, but future returns are likely to be in low single figures in a world where economic growth is moderate and there is little scope for profit margins and/or multiples to expand. Prospects for bonds do look somewhat similar to the situation in the early 1950s. Then, there was only one way for yields to go once the Fed’s peg ended. Today, yields will only fall sustainably if the economy sinks into a protracted downturn. We will get another recession in the next few years and yields could certainly hit new lows at that point. But the resulting policy response – both fiscal and monetary – seems almost certain to lead to higher inflation down the road. That would not bode well for the bond outlook, as was the case between the second half of the 1960s and the early 1980s. Concluding Thoughts Hamilton Bolton was fortunate to launch his new investment service ahead of a powerful economic revival and an almost two-decade bull market in stocks. He did not live long enough to witness the inflation upturn and volatile economic environment of the 1970s and 1980s, but BCA’s monetary focus allowed it to prosper during that period. Under the leadership of Tony Boeckh, the company’s then owner and Editor-in-Chief, BCA was strident in warning investors about the buildup of inflationary pressures and the dangers this posed for markets. During this time, BCA also developed the concept of the Debt Supercycle which helped investors understand the complex forces driving policy and the economic/market cycles. If Bolton was alive today, he would be horrified at the state of the world. He would not be able to understand how investors could be so complacent in the face of record government deficits and debt and by what he would regard as the reckless behavior of central banks. At the same time, he would be able to identify with the renewed focus on weak growth and deflation risks. The bottom line is that he would be advising investors to be extremely cautious. Investors currently are semi-obsessed with the timing of the next recession as that would be the signal to significantly downgrade risk assets. The official BCA stance is that a recession is not imminent and this creates a window for stocks to outperform. This matters for those investors who need to be concerned with relative performance. It is painful to sit on the sidelines if markets keep rising and you underperform your peers. However, for those more concerned with absolute performance, and that was true of most investors in Bolton’s time, the upside potential currently seems unattractive relative to the downside risks. Unfortunately, economists have a poor track record of forecasting recessions and bear markets thus often come as a complete surprise. Yes, low interest rates provide a floor under stocks, with the dividend yield comfortably above the 10-year Treasury yield. But rates are low for a reason: the economy and thus corporate earnings face major downside risks. Against this background, I would tend to side with what I imagine Bolton would say: this is a time to focus on capital preservation rather than taking risks to maximize returns. Let me try to end on a more positive note. As noted earlier, the long-term outlook turned out much better than Bolton probably anticipated 70 years ago. What could make that true this time around? Some things cannot be changed, at least over the next decade: adverse demographic trends, high ownership of consumer goods, and high levels of government debt. Geopolitical developments could go either way – for the better or worse – so I will make no predictions there. The one savior would be a marked revival in productivity because, ultimately, that is the only real source of rising living standards. Technology is changing rapidly and there are lots of exciting innovations. But to make a significant and lasting difference it will require more than developments such as autonomous vehicles or 3-D printing. We will need a new General Purpose Technology (GPT) that has a profound impact on the way economies and societies are structured. Previous examples include the steam engine, electricity and of course the internet. Perhaps Artificial Intelligence will do the trick, but that does not seem likely to be a near-term cure. Chart 1Then (1949) And Now (2019) Then (1949) And Now (2019) Then (1949) And Now (2019) In closing, we can be sure of one thing. The world changed in ways Hamilton Bolton could not have conceived and that also will be true for us today. BCA will endeavor to evolve with the times as it has done over the past 70 years and we look forward to keep helping our clients prosper in a complex and ever-changing world. 1949 – A Very Momentous Year Hamilton Bolton launches The Bank Credit Analyst The Peoples Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) are founded Indonesia gains independence from the Netherlands The civil war in Greece ends NATO is established The Geneva Convention is agreed The Soviet Union detonates its first atomic bomb Apartheid becomes official policy in South Africa Alfred Jones creates the first hedge fund The first non-stop circumnavigation of the world by an aircraft occurs The first commercial jet airliner, the De Havilland Comet, has its maiden flight EDSAC – the first practicable stored-program computer runs its first program at Cambridge University Products introduced that year included Lego, the 45 rpm record, the first Porsche car and the Xerox photocopier. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is published People born include Ivana Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Benjamin Netanyahu, Meryl Streep and Bruce Springsteen 2019 – Not So Much Chaotic politics in the U.K., Italy and many other countries Trade wars   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Previously known as the Nicholas Molodovsky Award  

Highlights It will be impossible for China to undertake even mild deleveraging and simultaneously accelerate household income growth. All deposits in the banking system have been created by banks “out of thin air” and have not been engendered by household savings. Contrary to widespread beliefs, mainland households are highly leveraged. Cyclically, high equity valuations, crowded investor positioning and the delayed cyclical recovery in the Chinese economy pose downside risks to consumer stocks. Structurally, real income growth per capita is contingent on productivity growth. The latter will slow in China but remain relatively elevated. Overall, investors should consider buying Chinese consumer plays on weakness. Feature Deliberations about China’s successful rebalancing often boils down to whether one believes that consumers will be able to offset the slowdown in investment and exports and keep overall real GDP growth close to current levels. The narrative typically presumes that Chinese households are not spending enough and can boost their spending counteracting the ongoing slowdowns in capital spending as well as in exports. This conjecture is fallible. Chart I-1The Myth Of Deficient Consumer Demand In China The Myth Of Deficient Consumer Demand In China The Myth Of Deficient Consumer Demand In China Consumer spending in China has in fact been booming over the past 20 years – it has been growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10% in real terms since 1998 (Chart I-1, top panel). Hence, the imbalance in China has not been sluggish consumer spending. Rather, capital expenditure has been too strong for too long (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Healthy rebalancing entails a slowdown in investment spending – not an acceleration in household demand. Hence, the market relevant question is: Can the growth rate of household expenditure accelerate above 10% CAGR in real terms as capital spending and exports decelerate? Our hunch is that this is unlikely. As the authorities attempt to contain credit and investment excesses and trade war-induced relocation of manufacturers out of China gathers steam, the pertinent question is whether the slowdown in household expenditures in real terms will be mild (from the current 10% pace to 7.5-9% CAGR), medium (6-7.5%) or material (below 6%). In our opinion, the medium scenario has the highest odds of playing out. There are many positives about the vitality of Chinese consumers and we do not mean to downplay them. Nevertheless, many of these positives are well known, and the objective of our report is to reveal misconceptions about this segment.  Deleveraging And Consumers If and when deleveraging does transpire in China, the household income growth rate will decelerate, resulting in weaker spending growth. It will be impossible for the mainland economy to undertake even mild deleveraging and simultaneously accelerate household income growth. Chart I-2Capital Spending Is Much More Important Than Exports Capital Spending Is Much More Important Than Exports Capital Spending Is Much More Important Than Exports Our focus for this report is on a slowdown in credit and capital spending rather than exports. The basis is that the latter in general, and shipments to the U.S. in particular, have a much smaller impact than investment expenditures (Chart I-2). In turn, capital spending is mostly financed by credit. It is crucial to understand the significance of credit in driving national and household income growth in China since 2008. Currently, 2.5 yuan of new credit is needed to generate one yuan of GDP growth. This certifies that the mainland economy has become addicted to credit. As we have argued in depth in past reports, commercial banks do not intermediate savings into credit, but rather create new money/credit “out of thin air” when they lend to or buy securities from non-banks. This entails that output and income growth would have been much weaker had banks not provided credit equal to RMB 19 trillion over the past 12 months. For instance, a company affiliated with the provincial government has borrowed money from banks to build three bridges over the past 10 years, accumulating a lot of debt in the process. Ostensibly, operating these bridges does not generate enough cash flow to service its debt – a common occurrence in China. With the three bridges completed, the company would then apply for a new loan to build a fourth bridge. Should banks lend additional money to construct it? Notwithstanding this hypothetical company’s low creditworthiness, if banks provide additional financing, the credit bubble will become larger, and the issue of overcapacity will intensify. On the other hand, household income and spending growth will remain robust. If banks do not finance the construction of the fourth bridge, labor income growth in the province – employees of this company and its suppliers – will slump. Thus, if for whatever reason banks are unable or unwilling to extend as much in new credit as last year, output and income growth in this province will decelerate, all else equal. Given credit has been playing an enormous role in driving China’s economic growth over the past 10 years, it will be almost impossible to slow down credit without a downshift in household income growth. This example and analysis is not meant to suggest that bank credit origination is the sole growth driver in China. Theoretically, GDP can expand even with bank credit/money contracting. According to the quantity theory of money: Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money This means nominal GDP can grow even when the supply of money/credit is shrinking. For this to happen, the velocity of money should rise faster than the pace of decline in the supply of money/credit. From a practical perspective, this requires enterprises and consumers to increase the turnover (velocity) of their bank deposits and cash on hand (money supply). We have deliberated in past reports that the velocity of money and the savings rate are inversely related: A rising velocity of money entails a declining savings rate, and vice versa. Going back to our example of bridge construction, the relevant question is: Will companies and households in that province increase their spending (i.e., reduce their savings rate) if banks do not finance the construction of the fourth bridge? The realistic answer is not likely. If the fourth bridge does not receive financing, weaker income growth in that province – due to employment redundancies among construction companies and their suppliers – would lead to slower spending growth. Faced with slowing demand growth, other enterprises and households would likely turn cautious and increase their savings rates – i.e., reduce the velocity of money supply. In short, reduced credit origination will mostly likely generate slower household income growth and, consequently, spending. Chart I-3China: No Deleveraging So Far China: No Deleveraging So Far China: No Deleveraging So Far Broadly speaking, household income growth has not yet downshifted because deleveraging in China has not started. Chart I-3 illustrates that aggregate domestic credit – including public sector, enterprises and households – continues to grow above 10% and well above nominal GDP growth. In fact, credit growth has exceeded nominal GDP growth since 2008. This is local currency credit and does not include foreign currency debt, but the latter is small at 14.5% of GDP (or about US$ 2 trillion). To us, deleveraging implies credit growth that is no greater than nominal GDP growth – i.e., a flat or declining credit-to-GDP ratio for at least several years. If China is serious about deleveraging and curbing its money/credit bubble, the pace of credit expansion should decline to or below nominal GDP growth – which is presently 8%. If and when this occurs it will dampen household income and spending growth. Bottom Line: Chinese household income and spending will inevitably slow if money/credit growth slumps, given the Chinese economy’s excessive reliance on new credit origination over the past 10 years. Do Households Have A Savings Or Debt Glut? What about households’ enormous savings in China? Why wouldn’t households reduce their savings and boost spending? When referring to household savings, most allude to bank deposits. But in conventional economic theory – and according to the way household savings are statistically calculated at a national level – savings actually have no relation to bank deposits. Chart I-4No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = Savings No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = Savings No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = Savings Chart I-4 illustrates that in China, the annual change in household deposits is not equal to household savings (Chart I-4, top panel). Similarly, the annual rise in all deposits (based on central bank data) is vastly different from annual national savings (as defined by conventional macroeconomics and calculated by the National Bureau of Statistics) (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Bank deposits are a monetary concept that we will refer to as “money savings.” Deposits are created by banks “out of thin air,” as illustrated in our past reports.Meanwhile, the term “savings” in conventional macroeconomics denotes goods and services that are produced but not consumed, which is a real economic (not monetary) variable. Not surprisingly, there is no relationship between these “real savings” and “money savings,” as illustrated in Chart I-4. To illustrate that household “savings” (as defined by conventional macroeconomics) are not related to money supply/deposits, let us go back to the example of the company building bridges in China. When the company wire transfers a salary of RMB 1,000 to an employee, the amount of money supply in the banking system does not change. Suppose this employee decides to save 100% of her income this month. Will the supply of money increase or decrease? The answer is that it will not change: the deposit will remain at her bank account. Alternatively, if she decides to spend all RMB 1,000 (100% of her income), the supply of money also will not change – deposits will be transferred to other banks where her suppliers have their accounts.  If she cashes out her deposit and puts it under her mattress, the amount of bank deposits will decline, but cash in circulation will rise by the same amount. Provided money supply is equal to the sum of all bank deposits and cash in circulation, the amount of money supply will not change. The only way the supply of money will decline is if she pays down her loan to a bank. Conversely, the supply of money only rises when banks originate loans or buy assets from non-banks. In short, saving/not spending does not alter the amount of money supply. Rather, broad money supply is equal to the cumulative net money creation “out of thin air” primarily by commercial banks and less so by the central bank over the course of their history. This has nothing to do with household and national “savings.” The latter stand for goods and services produced but not consumed. We have discussed what “savings” mean in conventional economics in past reports. Chart I-5Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones Critically, Chinese households presently carry more debt as a share of their disposable income than American households (Chart I-5). This chart compares household debt to disposable income using official data from both China and the U.S. In the case of China, we add Peer-to-Peer (P2P) credit to consumer credit data published by the People’s Bank of China to calculate household debt. The argument by many commentators that consumers in China are not highly leveraged is grounded on the comparison of their debt to GDP. However, in all countries, household debt is assessed versus disposable income – not GDP. The income available to households to service their debt is their disposable income – not GDP. It is correct that Chinese households’ assets have surged in the past two decades as they have purchased significant amounts of real estate, and property prices have skyrocketed. A survey by China Economic Trend Institute holds that property accounts for 66% of household assets in China. To assess creditworthiness, investors should not rely on debtors’ asset values. If debtors are en masse forced to sell their assets to service debt, equity prices would tumble well beforehand. Rather, creditworthiness should be assessed based on recurring cash flow (income) available to debtors to service their debt. One should not be surprised as to why real estate prices are very high in China. Money and credit have been surging – have grown four-fold – over the past 10 years (Chart I-6) and are still expanding at close to a 10% pace. In particular, household debt is still growing at a whopping 15.5% annually (Chart I-7). If and as money/credit growth downshifts, property prices will deflate. Chart I-6Helicopter Money In China Helicopter Money In China Helicopter Money In China Chart I-7Household Credit Is Expanding Twice As Fast As Income Growth Household Credit Is Expanding Twice As Fast As Income Growth Household Credit Is Expanding Twice As Fast As Income Growth Importantly, housing affordability is low and households’ ability to service their mortgages is troubling. Chart I-8 exhibits the nationwide house price-to-income ratio for China and the U.S. In the Middle Kingdom, it is currently about 7.2, while in the U.S. the ratio has never been above 4. It only approached 4  at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006. Chart I-8House Prices Are Very Expensive In China House Prices Are Very Expensive In China House Prices Are Very Expensive In China Chart I-   In turn, Table I-1 illustrates mortgage interest-only payments as a share of household disposable income. The national average is 25.5%. These are very high ratios, suggesting an average new home buyer will have to allocate about a quarter of her or his household income just to pay the interest on a mortgage. These averages do not divulge enormous variations among households. High-income and rich households probably do not have much debt, and debt sustainability is not an issue for them. This also implies that there are many low-income households for whom the interest payments on mortgages absorb more than 25% of their disposable income.  Bottom Line: All deposits in the banking system have been created by banks “out of thin air” and have not been engendered by household savings. Contrary to widespread beliefs, mainland households have a lot of debt, and the latter is still expanding faster than nominal disposable income growth (Chart I-7 above). Positives And The Cyclical Outlook This section lists some positives for household incomes and spending, while also highlighting inherent risks: In the long run, per-capita real income growth in any country is equal to productivity growth. Productivity in China is still booming, justifying high real income growth. The question is whether such buoyant productivity growth can be sustained at a high level to justify robust real-income per-capita growth. Typically, easy money breeds complacency, misallocation of capital and ultimately lower productivity growth. Can China sustain productivity growth of 6% to assure a similar growth rate in real income per capita if the nation continues to experience easy money and a misallocation of capital? Forecasting productivity is not easy; only time will tell. Chart I-9Nominal Household Income, Wages And Salaries Nominal Household Income, Wages And Salaries Nominal Household Income, Wages And Salaries Per capita aggregate income as well as both wages and salaries are still expanding briskly – by about 8.5% in nominal terms from a year ago (Chart I-9). This is a formidable growth rate and entails vigorous spending power. The cyclical and long-term concern is whether the current rate of income growth is sustainable. So far there has been few redundancies, despite the fact that corporate revenue and profits have slumped. There is anecdotal evidence that the authorities are actively discouraging dismissals among both state-owned and private enterprises. If layoffs are avoided in this cycle, it will imply that the full pain of the slowdown is absorbed by shareholders. As a result, wages and salaries will rise as a share of GDP, causing a profit margin squeeze for companies. Will private shareholders be willing to invest in the future? Over the past year,  authorities have targeted the stimulus at consumers by cutting personal income taxes. However, this has not boosted consumption: First, the individual taxpayers’ base was very small; only one quarter of total employment (or 16% of the population) was paying personal income taxes before the most recent cut. Second, personal income tax savings have amounted to less than 2% of disposable income.   Finally, the savings from tax cuts are unevenly distributed across households. High-income families will probably get higher tax savings than lower-income ones, whereas the propensity to spend is higher for the latter than the former. Household deposit expansion has accelerated at the expense of enterprises (Chart I-10). This confirms that companies have not slowed the payments to employees (wage bill). Consequently, households have firepower which can be unleashed at any time.  However, there are presently no signs of a growing appetite to spend. Quite the contrary, our proxy for household marginal propensity to spend is falling (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Households Are Hoarding Money, Not Spending Households Are Hoarding Money, Not Spending Households Are Hoarding Money, Not Spending Chart I-11Household Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Still Falling Household Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Still Falling Household Marginal Propensity To Spend Is Still Falling Non-discretionary consumer spending has remained very robust. In contrast, discretionary spending has been extremely weak and shows no signs of recovery (Chart I-12). Finally, the impulses of non-government credit, broad money and household credit are weak (Chart I-13). Without these improving substantially and households’ marginal propensity to spend rising, it is difficult to expect a meaningful recovery in consumption. Chart I-12Discretionary Spending Is Sluggish Discretionary Spending Is Sluggish Discretionary Spending Is Sluggish Chart I-13Credit/Money Impulses Are Much Weaker Than In Previous Stimulus Credit/Money Impulses Are Much Weaker Than In Previous Stimulus Credit/Money Impulses Are Much Weaker Than In Previous Stimulus Bottom Line: A cyclical recovery in consumer spending hinges on another round of major credit and fiscal stimulus as well as improvement in households’ willingness to spend. Structurally, real income growth is contingent on China’s ability to sustain high productivity growth. Investment Implications If and as capital spending and exports growth slow further, the pace of expansion in consumer expenditure will also moderate. In such a scenario, overall economic growth in China will inevitably downshift. Structurally, Chinese consumer spending will slow from the torrid pace of 10% CAGR of the past 10 years to around 6-7.5% CAGR in real terms. This is a formidable growth rate, and warrants a bullish stance on the consumer sector. We identified Chinese consumers as a major investment theme for the current decade in our 2010 report titled How To Play EM This Decade? 1 In that report, we recommended selling commodities and sectors exposed to Chinese construction and instead favoring consumer plays, especially in the health care and tech sectors. This structural theme has played out well and has further to go. Chinese household spending on health care, education and other high-value services will rise as income per capita expands, albeit at a slower rate than before. Chart I-14 demonstrates that Chinese imports of medical and pharmaceutical products are surging, even though overall imports are currently contracting. Domestically, profit margins are expanding within the medical and pharmaceuticals industries but stagnating for the overall industrial sector (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Surging Demand For Medical Products/Goods Surging Demand For Medical Products/Goods Surging Demand For Medical Products/Goods Chart I-15Continue Favoring Companies In Health Care/Medical Space Continue Favoring Companies In Health Care/Medical Space Continue Favoring Companies In Health Care/Medical Space All that said, a bullish growth story does not always translate into strong equity returns. Charts I-16A and I-16B reveal that share prices of Chinese investible consumer sub-sectors have had mixed performance. With the exception of Alibaba and Tencent, a few of consumer equity sub-sectors have generated strong equity returns. Chart I-16AChinese Consumer Stocks: Mixed Performance Chinese Consumer Stocks: Mixed Performance Chinese Consumer Stocks: Mixed Performance Chart I-16BChinese Consumer Stocks: Mixed Performance Chinese Consumer Stocks: Mixed Performance Chinese Consumer Stocks: Mixed Performance Such poor equity performance given strong headline consumption growth has often been due to bottom-up problems such as profit margins squeeze, overexpansion, over-indebtedness, equity dilution, quality of management and other issues. Chart I- Apart from company specific risks, investors should also consider valuations. Buying good companies in great industries at very high equity multiples will probably produce meager returns. Table I-2 shows the trailing P/E ratio for various consumer sub-sectors. The majority of them trade at a trailing P/E ratio of above 20 and in some cases above 30. Besides, China’s consumer story has been well known for some time, and many portfolios are overweight China consumer plays. Consequently, investor positioning adds to near-term risks. Cyclically, high equity valuations, crowded investor positioning and the delayed cyclical recovery in the Chinese economy pose downside risks to consumer stocks as well. However, such a selloff will create conditions for selectively investing in reasonably valued high quality companies.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “How To Play Emerging Market Growth In The Coming Decade”, dated June 10, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The chance of a U.S.-China trade agreement is still only 40% – but an upgrade may be around the corner. Trump is on the verge of a tactical trade retreat due to fears of economic slowdown and a loss in 2020. Xi Jinping is now the known unknown. His aggressive foreign policy is a major risk even if Trump softens. Political divisions in Greater China – Hong Kong unrest and Taiwan elections – could harm the trade talks. Maintain tactical caution but remain cyclically overweight global equities. Feature “I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do it. So I’m taking on China. I’m taking on China on trade. And you know what, we’re winning.” – U.S. President Donald J. Trump, August 21, 2019 On August 1, United States President Donald Trump declared that he would raise a new tariff of 10% on the remaining $300 billion worth of imports from China not already subject to his administration’s sweeping 25% tariff. Then, on August 13, with the S&P 500 index down a mere 2.4%, Trump announced that he would partially delay the tariff, separating it into two tranches that will take effect on September 1 and December 15 (Chart 1). Chart 1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo Chart 2 Six days later Trump’s Commerce Department renewed the 90-day temporary general license for U.S. companies to do business with embattled Chinese telecom company Huawei, which has ties to the Chinese state and is viewed as a threat to U.S. network security. Trump’s tendency to take two steps forward with coercive measures and then one step back to control the damage is by now familiar to global investors. Yet this backpedaling reveals that like other politicians he is concerned about reelection. After all, there is a clear chain of consequence leading from trade war to bear market to recession to a Democrat taking the White House in November 2020. Trump’s approval rating is already similar to that of presidents who fell short of re-election amid recession (Chart 2) – an actual recession would consign him to the dustbin of history. Will Trump Stage A Tactical Retreat On Trade? Yes. Trump’s predicament suggests that he will have to adjust his policies. Global trade, capital spending, and sentiment have deteriorated significantly since the last escalation-and-delay episode with China in May and June. Beijing’s economic stimulus measures disappointed expectations, exacerbating the global slowdown (Chart 3). This leaves him less room for maneuver going forward. Chart 3China's Gradual Stimulus Yet To Revive Global Economy China's Gradual Stimulus Yet To Revive Global Economy China's Gradual Stimulus Yet To Revive Global Economy Chart 4Trump's Economy Grew Slower Than Thought Despite Fiscal Stimulus Trump's Economy Grew Slower Than Thought Despite Fiscal Stimulus Trump's Economy Grew Slower Than Thought Despite Fiscal Stimulus Even “Fortress America” – consumer-driven and relatively insulated from global trade – has seen manufacturing, private investment, and business sentiment weaken. GDP growth is slowing and has been revised downward for 2018 despite a surge in budget deficit projections to above $1 trillion dollars (Chart 4).   Q4 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. The U.S. Treasury yield curve inversion is deepening. While we at BCA would point out reasons that this may not be a reliable signal of imminent recession, Trump cannot afford to ignore it. He is sensitive to the widening talk of “recession” in American airwaves and is openly contemplating stimulus options (Chart 5). His approval rating has lost momentum, partly due to his perceived mishandling of a domestic terrorist attack motivated by racist anti-immigrant sentiment in El Paso, Texas, but negative financial and economic news have likely also played a part (Chart 6). Chart 5Trump Fears Growing Talk Of Recession Trump Fears Growing Talk Of Recession Trump Fears Growing Talk Of Recession Chart 6 In short, the fourth quarter of 2019 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. The core predicament for Trump continues to be the divergence in American and Chinese policy. Chart 7Trump's Fiscal Policy Undid His Trade Policy Trump's Fiscal Policy Undid His Trade Policy Trump's Fiscal Policy Undid His Trade Policy In the U.S., the stimulating effect of Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act is wearing off just as the deflationary effect of his trade policy begins to bite. In China, the lingering effects of Xi’s all-but-defunct deleveraging campaign are combining with the trade war, and slowing trend growth, to produce a drag on domestic demand and global trade. The result is a rising dollar, which increases the trade deficit – the opposite of what Trump wants and needs (Chart 7). The United States is insulated from global trade, but only to a point – it cannot escape a global recession should one develop, given that its economy is still closely linked to the rest of the world (Chart 8). With global and U.S. equities vulnerable to additional volatility in the near term, Trump will have to make at least a tactical retreat on his trade policy over the rest of the year. First and foremost this would mean: Chart 8If Total Trade War Causes A Global Relapse, The U.S. Economy Cannot Escape If Total Trade War Causes A Global Relapse, The U.S. Economy Cannot Escape If Total Trade War Causes A Global Relapse, The U.S. Economy Cannot Escape Expediting a trade deal with Japan – this should get done before a China deal, possibly as early as September. Ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada “NAFTA 2.0” agreement – this requires support from moderate Democrats in Congress. The window for passage is closing fast but not closed. Removing the threat to slap tariffs on European car and car part imports in mid-November. There is some momentum given Europe’s need to boost growth and recent progress on U.S. beef exports to the EU. Lastly, if financial and economic pressure are sustained, Trump will be forced to soften his stance on China. The problem for global risk assets – in the very near term – is that Trump’s tactical retreat has not fully materialized yet. The new tariff on China is still slated to take effect on September 1. This tariff hike or other disagreements could result in a cancellation of talks or failure to make any progress.1 Even if Trump does pivot on trade, China’s position has hardened. It is no longer clear that Beijing will accept a deal that is transparently designed to boost Trump’s reelection chances. Thus, the biggest question in the trade talks is no longer Trump, but Xi. Is Xi prepared to receive Trump kindly if the latter comes crawling back? How will he handle rising political risk in Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan island,2 and will the outcome derail the trade talks? Bottom Line: Global economic growth is fragile and President Trump has only tentatively retracted his latest salvo against China. Nevertheless, the clear signal is that he is sensitive to the financial and economic constraints that affect his presidential run next year – and therefore investors should expect U.S. trade policy to turn less market-negative on the margin in the coming months. This is positive for the cyclical view on global risk assets. But the risk to the view is China: whether Trump will take a conciliatory turn and whether Xi will reciprocate. Can Xi Jinping Accept A Deal? Yes. It is extremely difficult for Xi Jinping to offer concessions in the short term. He is facing another tariff hike, U.S. military shows of force, persistent social unrest in Hong Kong, and a critical election in Taiwan. Certainly, he will not risk any sign of weakness ahead of the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, which will be a nationalist rally in defiance of imperialist western powers. After that, however, there is potential for Xi to be receptive to any Trump pivot on trade. China’s strategy in the trade talks has generally been to offer limited concessions and wait for Trump to resign himself to them. Concessions thus far are not negligible, but they can easily be picked apart. They consist largely of preexisting trends (large commodity purchases); minor adjustments (e.g. to car tariffs and foreign ownership rules); unverifiable promises (on foreign investment, technological transfer, and intellectual property); or reversible strategic cooperation (partial enforcement of North Korean and Iranian sanctions) (Table 1). Many of these concessions have been postponed as a result of Trump’s punitive measures. Table 1China’s Offers Thus Far In The Trade War Big Trouble In Greater China Big Trouble In Greater China It is unlikely that Beijing will offer much more under today’s adverse circumstances. The exception is cooperation on North Korea, which should improve. So the contours of a deal are generally known. This is what Trump will have to accept if he seeks to calm markets and restore confidence in the economy ahead of his election. But this slate of concessions is ultimately acceptable for the U.S. China’s demands are that Trump roll back all his tariffs, that purchases of U.S. goods must be reasonable in scale, and that any agreement be balanced and conducted with mutual respect. Of these three, the tariffs and the “balance” pose the most trouble. Trade balance: Washington and Beijing can agree on the terms of specific purchases. China can increase select imports substantially – it remains a cash-rich nation with a state sector that can be commanded to buy American goods. Tariff rollback: This is tougher but can be done. The U.S. will insist on some tariffs – or the threat of tech sanctions – as an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Beijing implements the structural concessions necessary for an agreement. But China might accept a deal in which tariffs were mostly rolled back – say to the original 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of goods. This would likely offset the degree of yuan appreciation to be expected from the likely currency addendum to any agreement. Balance and respect: This qualitative demand is the sticking point. Fundamentally, China cannot reward Trump for his aggressive and unilateral protectionist measures. This would be to set a precedent for future American presidents that sweeping tariffs on national security grounds are a legitimate way of coercing China into making economic structural reforms. Moreover if the U.S. wants to improve the trade balance, China thinks, it cannot embargo Chinese high-tech imports but must actually increase its high-tech exports. Clearly this is a major impasse in the talks. The last point is the likeliest deal-breaker. It may ultimately hinge on strategic events outside of the realm of trade. But before discussing it further, it is important to recognize that China is not invincible – it has a pain threshold. The threat of a divorce from the U.S. is a danger to China’s economy and the Communist regime. Chart 9China's Ultimate Economic Constraint China's Ultimate Economic Constraint China's Ultimate Economic Constraint Deterioration in China’s labor market is of utmost seriousness to any Chinese leader (Chart 9). And the economy is still struggling to revive. Xi’s reform and deleveraging campaign of 2017-18 has been postponed but the lingering effects are weighing on growth and the property sector remains under tight regulation. Moreover the removal of implicit guarantees, and rare toleration of creative destruction (Chart 10), have left banks and corporations afraid to take on new risks. The state’s reflationary measures, including a big boost to local government spending, have so far been merely sufficient for domestic stability. These problems can be addressed by additional policy easing. But the domestic political crackdown and the break with the U.S. have shaken manufacturers and private entrepreneurs to the bone, suppressing animal spirits and reducing the demand for loans. Chart 10Creative Destruction In China Creative Destruction In China Creative Destruction In China Ultimately a short-term trade deal to ease this economic stress would make sense for Xi Jinping, even though he knows that U.S. protectionism and the conflict over technological acquisition will persist beyond 2020 and beyond Trump. The threat of a sharp and destabilizing divorce from the U.S. is a real and present danger to the long-term stability of China’s economy and the Communist regime. Xi is a strongman leader, but is he really ready for Mao Zedong-style austerity? Is he not more like former President Jiang Zemin (ruled 1993-2003), who imposed some austerity while prizing domestic economic and political stability above all? To this question we now turn. Bottom Line: China has become the wild card in the trade war. Trump’s need to prevent a recession is known. Beijing has a higher pain threshold and could walk away from the deal to punish Trump (upsetting the global economy and diminishing Trump’s reelection prospects). This would set the precedent for future American presidents that China will not bow to gunboat diplomacy. Will Xi Jinping Overplay His Hand? Be Afraid. For decades China’s main foreign policy principle has been to “lie low and bide its time,” to paraphrase former leader Deng Xiaoping. In the current context this means maintaining a willingness to engage with the U.S. whenever it engages sincerely. This approach implies making the above concessions to minimize the immediate threat to stability from the trade war, while biding time in the longer run rivalry against the United States. Such an approach would also imply assisting the diplomatic process on the Korean peninsula, avoiding a military crackdown in Hong Kong, and refraining from aggressive military intimidation ahead of Taiwan’s election in January. Chart 11China's Vast Market Its Most Persuasive Tool China's Vast Market Its Most Persuasive Tool China's Vast Market Its Most Persuasive Tool After all, there is no better way for the Communist Party to undercut dissidents in Hong Kong and Taiwan than to strike a deal with the United States. This would demonstrate that Xi is a pragmatic leader who is still committed to “reform and opening up.” It would help generate an economic rebound that would bring other countries deeper into Beijing’s orbit (Chart 11). China’s vast domestic market is ultimately its greatest strength in its contest with the United States. In short, conventional Chinese policy suggests that Xi should perpetuate the long success story since 1978 by striking another deal with another Republican president. The catch is that Xi Jinping is not conventional. Since coming to power in 2012, Xi has eschewed the subtle strategies of Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping in favor of a more ambitious approach: that of declaring China’s arrival as a major power and leveraging its economic and military heft to pursue foreign policy and commercial interests aggressively. Xi’s reassertion of Communist rule and state-guided technological acquisition is the biggest factor behind the new U.S. political consensus – entirely aside from Trump – that China is foe rather than friend. There are several empirical reasons to think that Xi might overplay his hand: Xi failed to make substantive concessions with President Barack Obama’s administration on North Korea, the South China Sea, and cyber security, resulting in Obama’s decision to harden U.S. policy toward both China and North Korea in 2015 – a trend that predates Trump. Xi formally removed presidential term limits from China’s constitution even though he could have attracted less negative attention from the West by ruling from behind the scenes after his term in office, like Deng Xiaoping or Jiang Zemin. China has mostly played for time in negotiations with the Trump administration, as mentioned, and this aggravated tensions. Deep revisions to the draft agreement, which was supposedly 90% complete, broke the negotiations in May, sparking this summer’s standoff. Aggressive policies in territorial disputes have alienated even China’s potential allies. This includes regional states whose current ruling parties have courted China in recent years, in some cases obsequiously – South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The East and South China Seas remain a genuine source of “black swans” – unpredictable, low-probability, high-impact events – due to their status as critical sea lanes for the major Asian economies. China continues to militarize the islands there and aggressively prosecute its maritime-territorial disputes. We calculate that $6.4 trillion worth of goods flowed through this bottleneck in the year ending April 2019, 8% of which consists of energy goods from the Middle East that are vital to China and its East Asian neighbors, none of whom can stomach Chinese domination of this geographic space (Diagram 1). Even if Washington abandoned the region, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would see Chinese control as a threat to their security. Diagram 1The South China Sea As The World’s Traffic Roundabout Big Trouble In Greater China Big Trouble In Greater China Ultimately, however, China’s adventures in its neighboring seas are a matter of choice. Not so for Greater China – in Hong Kong and Taiwan, political risk is rapidly mounting in a way that enflames the U.S.-China strategic distrust and threatens to prevent a trade agreement. Hong Kong: The Dust Has Not Settled Mass protests in Hong Kong have lost some momentum, based on the size of the largest rally in August versus June. But do not be fooled: the political crisis is deepening. A plurality of Hong Kongers now harbors negative feelings toward mainland Chinese people as well as the government in Beijing – a trend that is spiking amid today’s protests but began with the Great Recession and has roots in the deeper socioeconomic malaise of this capitalist enclave (Chart 12A & 12B). Chart 12 Chart 12 Chart 13 A majority also lacks confidence in the political arrangement that ensures some autonomy from Beijing – known as “One Country, Two Systems” (Chart 13). This is a particularly worrisome sign since this is the fundamental basis for stable political relations with Beijing. With clashes continuing between protesters and police, students calling for a boycott of school this fall, and Beijing openly drilling its security forces in Shenzhen for a potential intervention, Hong Kong’s unrest is not yet laid to rest and could flare up again ahead of China’s sensitive National Day celebration. U.S. tariffs and sanctions are already in effect, reducing the ability of the U.S. to deter China from using force if it believes instability has gone too far. And as President Trump has warned – and would be true of any U.S. administration – a violent crackdown on civilian demonstrators would greatly reduce the political viability of a trade deal in the United States. Taiwan: The Black Swan Arrives Since Taiwan’s 2016 election, we have argued that it is a potential source of “black swans.” Mass protests in Hong Kong may have taken the cake. But these protests are now affecting the Taiwanese election dynamic and potentially the U.S.-China trade talks. Chart 14U.S. Approves Big New Arms Sale To Taiwan U.S. Approves Big New Arms Sale To Taiwan U.S. Approves Big New Arms Sale To Taiwan On August 20, the United States Department of Defense informed Congress that it is proceeding with an $8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets and other military arms and equipment to Taiwan – the largest sale in 22 years and the largest aircraft sale since 1992 (Chart 14). This sale is not yet complete and delivered, but ultimately will be – the question is the timing. Arms sales to Taiwan are a perennial source of tension between the United States and China – and China is increasingly assertive in using economic sanctions to get its way over such issues, as it showed in the lead up to South Korea’s election in 2017. This sale is not a military “game changer” – the U.S. did not send over fifth-generation F-35s, for instance – but China will respond vehemently. It is threatening to impose sanctions on American companies like Lockheed Martin and General Electric for their part in the deal. The sale does not in itself preclude the chance of a trade agreement but it contributes to a rise in strategic tensions that ultimately could. The context is Taiwan’s hugely important election in January. Four years ago, President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party swept to power on the back of a popular protest movement – the “Sunflower Movement” – that opposed deeper cross-strait economic integration. It dangerously resembled the kind of anti-Communist “color revolutions” that motivate Xi Jinping’s hardline policies. Tsai shocked the world when she called Trump personally to congratulate him after his election, which violated diplomatic protocol given that Taiwan is a territory of China and not an independent nation-state. Since then Trump has largely avoided provoking the Taiwan issue so as not to strike at a core Chinese interest and obliterate the chance of a trade deal. But the U.S. has always argued that the provision of defensive arms to Taiwan is a condition of the U.S.-China détente – and Trump is so far moving forward with the sale. Chart 15A 'Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis' Would Have A Seismic Equity Impact A 'Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis' Would Have A Seismic Equity Impact A 'Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis' Would Have A Seismic Equity Impact How will Xi Jinping react if the sale goes through? In 1995-96, China’s use of missile tests to try to intimidate Taiwan produced the opposite effect – driving voters into the arms of Lee Teng-hui, the candidate Beijing opposed. This was the occasion of the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, in which U.S. President Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carriers to the region, one that sailed through the Taiwan Strait. The negative effect on markets at that time was local, whereas anything resembling this level of tensions would today be a seismic global risk-off (Chart 15). Since the 1990s, leaders in Beijing have avoided direct military coercion ahead of elections. But Xi Jinping has hardened his stance on Taiwan throughout his term. He has dabbled with such coercion in his use of military drills that encircle Taiwan in recent years. While one must assume that he will use economic sanctions rather than outright military threats – as he did with South Korea – saber-rattling cannot be ruled out. The pressure on him is rising. Prior to the Hong Kong unrest, Taiwan’s elections looked likely to return the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) to power and remove the incumbent President Tsai – a boon for Beijing. That outlook has changed and Tsai now has a fighting chance of staying in power (Chart 16). The prospect of four more years of Tsai would not be too problematic for Beijing if not for the fact that the U.S. political establishment is now firmly in agreement on challenging China. But even if Tsai loses, Taiwan’s outlook is troublesome. And this makes Xi’s decision-making harder to predict. Chart 16 Chart 17 It is not that Tsai or her party will necessarily prevail. The manufacturing slowdown will take a toll and third-party candidates, particularly Ko Wen-je, would likely split Tsai’s vote. Moreover her Democratic Progressives still tie the KMT in opinion polling (Chart 17). The Taiwanese people are primarily concerned about maintaining the strong economy and cross-strait peace and stability, which her reelection could jeopardize (Chart 18). Tsai could very well lose, or she could be a lame duck presiding over the KMT in the legislature. Chart 18 Chart 19 Rather, the problem for Xi Jinping is that the Taiwanese people clearly sympathize with the protesters in Hong Kong (Chart 19). They fear that their own governance system faces the same fate as Hong Kong’s, with the Communist Party encroaching on traditional political liberties over time. While Hong Kong ultimately has zero choice as to whether to accept Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan has much greater autonomy – and the military support of outside forces. It is not a foregone conclusion that Taiwan must suffer the same political dependency as Hong Kong. Indeed, Taiwan has a long history of exercising the democratic vote and has even dabbled into the realm of popular referendums. In short, Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis in the long run than Hong Kong. But the Hong Kong events have accentuated this fact, for two key reasons: First, Taiwanese people identify increasingly as exclusively Taiwanese, rather than as both Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart 20). The incidents in Hong Kong reveal that this sentiment is tied to immediate political relations and therefore deterioration would encourage further alienation from the mainland. Chart 20 Chart 21 Second, while a strong majority of Taiwanese wish to maintain the political status quo to avoid conflict with the mainland, a substantial subset – approaching one-fourth – supports eventual or immediate independence (Chart 21). This means that relations with the mainland will eventually deteriorate even if the KMT wins the election. The KMT itself must respond to popular demand not to cozy up too much with Beijing, which is how it fell from power in 2016. Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis than Hong Kong. Meanwhile, under KMT rule, Taiwan’s progressive-leaning youth are likely to set about reviving their protest movement in the subsequent years and imitating their Hong Kong peers, especially if the KMT warms up relations too fast with the mainland. Ultimately these points suggest that Xi Jinping will strive to avoid a violent crackdown in Hong Kong. A crackdown would be the surest way for him to harm the KMT in the Taiwanese election and to hasten the rebuilding of U.S.-Taiwan security ties. Call The President The best argument for Xi to lie low and avoid a larger crisis in Greater China is that it would unify the West and its allies against China. So far Xi’s foreign policy has not been so aggressive as to lead to diplomatic isolation. Europe is maintaining a studied neutrality due to its own differences with the United States; Asian neighbors are wary of provoking Chinese sanctions or military threats. A humanitarian crisis in Hong Kong or a “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” would change that. For markets, the best-case scenario is that Xi Jinping exercises restraint. This would help Hong Kong protests lose steam, North Korean diplomacy get back on track, and Taiwanese independence sentiment simmer down. China would be more likely to halt U.S. tariffs and tech sanctions, settle a short-term trade agreement, and delay the upgrade in U.S.-Taiwan defense relations. China would still face adverse long-term political trends in both the U.S. and Taiwan, but an immediate crisis would be averted. The worst-case scenario is that Xi indulges his ambition. Hong Kong protests could explode, relations with Taiwan would deteriorate, and U.S.-China relations would move more rapidly in their downward spiral. Trade talks could collapse. Xi Jinping would face the possibility of a unified Western front, instability within Greater China, and a global recession. This might get rid of Donald Trump, but it would not get rid of the U.S. Congress, Navy, or Department of Defense. The choice seems pretty clear. Xi, like Trump, faces constraints that should motivate a tactical retreat from confrontation, at least after October 1. While this does not necessarily mean a settled trade agreement, it does suggest at least a ceasefire or truce. Our GeoRisk indicators show that market-based political risk in Taiwan – and less so South Korea – moves in keeping with global economic policy uncertainty. The underlying U.S.-China strategic confrontation and trade war are driving both (Chart 22). A deterioration in this region has global consequences. Chart 22U.S.-China Strategic Conflict Fuels Global Economic Uncertainty And Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk In Tandem U.S.-China Strategic Conflict Fuels Global Economic Uncertainty And Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk In Tandem U.S.-China Strategic Conflict Fuels Global Economic Uncertainty And Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk In Tandem Xi is a markedly aggressive “strongman” Chinese leader who has not been afraid to model his leadership on that of Chairman Mao. He could still overplay his hand. This is why we maintain that the odds of a U.S.-China trade agreement remain 40%, though we are prepared to upgrade that probability if Trump and Xi make pro-market decisions. Investment Implications On the three-month tactical horizon, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy is paring back our tactical safe-haven trades: we are closing our “Doomsday Basket” of long gold and Swiss bonds for a gain of 13.6%, while maintaining our simple gold portfolio hedge going forward. Trump has not yet decisively staged his tactical retreat on trade policy, while rising political risk in Greater China increases uncertainty over Xi Jinping’s next moves. On the cyclical horizon, the above suggests that there is a light at the end of the tunnel – if both Trump and Xi recognize their political constraints. This means that there is still a political and geopolitical basis to reinforce BCA’s House View to remain optimistic on global and U.S. equities over the next 12 months, with the potential for non-U.S. equities to recover and bond yields to reverse their deep dive.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Negotiations between Trump and Xi are slated for September in Washington. There is a prospect for Trump to hold another summit with Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in late September and at the APEC summit in Chile in mid-November. 2 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, while Taiwan is recognized as a province or territory.

Highlights China’s infrastructure investment growth rate could rebound moderately from its current nominal 3% pace, but will remain well below the double-digit rate it has registered for most of the past decade.  A lack of funding for local governments and their financing vehicles will somewhat cap the upside in infrastructure fixed-asset investment (FAI) in the next six to nine months. Special bond issuance will be insufficient to ensuring a major recovery in infrastructure spending. Investors should tread cautiously on infrastructure plays in financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Nominal infrastructure investment growth in China has slowed from over 15% in 2017 to 3% currently (Chart I-1). This is the weakest growth rate since 2005 excluding the late 2011-early 2012 period. Over the past decade, each time the Chinese economy experienced a considerable slowdown, infrastructure construction was ramped up to revive growth. Infrastructure spending growth skyrocketed in 2009 and was also boosted in 2012. In 2015-2016, it was not allowed to decelerate with the issuance of nearly RMB 2 trillion of special infrastructure bonds. This time the government has also reacted. Since mid-2018, the Chinese authorities have dramatically raised local governments’ special bonds balance limits, prompted local governments to front-load their issuance this year, and also encouraged the private sector to participate in public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects. Will Chinese infrastructure FAI growth accelerate over the next six to nine months from its current nominal 3% pace to double digits? The short answer is no. Chart I-2 We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. For purposes of this report, the composition of “infrastructure” includes three categories – (1) Transport, Storage and Postal Service, (2) Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management, and (3) Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply. Chart I-2 presents the breakdown of the nominal infrastructure FAI by category. Funding Constraint Preceding both the 2011-2012 and 2018 infrastructure investment slumps, the Chinese central government increased its scrutiny on local government debt and tightened funding conditions for infrastructure projects. As a result, all three categories of infrastructure spending experienced a sharp deceleration (Chart I-3). Overall, financing and qualitative limitations that Beijing imposes on local government infrastructure spending hold the key to the outlook. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. Looking forward, without a considerable recovery in available financing, there will be no meaningful rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment and construction activity. For now, we are not very optimistic on financing. Chart I-4 shows the breakdown of the major funding sources of Chinese infrastructure investment. All of them are likely to face considerable funding constraints over the next six to nine months. Chart I-3Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board Chart I-4   1. Self-Raised Funds Self-raised funds contribute nearly 60% of overall infrastructure funding. They include net local government special bond issuance, PPP financing and government-managed funds’ (GMFs) revenues excluding proceeds from special bond issuance. A. Local government special bond issuance, which is exclusively used to fund infrastructure projects, has been the major source of financing for local governments in the past 12 months. The authorities significantly boosted net local government bond issuance to RMB 1.2 trillion in the first six months of this year from only RMB 361 billion in the same period in 2018. However, the amount of special bond issuance in the second half of this year will unlikely be significant enough to boost infrastructure FAI greatly. First, the central government has not only set a limit on the aggregate local government special bond balance, but it also set limits for each of the 31 provinces/provincial-level cities.1 In the past three years, nearly all provinces did not use up their special bond issuance quotas. This resulted in an outstanding aggregate amount of special bonds of only about 85% of the limit.2 In both 2017 and 2018, local governments were left with RMB 1.1 trillion special bond issuance quota unused for that year. Second, based on the limit on outstanding amount special bonds set by the central government for the end of 2019, local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of this year. In comparison, in 2018, the issuance was heavily concentrated in the second half of the year with RMB 1.6 trillion. Our estimate shows there will be only RMB 400-600 billion increase in net total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018.3 This will translate into a merely 2-3% growth in Chinese infrastructure investment. Third, net local government special bond issuance made up only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Hence, there is still a huge financing gap to be filled (Chart I-5). B. Public-private partnerships (PPP) are unlikely to meet the financing shortage either. PPPs have become an important financing model for Chinese local governments to fund infrastructure investments since 2014. Nevertheless, to control rising local government debt risks, the central government has tightened regulations on PPP projects since early last year. A series of tightened rules have resulted in a sharp deceleration in both PPP investment and overall infrastructure investment growth. Consequently, PPPs contributions to total infrastructure FAI have plunged from over 30% in 2017 to 10% currently (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Chart I-6Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage   So far, the rules on PPP projects on local governments remain tight. In March, the central government tightened its rule on local government participation in PPP projects. The new rule states that, if a local government has already spent more than 5% of its overall general expenditures on PPP projects excluding sewage and waste disposal PPP projects, it will not be allowed to invest in any new PPP projects. Before March, the threshold was over 10%. In early July, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded all PPP projects undertake a thorough feasibility study. The NDRC emphasized that PPP projects that do not follow standard procedures will not be allowed. Chart I-7Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales C. Government-managed funds (GMF) excluding special bond issuance accounts, which contribute about 15% of overall infrastructure financing, are also facing constraints. According to the country’s Budget Law, the GMF budget refers to the budget for revenues and expenditures of the funds raised for specific developmental objectives. In brief, GMFs constitute de-facto off-balance-sheet government revenues and spending. Land sales by local governments are one major revenue source for GMFs. Contracting property floor space sold is likely to depress real estate developers’ land purchases, further reducing local governments’ revenues from selling land (Chart I-7). This will curb local governments’ ability to finance their infrastructure projects through GMFs. 2. Domestic Loans Domestic loans contribute to about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. Infrastructure projects are generally long term in nature. Presently, the impulse of non-household medium- and long-term (MLT) lending has stabilized but has not yet improved (Chart I-8). While not all of MLT loans are used for infrastructure, sluggish MLT lending reflects commercial banks’ reluctance to finance infrastructure projects. We believe a decelerating economy, mounting local government debt, and often-low returns on infrastructure projects will continue to constrain loan funding of infrastructure projects from both banks and the private sector. 3. General Government Budget The general government budget (which includes central and local governments) accounts for about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. The general budget is also facing headwinds from declining revenue due to recent tax cuts and lower corporate profit growth (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Chart I-9Government General Budget: Large Deficit Government General Budget: Large Deficit Government General Budget: Large Deficit   Bottom Line: Funding constraints will likely linger, making any recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment growth moderate over the next six to nine months. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. While local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of 2019, it would be well below the RMB 1.4 trillion of special bond issuance that was rolled out in the second half of 2018. FAI In Transportation: In Nominal Terms… The transportation sector accounts for about 31% of total Chinese infrastructure investment. It includes railway, highway, urban public transit, air and water transport. Table I-1 shows the 13th five-year (2016-2020) transportation investment plan released by the government in February 2017,4 which excludes urban public transit. Chart I- The authorities planned to invest RMB 15 trillion in the transportation sector over the five-year period between 2016 and 2020, with highways accounting for over half of the investment, followed by railways (23%), air transportation (4.3%) and water transportation (3.3%). The table also shows our calculation of the realized investment amount in these four sub-sectors for the period of January 2016 to June 2019. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Table I-1 suggests the remaining FAI for the transportation sector for the July 2019 to December 2020 period will be considerably smaller than the FAI amount over the past 18 months. This entails a major drag on infrastructure investment at least over the next 18 months. It is important to emphasize that this is conditional on the central planners in Beijing sticking to their five-year plan for infrastructure FAI. As of now, there has been no announcement of revisions to these five-year FAI targets. Bottom Line: China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. …And Real Terms Table I-2 summarizes the 2020 targets for major Chinese infrastructure development (urban rail transit, railway, highway and airport) in real terms. Chart I- Chart I-10Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away In real terms, the annual growth of transportation infrastructure will likely be 4.2% in both 2019 and 2020. We illustrated in the previous section that the five-year budget plan had been front-loaded, leaving a very small budget for transportation investment over the next 18 months. This may suggest that without considerably exceeding the budget, transportation infrastructure will fail to achieve the 4.2% annual growth in real terms both this year and next. In brief, more funding should be dispatched/allowed by the central planners in Beijing for infrastructure FAI not to shrink. Second, urban rail transit, high-speed railways, highways and airports will reach their respective 2020 targets, while non-high-speed railway construction will likely be a little bit off its 2020 target. Third, based on the 2020 targets, urban rail transit will enjoy very fast growth over the next one and a half years. Fourth, the growth of high-speed railways and highways will be very low, at around 1-2% in real terms (Chart I-10). Finally, while the number of airports will increase at a faster pace, their contribution to overall infrastructure investment will remain insignificant as they only account for about 1.4% of overall infrastructure investment. Bottom Line: In real terms, transport infrastructure growth will likely be only about 4% over the next six to nine months. Future Infrastructure Investment Focus Urban rail transit, environmental management and public utility management will likely be the major driving forces for Chinese infrastructure investment over the next 18 months. Urban rail transit line length will likely register fast growth of around 10% over the next six to nine months. As the central government enforces increasingly stringent rules on environmental protection, investment in environmental management will likely experience continued growth acceleration (Chart I-11). China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, as the country’s urbanization continues and more townships and city suburbs become urbanized,5 public utility management investment will also grow moderately. Public utility management investment, contributing a massive 45% of overall infrastructure investment, includes sewer systems, sewer treatment facilities, waste treatment and disposal, streetlights, city roads construction, parks, bridges and tunnels in the city. Investment Implications Investors should not hold their breath expecting a major upswing in infrastructure FAI and a major rally in related financial markets. Chinese steel demand is sensitive to construction of railways and urban rail transit lines (Chart I-12, top panel). In turn, mainland cement demand is dependent on highway construction (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Chart I-12Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand... Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand... Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand...   Chart I-13...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin ...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin ...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin The infrastructure sector accounts for about 10-15% of total Chinese steel use, and about 30-40% of Chinese cement consumption. Nevertheless, given that we believe Chinese infrastructure spending will only have a moderate recovery, the positive effect on steel and cement prices will be muted as well (Chart I-13). The same holds true for spending on industrial machinery, equipment, chemicals and various materials. Notably, risks to this baseline scenario of a muted recovery are to the downside because of the lack of funding. Barring a substantial increase in the special bond issuance quota this year or a major credit binge, infrastructure FAI growth could in fact stall. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please note that the central government only set the special bond balance limit (not the quota) for local governments. The often-cited “quota” in the news is derived by calculating the difference between the current limit and the previous year’s limit. The “quota” used in this report is the difference between the current special bond balance limit and the actual special bond balance of the previous year end. 2  At the end of 2018, Chinese special bond balance was RMB 7.4 trillion, only 85.8% of the special bond balance limit of RMB 8.6 trillion. This ratio was 84.6% in 2017 and 85.5% in 2016. On average, the ratio was 85.3% in the past three years. 3  Given that the central government is aiming to somewhat stimulate infrastructure spending by increasing special bond issuance, we assume special bond balance at the end of 2019 to reach 88%-90% of the limit (RMB 10.8 trillion) that it has set for 2019. This will be higher than the 85% average of the past three years. In turn, this means that the special bond balance at the end of this year will likely be RMB 9.5-9.7 trillion. Since the balance at the end of last year was RMB 7.4 trillion, this results that net special bond issuance will be around RMB 2.1-2.3 trillion in 2019. Given the net special bond issuance last year was RMB 1.7 trillion, it follows that there will only be a RMB 400-600 billion increase in total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018. 4  Please see www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-02/28/content_5171576.htm, published February 28, 2017, by the Chinese central government website. 5  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report “Industrialization-Driven Urbanization In China Is Losing Steam,” dated January 2, 2019, available on ems.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Mutual Funds & ETFs: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. BBB Securities: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. Leveraged Loans: The rapid surge in leveraged loans has been partially offset by reduced high-yield issuance, helping mitigate a potentially destabilizing rise in all riskier corporate debt. At the same time, bank exposure is focused on the safest CLO tranches, limiting the potential systemic risks from bank losses. Feature In April, we published a Special Report that investigated whether corporate debt poses a risk to the U.S. economy.1 That report focused on what economic theory and empirical evidence say about the relationship between corporate debt and future economic growth. We arrived at the following conclusions: The empirical evidence decisively shows that private (household + business) debt helps predict future economic outcomes. Some evidence shows that household debt is more important than corporate debt in this regard. In contrast to mainstream economic theory, the level of private debt-to-GDP does not help predict future economic outcomes. Rather, it is rapid private debt growth that is linked to more severe economic downturns. Ebullient credit market sentiment is also shown to predict weak economic growth. Tight credit spreads should be viewed as a warning sign, similar to rapid private debt growth. In this follow-up Special Report, we consider three credit market developments that are unique to this cycle: The large ownership stake of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the U.S. corporate bond market. The elevated amount of BBB-rated debt outstanding relative to other credit tiers. The rapid issuance of leveraged loans. All three of these developments could mediate the relationship between corporate debt and economic growth, potentially increasing risks to the economy. We consider each factor in turn. 1. Fund Flows One unique feature of the current cycle is that open-ended mutual funds and ETFs own a much larger share of outstanding corporate bonds than in the past. Back in 1990, insurance companies and pension funds were the largest holders of corporate debt, controlling 54% of the market. Meanwhile, open-ended funds owned a paltry 3%. Since then, fund ownership has surged to 16%, mostly at the expense of financial institutions, insurance companies and pensions. Foreign holdings of U.S. corporate bonds have also increased during this period, from 13% of the market to 28% (Charts 1 & 2). Chart 1 Chart 2Mutual Funds Now An Important Market Player Mutual Funds Now An Important Market Player Mutual Funds Now An Important Market Player Why Does Fund Ownership Matter? We focus on fund ownership of corporate bonds because it has been theorized that flows into and out of open-ended mutual funds can have a similar impact on market prices as leverage, amplifying price moves in either direction. As described in a 2014 paper by Feroli, Kashyap, Shoenholtz, and Shin:2 [W]hen asset flows for certain fixed income securities are high, prices persistently rise and a feedback loop emerges. High flows lead to rising prices, which attract more flows, which further raises prices. Obviously, the proposed feedback loop also works in reverse: Outflows cause prices to decline, and lower prices lead to further outflows. This sort of feedback loop is unique to mutual funds. Insurance companies and pension funds, for example, do not experience investor capital flight in response to a near-term price drop. This makes the larger presence of mutual funds in the corporate bond market potentially destabilizing. Fund ownership has surged to 16%, from a paltry 3% back in 1990. Why Do Fund Flows Behave This Way? Mutual fund shares are much more liquid than the corporate debt securities they hold. As described in a 2017 paper by Goldstein, Jiang and Ng:3 When [mutual] fund investors redeem their shares, they get the net asset value as of the day of redemption. The fund then has to conduct costly liquidation that hurts the value of the shares for investors who keep their money in the fund. Hence, the expected redemption by some investors increases the incentives for others to redeem. In other words, during times of stress, mutual fund investors have an incentive to withdraw their money before other fund shareholders get the chance. Otherwise, they could be stuck holding a basket of illiquid corporate bonds. This bank-run like behavior is well documented for corporate and municipal bond funds, though it appears not to exist for funds that traffic in more liquid instruments, such as Treasuries and equities. In fact, when Goldstein et al looked at how flows into and out of individual corporate bond and equity funds respond to past fund performance, they found that the Flow-Performance curve for an individual corporate bond fund exhibits a pronounced concave shape. Meanwhile, the same curve for an individual equity fund is convex (Chart 3). This means that corporate bond mutual fund shareholders are quick to redeem their shares in response to poor fund performance, while equity fund shareholders are more inclined to stand pat. On the flipside, positive fund performance leads to large equity fund inflows, but doesn’t attract capital to corporate bond funds to the same extent. The above results apply to individual funds, but Goldstein et al also performed the same analysis for corporate bond funds in the aggregate. That is, rather than measuring whether investors sold a particular corporate bond mutual fund in response to its poor performance, they measured whether investors exited the corporate bond mutual fund space altogether in response to poor corporate bond performance. Interestingly, they found a very similar result (Chart 4). Investors are inclined to exit the corporate bond space entirely following periods of poor performance. Meanwhile, they found no relationship between aggregate equity fund flows and performance. Investors might switch between different equity funds in response to recent performance trends, but they don’t exit the asset class altogether. Chart 3 Chart 4   These results provide a clear indication for why the large presence of corporate bond mutual funds might be destabilizing. Corporate bond fund investors are quick to flee the space during periods of poor performance. For more liquid securities, such as equities and Treasuries, a large mutual fund presence in the market is not a concern, since flows do not respond as aggressively to price shocks. Empirical Evidence For The Flow-Performance Feedback Loop The evidence presented above shows that fund flows respond to performance, but for the theorized feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices to exist, we also need evidence that fund flows impact corporate bond performance. In that regard, a 2019 Banque de France working paper examines the impact of aggregate flows into French corporate bond funds on the yields of the underlying securities.4 It finds that not only do flows impact yields contemporaneously, but also that outflows have a larger influence on yields than inflows. Using a different methodology, a 2015 paper by Hoseinzade finds no material impact of fund flows on underlying corporate bond yields, but for an interesting reason.5 The paper confirms that corporate bond fund shareholders demonstrate bank-run like behavior in response to poor performance, but also argues that “bond fund managers hold a significant level of liquid assets, allowing them to manage redemptions without excessively liquidating corporate bonds.” Chart 5Funds Deploy Cash Before Selling Bonds Funds Deploy Cash Before Selling Bonds Funds Deploy Cash Before Selling Bonds It’s true that corporate bond mutual funds often hold significant allocations to cash and U.S. Treasuries, and Hoseinzade shows that fund managers tend to discharge their most liquid holdings first, before attempting to sell corporate bonds. This result lines up with our casual observation. Chart 5 shows the aggregate liquid asset (cash and Treasury) holdings of corporate bond mutual funds. It is apparent that they tend to fall during periods of spread widening. We also note that corporate bond mutual funds, in aggregate, currently hold about 6% of their assets in liquid securities. This buffer can probably withstand a sizeable shock, but liquid assets fell from similar levels into negative territory during each of the past two recessions. One other factor that could help break the feedback loop between fund flows and prices is the institutional ownership of corporate bond mutual funds. Goldstein et al find that mutual funds mostly owned by institutional investors exhibit less of a feedback loop between flows and performance. That is, large institutional investors are less likely to redeem their shares in response to a bout of poor performance. While we don’t have data on corporate bond mutual fund ownership specifically, Federal Reserve data reveal that insurance companies and pension funds own a significantly larger proportion of outstanding mutual fund shares than in the 1990s, though less than they did in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). Note that Chart 6 shows data for all mutual funds, including equity funds, Treasury funds, etc… Chart 6Institutional Ownership Of Mutual Funds Institutional Ownership Of Mutual Funds Institutional Ownership Of Mutual Funds We conclude that there is enough evidence of a feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices that we should be wary of the growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond space. Cash holdings and institutional ownership can help mitigate negative flow/performance feedback loops to some extent, but probably shouldn’t be counted on in the event of a severe shock. What’s The Economic Impact? In our corporate debt Special Report from April, we postulated that changes in corporate bond spreads might, themselves, cause an economic downturn, rather than simply reflect one. The mechanism is summarized nicely by Lopez-Salido, Stein and Zakrajsek (2016):6 [a] sentiment-driven widening of credit spreads amounts to a reduction in the supply of credit, especially to lower credit-quality firms. It is this reduction in credit supply that exerts a negative influence on economic activity. With that in mind, in the current environment it seems very possible that an initially sentiment-driven credit spread widening could be exacerbated by outflows from corporate bond mutual funds. A larger shock to credit spreads leads to a larger reduction in credit supply and a more severe economic impact. Aggregate liquid asset holdings of corporate bond mutual funds tend to fall during periods of spread widening. Bottom Line: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. 2: BBB Debt Outstanding Chart 7The Large Amount Of BBB Debt The Large Amount Of BBB Debt The Large Amount Of BBB Debt It has been widely reported that an unusually large amount of outstanding corporate bonds are rated BBB, the lowest credit rating that is still considered investment grade. In fact, the par value of BBB-rated securities now makes up 50% of the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade index, up from 21% in 1990 (Chart 7). The amount of outstanding BBB securities is more than double the par value of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index, and BBBs represent 41% of the total combined par value of the investment grade and high-yield indexes. The reason to be wary about the large amount of outstanding BBB debt is that when the credit cycle turns and ratings downgrades start to occur, a larger than normal amount of debt will be downgraded from investment grade into high-yield. When that happens, any investors with an investment grade-only mandate will be forced to sell. The concern is that such forced selling could set off a negative feedback loop very similar to the one discussed in the first section. An added layer of risk comes from the fact that in addition to investment grade-only mutual funds, insurance companies and pension funds – who still control 35% of the corporate bond market (see Chart 2 on page 3) – are often burdened with larger capital costs for high-yield debt. This means that a very large pool of investors could be impacted by a spate of BBB downgrades. In terms of the potential market impact, a 2010 paper by Ellul, Jotikasthira and Lundblad investigated fire sales of downgraded corporate bonds induced by regulatory constraints.7 The authors found that insurance companies often engage in the forced selling of bonds that have been recently downgraded into high-yield. Further, the downgraded bonds experience negative near-term price pressure from the fire sale, but that pressure tends to reverse after a few months. The finding that the negative price pressure is fleeting is important. In contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, BBB securities can only be downgraded to high-yield once. In other words, once the initial fire sale of fallen angel debt takes place, there is no mechanism to force the downward price pressure to continue.8 Bottom Line: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. 3. Leveraged Loans The rapid growth of leveraged loans – lending made to below investment-grade borrowers - over the past couple of years has caught the attention of global central banks and financial regulators. That concern is understandable, as it would be a dereliction of duty for any policymaker or regulator who lived through the 2008 financial crisis to not consider the potential risks to financial stability and future economic growth from a surge in lower quality lending. This is especially true given the increase in the number of securitized instruments linked to leveraged loans – collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs – which evokes memories of the toxic subprime mortgage products that helped trigger the 2008 crisis. Although as the Fed’s Vice Chair for Supervision, Randal Quarles, recently noted, the financial media has been overplaying the leveraged loan story in such a way that it felt like “the Earth must be getting hit by an asteroid.” The BoE estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. The leveraged loan and CLO markets can be opaque. However, based on the information we do have from credible sources like central banks, the IMF and the BIS, some conclusions can be made about the potential economic risks from the rapid build-up of U.S. leveraged loans: Leveraged loan expansion has been partially offset by high-yield contraction. Chart 8More Leveraged Loans, Less Junk Bonds More Leveraged Loans, Less Junk Bonds More Leveraged Loans, Less Junk Bonds Based on estimates from the BIS and IMF, there are around $1.4 trillion in U.S. leveraged loans outstanding, which is greater than the $1.2 trillion U.S. high-yield bond market (Chart 8). That is an all-time high in the dollar amount of leveraged loans, as well as for the share of all lower-rated corporate debt accounted for by loans. The annual growth rate of U.S. leveraged loans is now a whopping 29% - the fastest pace seen since 2007. Yet the growth of the total amount of leveraged loans plus high-yield bonds is a much lower 12%. While that is still a large number, it is below the peak growth rates seen during the past fifteen years. This is because the amount of high-yield bonds outstanding has been modestly contracting since 2015. Much of that run-up in leveraged loan growth has been to satiate the demand for loans created by private equity funds and, more importantly, CLOs. The strong risk appetite from investors resulted in a notable deterioration in lending standards, with loans coming out at higher leverage multiples (debt/EBITDA) and with reduced investor covenant protection. Yet since lower-rated companies were not ramping up high-yield bond issuance at the same time, the economic stability risks from a rapid run-up in total riskier borrowing are lower, on the margin. The ownership structure of leveraged loans (and CLOs) is diverse enough to not create systemic problems. Chart 9 To date, the Bank of England (BoE) has compiled the most detailed estimates of the ownership breakdown of both leveraged loans and CLOs.9 In Chart 9, we have recreated a chart from the BoE’s July 2019 Financial Stability Report, which colorfully shows the ownership of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The way to read the chart is that each square represents a 1% share of the estimated $3.2 trillion of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The split in the chart is 75% loans and 25% CLOs (CLO ownership is shown on the right side of the thick dotted line). The biggest category of leveraged loan investor is what the BoE titled “U.S. and other global banks”, a group that represents 38% of total loans and CLOs. European banks own 12%, U.K. banks own 3% and Japanese banks own 3% (entirely through CLOs), thus bringing the global bank exposure to 56% of all leveraged loan instruments. While that sounds like a large number, the majority of that is in the form of revolving credit facilities – effectively, overdraft facilities to lower-rated borrowers. Revolving credit facilities are typically less risky than leveraged loans, because credit facilities have greater covenant protection and even more seniority in terms of creditor claims on borrower assets. The BoE estimates that 40% of all global leveraged loans and CLOs are owned by non-bank investors. This includes pension funds, insurance companies and investment funds (mutual funds and ETFs). Chart 9 shows how much more diverse the investor base is for CLOs than for other leveraged loans. It suggests that any future potential losses from CLOs will be distributed more evenly within the financial system, rather than being concentrated in the banks. Chart 10Leveraged Loan Losses Are Typically Lowered Compared To Junk Leveraged Loan Losses Are Typically Lowered Compared To Junk Leveraged Loan Losses Are Typically Lowered Compared To Junk Even within the bank holdings of CLOs, the systemic risks are lessened. The BoE noted that the increased amount of subordination (i.e. lower-rated tranches) of more recent CLO deals helps protect the senior tranches from losses. According to the BoE, the AAA-rated piece of a representative sample of CLOs issued in 2018 was 63%; this compares to 70% for CLOs issued in 2006.10 Furthermore, the central bank estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. That would be an extraordinary outcome, given how 2008 generated losses on leveraged loans that were over twice as bad as the previous worst year in 2002 (Chart 10). Potential losses from AAA tranches are important from a financial stability perspective. The BoE estimates that 40% of all CLOs are owned by global banks (including a large 13% share from yield-chasing Japanese banks). These banks tend to focus on safer AAA-rated CLO tranches. The demand for leveraged loan products is volatile, but that might actually be a good thing for economic stability. The surge in leveraged loans over the past two years has not only been related to demand from private equity funds and CLOs. U.S. retail investors have also been big buyers of mutual funds and ETFs linked to the leveraged loan market, as a way to seek out higher credit returns against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes. Chart 11Fed Rate Expectations Drive The Demand For Loans Vs Bonds Fed Rate Expectations Drive The Demand For Loans Vs Bonds Fed Rate Expectations Drive The Demand For Loans Vs Bonds Leveraged loans are floating rate instruments. Thus, they are more desirable than fixed-rate high-yield corporate debt when short-term interest rates are rising. This is seen in Chart 11, where we show net flows into the largest U.S. junk bond and leveraged loan ETFs. These flows are plotted with the JP Morgan survey of bond investor duration positioning (top panel) and our Fed Funds Discounter that measures the market-implied expected change in the fed funds rate over the next year (bottom panel). The conclusion is obvious – there was very strong retail demand for floating-rate leveraged loans over fixed-rate junk bonds during 2016-18 when expected rate hikes justified defensive duration positioning. In 2019, the tables have turned. The Fed is more dovish, rate cuts are now expected, investors have been adding duration exposure, and demand for leveraged loan funds has plunged while high-yield bond funds have been seeing inflows. The exodus from all leveraged loan funds has been historically large, with Lipper reporting that there were 33 straight weeks of outflows to July 3, 2019, for a total of $32 billion.11 Already, that reduced demand for leveraged loans has translated into sharply reduced issuance of new U.S. CLOs, which was 73% lower in the first half of 2019 versus the same period in 2018 (Chart 12). At the same time, high-yield bond issuance was up 20% in the first six months of 2019 versus 2018. The reduced demand for leveraged loans has also shifted the balance of power back to lenders, as the share of U.S. leveraged loans that have been issued with limited covenant protection (“cov-lite”) has plunged from 72% in 2018 to around 40% (Chart 13). Chart 12Lower-Rated Issuance Is "Self-Regulating" Lower-Rated Issuance Is "Self-Regulating" Lower-Rated Issuance Is "Self-Regulating" Chart 13Reduced Covenant-Lite Issuance So Far In 2019 Reduced Covenant-Lite Issuance So Far In 2019 Reduced Covenant-Lite Issuance So Far In 2019     This is a critical point on the potential stability risks from leveraged loans – the market for those loans is “self-regulating”, based on final demand from investors who “toggle” between floating rate and fixed rate credit instruments. This helps limit the growth in overall corporate indebtedness, helping to put off the date when credit booms turn into future credit busts. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2     https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/DownloadEBook/9781680834864?format=pdf 3     http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~itayg/Files/bondfunds-published.pdf 4     https://ideas.repec.org/p/bfr/banfra/706.html 5     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5a60feab84a7d10de084abfce414b5888d5586e2.pdf 6     https://www.nber.org/papers/w21879 7     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/55a4/8602b17bc7e7f8428695ab6a3ef2c87756ab.pdf 8      Corporate bonds that are downgraded from investment grade to high-yield are called fallen angels. 9      The Financial Stability Board, the international body that monitors and makes recommendations on the global financial system, is due to publish a comprehensive analysis of the ownership structure of the leveraged loan market in the autumn of 2019. 10     For a more detailed description of this analysis, see pages 28 & 29 of the Bank of England’s July 2019 Financial Stability report, which can be found here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/financial-stability-report/2019/july-20… 11     https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/leveraged-loan-news/leveraged-loan-fund-withdrawal-streak-hits-record-33-weeks-totaling-32b  

NOTE: There will be no report on Wednesday, July 17 due to our regular summer break. Highlights Chinese policymakers as well as the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) have historically been reactive, meaning they have typically waited for economic pain to become entrenched before accelerating reflationary measures. The agreement reached at the June G20 Summit to renew trade negotiations with the U.S., while temporary, takes the pressure off the immediate need to further stimulate the economy. While China has the ability to juice the economy, the pain threshold has been raised higher during this cycle, and the country’s leadership has been reluctant to let go of its financial deleveraging campaign. This approach has resulted in a “half measure” stimulus over the past 12 months. The outlook for Chinese stocks is negative over the next three months, as a flip-flop policy approach will increase market volatility.  However, over a cyclical (i.e. six- to 12-month) time horizon, we are maintaining a bullish stance toward Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms. Feature Last week marked the first anniversary of the imposition of tariffs on imports from China by the U.S. – an event that has clearly had a lasting and meaningful impact on global economic activity. Last week was also the first anniversary of a significant monetary easing measure: China’s 3-month interbank repo rate fell 90 basis points on July 3, 2018, 3 days before the first tranche of import tariffs took effect. This decline was just under half of what would ultimately occur (the 3-month repo rate fell from 4.5% in early July to 2.4% in early August), and was taken as a sign by many investors that the PBoC had shifted to a maximum reflationary stance (Chart 1). Chart 1Indecisively Falling Interbank Rate Indecisively Falling Interbank Rate Indecisively Falling Interbank Rate However, several facts underscore that either the PBoC did not, in retrospect, move completely toward a pro-growth stance, or that China’s monetary transmission mechanism is seriously impaired. In our view, it is a combination of both: Despite evidence suggesting it should, the PBoC did not cut its benchmark lending rate. The repo rate declined in the third quarter last year on the back of increased liquidity supply in the interbank market. The weighted average lending rate also fell, but not massively, and not by as much as our model had predicted (Chart 2). A pickup in credit expansion has significantly lagged easing. Excluding local government bonds, the general pickup in credit has been modest. Based on this measure of Total Social Financing, new credit to GDP still remains lower today than at any point during the 2015-2016 downturn (Chart 3). Chart 2Lending Rate: Not Much Easing Lending Rate: Not Much Easing Lending Rate: Not Much Easing Chart 3No Strong Re-Leveraging No Strong Re-leveraging No Strong Re-leveraging With the conclusion of the G20 Summit temporarily halting the trade war escalation and implementation of additional tariffs, these observations raise important questions: Will the PBoC be proactive in easing policy? What does this mean for investors over the coming year? The PBoC Will Be Reactive Rather Than Proactive Chart 4Shadow-Banking Crackdown Continues Shadow-Banking Crackdown Continues Shadow-Banking Crackdown Continues In our view, the PBoC’s policy actions last year can at best be described as half-measures, despite the fact that the central bank was quick to reduce interbank interest rates in last July by cutting the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The reason is that the PBoC clearly maintained macro-prudential/administrative restrictions on shadow banking activity, despite significantly easing liquidity in the interbank market. Chart 4 shows that shadow-banking credit as a share of total adjusted social financing continued to decelerate rapidly throughout 2018. It now accounts for a mere 12% of the stock of total adjusted social financing, by far the lowest point since 2009. This underscores that the PBoC and policymakers more generally have a deep-seated desire to avoid (further) inflating China’s substantial money and credit excesses – a dynamic that we have discussed in previous reports.1 Looking forward, there are three reasons why the PBoC’s reactive nature is unlikely to change in the near term, in addition to policymakers’ concerns about financial system’s excesses. First, the PBoC has historically been a reactive central bank, in a way that goes beyond the now-typical “data dependent” approach of its developed-market peers. Chart 5 provides a close look at China’s previous economic growth cycles and their corresponding credit expansions. The chart highlights that Chinese policymakers tend to stay behind the curve when it comes to monetary easing: In the previous three growth cycles, the first sign of monetary easing (defined as an RRR and/or benchmark lending rate cut) lagged the peak of nominal GDP growth by an average of four quarters. Rate cuts took place not when economic growth peaked, but once economic activity had already weakened considerably (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Policymakers Tend To Stay 'Behind The Curve' Chinese Policymakers Tend To Stay 'Behind The Curve' Chinese Policymakers Tend To Stay 'Behind The Curve' Chart 6More 'Pain' Needed For Massive Easing More 'Pain' Needed for Massive Easing More 'Pain' Needed for Massive Easing The same pattern has applied to other monetary easing tools that the PBoC has deployed in the past, including the Medium Lending Facility (MLF), the Targeted Medium-term Lending Facility (TMLF), the standing Lending Facility (SLF), and the Pledged Supplementary Lending program (PSL) – all of which only took shape after the economy had already shown across-the-board weakness. It will take more widespread and entrenched economic weakness for the PBoC to meaningfully ease further. The local government debt-to-bond swap program was also launched well into the 2015 growth downturn. When widespread and sustained weakness in activity emerged, Chinese policymakers responded by “throwing the kitchen sink” at the economy – by moving forward with multiple rate cuts and often creating new forms of easing in an attempt to catalyze a quick rebound. Since the PBoC has already implemented a series of easing measures, we believe it will take more widespread and entrenched weakness in the real economy for the PBoC to meaningfully ease further. Chart 7Chinese Currency Is Under Pressure Chinese Currency Is Under Pressure Chinese Currency Is Under Pressure Second, the PBoC is likely to be reactive because of the potentially negative effects that proactive rate cuts could cause on sentiment towards the RMB. Chart 7 highlights the close historical correlation between the RRR, interest rate differentials and the USD/CNY. USD/CNY was trading at 7.8 the last time the weighted average RRR was at 11%, which was back in 2007. At the current juncture, interest rate differentials already point to a weaker currency. The PBoC has signaled that USD/CNY at 7 is no longer a line in the sand that must be defended, meaning this level is not a hard constraint that would prevent the central bank from cutting either the RRR or the benchmark lending rates if warranted. In fact, a measured depreciation in the RMB would help mitigate some of the blow from increased tariffs. Nevertheless, in an environment where the currency has already weakened significantly, cutting the RRR or the benchmark lending rates quickly or by a large amount could create self-reinforcing expectations of further depreciation. China has implemented a better counter-cyclical mechanism to defend the RMB than it had in 2015-‘16,2 but the potential for capital outflows remains a serious concern.3 Third, the Trump-Xi meeting at the June G20 Summit in Osaka temporarily averted a further escalation of the trade war and additional tariffs. The agreement to continue trade negotiations lacks tangible progress from either side, and thus the “truce” is likely to be short-lived. Chart 8Markets So Far Unimpressed By Stimulus Markets So Far Unimpressed By Stimulus Markets So Far Unimpressed By Stimulus However, as we pointed out in last week’s report,4 the existence of talks is likely to take some pressure off Chinese policymakers’ immediate need to floor the reflation accelerator. Readouts from recent PBoC leadership meetings indicate that speculative excesses in the financial system remain a top concern for Chinese policymakers. China’s onshore market, after rallying by 2% following the good news from the G20 meeting, has given back all its gain (Chart 8). Given that the onshore equity market is extremely sensitive to China’s credit growth, the short-lived rally since the G20 meeting suggests markets have been unimpressed by the authorities’ reflationary efforts so far. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers have not fully abandoned their financial deleveraging campaign, which President Xi Jinping initiated two years ago. This implies China’s central bank is likely to maintain its reactive approach in further easing monetary policy, and will likely try to avoid going “all-in” on stimulus for as long as possible. The Reduced Effectiveness Of Monetary Policy The events of the past year have also demonstrated that the effectiveness of Chinese monetary policy has declined relative to past economic cycles. This, in conjunction with the reluctant/reactive nature of the monetary authorities, has clear implications for investors over the coming year. When there is lack of clarity in policy interpretation, Chinese banks tend to stay on the sidelines. Chart 9A Long Delayed Credit Response To Monetary Easing A Long Delayed Credit Response To Monetary Easing A Long Delayed Credit Response To Monetary Easing The PBoC has cut the RRR five times since the second quarter of last year, which has freed up a total of 3.35 trillion yuan of liquidity for the banking system5 and has helped spur significant easing in overall monetary conditions. Yet, as we noted earlier, overall credit growth did not pick up until January of this year, lagging the first rate cut by three quarters (Chart 9). Prior to the economic slowdown in 2015-2016, credit growth used to respond to cuts in the RRR almost immediately. In other words, when banking system liquidity was ample, banks historically lent without hesitation. Post-2015, however, this relationship has changed. The PBoC has increasingly been having trouble channeling new liquidity into actual financing for the real economy. A sharp deterioration in reported bank asset quality that began in 2014 is likely part of the explanation,6 but we suspect that more recent extreme policy contradiction – in particular, repeated flip-flopping among authorities between their desire to support growth and their focus on financial stability – has caused economic agents to wait on the sidelines. While monetary conditions eased and the government urged banks to lend (particularly to the private sector) in the second half of 2018, the “prudent” stance coming from Chinese top leaders was little changed, and tight regulations on financial institutions remained in place. This combination did not give banks the confidence to lend. This changed in the first quarter of this year, when new credit creation-to-GDP surged from 23.6% to 25.6%. The surge occurred shortly after the late-December Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC), which sent a clear message that the central government’s policy focus had shifted to “stabilizing aggregate demand.” Incredibly, the tone shifted again in February, when Premier Li Keqiang and the PBoC publicly disputed whether the January credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus, something Premier Li made clear was to be avoided.7 Charts 10 and 11 highlight how these shifts impacted credit growth: The first quarter was clearly on track for a 2015-2016-magnitude outcome, whereas April and May saw the path of credit growth return back to a moderate re-leveraging scenario. Chart 10 Chart 11 To get back on track for a 2015-2016 magnitude reflation, we will need to see June’s credit creation at or above 5 trillion yuan – equivalent to January’s credit numbers (Chart 12). Chart 12'Credit Binge' In June Unlikely Credit Binge' in June Unlikely Credit Binge' in June Unlikely As we go to press, the number for June’s total social financing has not been officially released yet. But the official reading from the total local government bond issuance in June (including both general bond and special-purpose bond issuance), a key component of our adjusted total social financing series, came in at 900 billion yuan. This is three times more than local government bonds issued in May and twice the size of January’s. Nevertheless, January’s bank lending, particularly short-term lending, was unusually large; an episode highly criticized by Chinese leadership as we mentioned above. As PBoC stated in its defense to this criticism, January is “traditionally the biggest month of the year for bank loans due to seasonal factors”. Therefore, without a clear shift in policy signal from China’s top leadership, we do not expect June’s bank lending number to be a repeat of January’s. Instead, June’s total credit impulse will likely put the cumulative progress in credit growth closer to our 27% of nominal GDP assumption (assuming an 8% nominal GDP growth for the remainder of 2019). This would fall into our “half-strength” credit cycle scenario relative to past reflationary episodes. Bottom Line: Ultimately, we do not doubt that Chinese policymakers will be able to engineer a significant re-acceleration in economic activity should they choose to do so. But in order for policymakers to achieve this goal, policy ambiguity and inconsistency will have to be meaningfully reduced.  Investment Implications Over a cyclical time horizon, we recommend staying long/overweight Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms. From our perspective, neither policymakers’ bias towards reluctance nor the reduced effectiveness of monetary policy convincingly argue against our bullish stance towards Chinese stocks over a cyclical (i.e. six- to twelve-month) time horizon, but the tactical implications are clearly negative. Over a cyclical horizon, one of two scenarios is likely to unfold: Either downside risk brought on by current tariffs and weakness in domestic demand is contained enough such that Chinese economic activity does not materially decelerate, or the trade dispute escalates into a full-tariff scenario of 25% on all U.S. imports from China that dramatically impacts Chinese growth. In the first scenario, policymakers will likely to continue providing half-measured responses, and unconstrained “across-the-board” easing will not occur. But Chart 13 highlights that Chinese stocks, particularly the investable market, are priced for a much worse economic outcome, suggesting Chinese relative equity performance would trend higher in these circumstances. Chart 13Chinese Stocks Priced In For A Worse Economic Outlook Chinese Stocks Priced In For A Worse Economic Outlook Chinese Stocks Priced In For A Worse Economic Outlook Chart 14Bullish On A Cyclical Horizon, Bearish In The Near Term Bullish On A Cyclical Horizon, Bearish In The Near Term Bullish On A Cyclical Horizon, Bearish In The Near Term In the second scenario, Chinese business and consumer sentiment is likely to collapse and policymakers will be facing high odds of a substantial slowdown in economic activity. This will create the political will necessary for unconstrained “across-the-board” easing, similar to what occurred in 2015-2016. The sharp re-acceleration in economic activity that would result from broad-based stimulus would clearly be positive for listed Chinese earnings per share (Chart 14), meaning the cyclical outlook for Chinese stocks would likely be even more positive than in the first scenario. However, the near-term equity market outlook of the second scenario would be extremely negative, as a financial market meltdown in of itself would likely be required to build the political will necessary to ultimately ease. Bottom Line: For investors with a time horizon of less than three months, we would not recommend a long position in Chinese stocks, neither in absolute terms nor relative to the global benchmark. However, over a strictly cyclical (i.e. six- to 12-month) time horizon, we recommend staying long/overweight Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms.   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “China: How Stimulating is The Stimulus?”, dated August 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2      A series of countercyclical measures China implemented in 2016-2017 includes: tightening controls on capital outflows, reducing offshore RMB liquidity supply, raising offshore RMB borrowing costs, and setting a firmer daily reference point for the RMB’s trading band. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China Macro and Market Review”, dated July 4, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5      According to PBoC announcements. 6      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7      Please see “Chinese Premier In Rare Spat With Central Bank”, Financial Times. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Productivity growth is experiencing a cyclical rebound, but remains structurally weak. The end of the deepening of globalization, statistical hurdles, and the possibility that today’s technological advances may not be as revolutionary as past ones all hamper productivity. On the back of rising market power and concentration, companies are increasing markups instead of production. This is depressing productivity and lowering the neutral rate of interest. For now, investors can generate alpha by focusing on consolidating industries. Growing market power cannot last forever and will meet a political wall. Structurally, this will hurt asset prices.   “We don’t have a free market; don’t kid yourself. (…) Businesspeople are enemies of free markets, not friends (…) businesspeople are all in favor of freedom for everybody else (…) but when it comes to their own business, they want to go to Washington to protect their businesses.” Milton Friedman, January 1991. Despite the explosion of applications of growing computing power, U.S. productivity growth has been lacking this cycle. This incapacity to do more with less has weighed on trend growth and on the neutral rate of interest, and has been a powerful force behind the low level of yields at home and abroad. In this report, we look at the different factors and theories advanced to explain the structural decline in productivity. Among them, a steady increase in corporate market power not only goes a long way in explaining the lack of productivity in the U.S., but also the high level of profit margins along with the depressed level of investment and real neutral rates. A Simple Cyclical Explanation The decline in productivity growth is both a structural and cyclical story. Historically, productivity growth has followed economic activity. When demand is strong, businesses can generate more revenue and therefore produce more. The historical correlation between U.S. nonfarm business productivity and the ISM manufacturing index illustrates this relationship (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity Chart II-2Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Since 2008, as households worked off their previous over-indebtedness, the U.S. private sector has experienced its longest deleveraging period since the Great Depression. This frugality has depressed demand and contributed to lower growth this cycle. Since productivity is measured as output generated by unit of input, weak demand growth has depressed productivity statistics. On this dimension, the brief deleveraging experience of the early 1990s is instructive: productivity picked up only after 1993, once the private sector began to accumulate debt faster than the pace of GDP growth (Chart II-2). The recent pick-up in productivity reflects these debt dynamics. Since 2009, the U.S. non-financial private sector has stopped deleveraging, removing one anchor on demand, allowing productivity to blossom. Moreover, the pick-up in capex from 2017 to present is also helping productivity by raising the capital-to-workers ratio. While this is a positive development for the U.S. economy, the decline in productivity nonetheless seems structural, as the five-year moving average of labor productivity growth remains near its early 1980s nadir (Chart II-3). Something else is at play. Chart II-3 The Usual Suspects Three major forces are often used to explain why observed productivity growth is currently in decline: A slowdown in global trade penetration, the fact that statisticians do not have a good grasp on productivity growth in a service-based economy, and innovation that simply isn’t what it used to be. Slowdown In Global Trade Penetration Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo argued that due to competitive advantages, countries should always engage in trade to increase their economic welfare. This insight has laid the foundation of the argument that exchanges between nations maximizes the utilization of resources domestically and around the world. The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development. Rarely was this argument more relevant than over the past 40 years. On the heels of the supply-side revolution of the early 1980s and the fall of the Berlin Wall, globalization took off. The share of the world's population participating in the global capitalist system rose from 30% in 1985 to nearly 100% today. Generating elevated productivity gains is simpler when a country’s capital stock is underdeveloped: each unit of investment grows the capital-to-labor ratio by a greater proportion. As a result, productivity – which reflects the capital-to-worker ratio – can grow quickly. As more poor countries have joined the global economy and benefitted from FDI and other capital inflows, their productivity has flourished. Consequently, even if productivity growth has been poor in advanced economies over the past 10 years, global productivity has remained high and has tracked the share of exports in global GDP (Chart II-4). Chart II-4The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth This globalization tailwind to global productivity growth is dissipating. First, following an investment boom where poor decisions were made, EM productivity growth has been declining. Second, with nearly 100% of the world’s labor supply already participating in the global economy, it is increasingly difficult to expand the share of global trade in global GDP and increase the benefit of cross-border specialization. Finally, the popular backlash in advanced economies against globalization could force global trade into reverse. As economic nationalism takes hold, cross-border investments could decline, moving the world economy further away from an optimal allocation of capital. These forces may explain why global productivity peaked earlier this decade. Productivity Is Mismeasured Recently deceased luminary Martin Feldstein argued that the structural decline in productivity is an illusion. As the argument goes, productivity is not weak; it is only underestimated. A parallel with the introduction of electricity in the late 19th century often comes to mind. Back then, U.S. statistical agencies found it difficult to disentangle price changes from quantity changes in the quickly growing revenues of electrical utilities. As a result, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics overestimated price changes in the early 20th century, which depressed the estimated output growth of utilities by a similar factor. Since productivity is measured as output per unit of labor, this also understated actual productivity growth – not just for utilities but for the economy as a whole. Ultimately, overall productivity growth was revised upward. Chart II-5Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth In today’s economy, this could be a larger problem, as 70% of output is generated in the service sector. Estimating productivity growth is much harder in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector, as there is no actual countable output to measure. Thus, distinguishing price increases from quantity or quality improvements is challenging. Adding to this difficulty, the service sector is one of the main beneficiaries of the increase in computational power currently disrupting industries around the world. The growing share of components of the consumer price index subject to hedonic adjustments highlight this challenge (Chart II-5). Estimating quality changes is hard and may bias the increase in prices in the economy. If prices are unreliably measured, so will output and productivity. Pushing The Production Frontier Is Increasingly Hard Chart II-6A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity Another school of thought simply accepts that productivity growth has declined in a structural fashion. It is far from clear that the current technological revolution is much more productivity-enhancing than the introduction of electricity 140 years ago, the development of the internal combustion engine in the late 19th century, the adoption of indoor plumbing, or the discovery of penicillin in 1928. It is easy to overestimate the economic impact of new technologies. At first, like their predecessors, the microprocessor and the internet created entirely new industries. But this is not the case anymore. For all its virtues, e-commerce is only a new method of selling goods and services. Cloud computing is mainly a way to outsource hardware spending. Social media’s main economic value has been to gather more information on consumers, allowing sellers to reach potential buyers in a more targeted way. Without creating entirely new industries, spending on new technologies often ends up cannibalizing spending on older technologies. For example, while Google captures 32.4% of global ad revenues, similar revenues for the print industry have fallen by 70% since their apex in 2000. If new technologies are not as accretive to production as the introduction of previous ones were, productivity growth remains constrained by the same old economic forces of capex, human capital growth and resource utilization. And as Chart II-6 shows, labor input, the utilization of capital and multifactor productivity have all weakened. Some key drivers help understand why productivity growth has downshifted structurally. Let’s look at human capital. It is much easier to grow human capital when very few people have a high-school diploma: just make a larger share of your population finish high school, or even better, complete a university degree. But once the share of university-educated citizens has risen, building human capital further becomes increasingly difficult. Chart II-7 illustrates this problem. Growth in educational achievement has been slowing since 1995 in both advanced and developing economies. This means that the growth of human capital is slowing. This is without even wading into whether or not the quality of education has remained constant. This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity. Human capital is also negatively impacted by demographic trends. Workers in their forties tend to be at the peak of their careers, with the highest accumulated job know-how. Problematically, these workers represent a shrinking share of the labor force, which is hurting productivity trends (Chart II-8). Chart II-7 Chart II-8Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity   The capital stock too is experiencing its own headwinds. While Moore’s Law seems more or less intact, the decline in the cost of storing information is clearly decelerating (Chart II-9). Today, quality adjusted IT prices are contracting at a pace of 2.3% per annum, compared to annual declines of 14% at the turn of the millennium. Thus, even if nominal spending in IT investment had remained constant, real investment growth would have sharply decelerated (Chart II-10). But since nominal spending has decelerated greatly from its late 1990s pace, real investment in IT has fallen substantially. The growth of the capital stock is therefore lagging its previous pace, which is hurting productivity growth. Chart II-9 Chart II-10The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation Chart II-11A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses   The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development (Chart II-11). New businesses are a large source of productivity gains. Ultimately, 20% of productivity gains have come from small businesses becoming large ones. Think Apple in 1977 versus Apple today. A large decline in the pace of new business formation suggests that fewer seeds have been planted over the past 20 years to generate those enormous productivity explosions than was the case in the previous 50 years.   The X Factor: Growing Market Concentration The three aforementioned explanations for the decline in productivity are all appealing, but they generally leave investors looking for more. Why are companies investing less, especially when profit margins are near record highs? Why is inflation low? Why has the pace of new business formation collapsed? These are all somewhat paradoxical. Chart II-12Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor This is where a growing body of works comes in. Our economy is moving away from the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Industry concentration has progressively risen, and few companies dominate their line of business and control both their selling prices and input costs. They behave as monopolies and monopsonies, all at once.1 This helps explain why selling prices have been able to rise relative to unit labor costs, raising margins in the process (Chart II-12). Let’s start by looking at the concept of market concentration. According to Grullon, Larkin and Michaely, sales of the median publicly traded firms, expressed in constant dollars, have nearly tripled since the mid-1990s, while real GDP has only increased 70% (Chart II-13).2 The escalation in market concentration is also vividly demonstrated in Chart II-14. The top panel shows that since 1997, most U.S. industries have experienced sharp increases in their Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI),3 a measure of concentration. In fact, more than half of U.S. industries have experienced concentration increases of more than 40%, and as a corollary, more than 75% of industries have seen the number of firms decline by more than 40%. The last panel of the chart also highlights that this increase in concentration has been top-heavy, with a third of industries seeing the market share of their four biggest players rise by more than 40%. Rising market concentration is therefore a broad phenomenon – not one unique to the tech sector. Chart II-13 Chart II-14     This rising market concentration has also happened on the employment front. In 1995, less than 24% of U.S. private sector employees worked for firms with 10,000 or more employees, versus nearly 28% today. This does not seem particularly dramatic. However, at the local level, the number of regions where employment is concentrated with one or two large employers has risen. Azar, Marinescu and Steinbaum developed Map II-1, which shows that 75% of non-metropolitan areas now have high or extreme levels of employment concentration.4 Chart II- Chart II-15The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains This growing market power of companies on employment can have a large impact on wages. Chart II-15 shows that real wages have lagged productivity since the turn of the millennium. Meanwhile, Chart II-16 plots real wages on the y-axis versus the HHI of applications (top panel) and vacancies (bottom panel). This chart shows that for any given industry, if applicants in a geographical area do not have many options where to apply – i.e. a few dominant employers provide most of the jobs in the region – real wages lag the national average. The more concentrated vacancies as well as applications are with one employer, the greater the discount to national wages in that industry.5 This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity as well as the widening gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan household incomes. Chart II-16 Growing market power and concentration do not only compress labor costs, they also result in higher prices for consumers. This seems paradoxical in a world of low inflation. But inflation could have been even lower if market concentration had remained at pre-2000s levels. In 2009, Matthew Weinberg showed that over the previous 22 years, horizontal mergers within an industry resulted in higher prices.6 In a 2014 meta-study conducted by Weinberg along with Orley Ashenfelter and Daniel Hosken, the authors showed that across 49 studies ranging across 21 industries, 36 showed that horizontal mergers resulted in higher prices for consumers.7 While today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins. In a low-inflation environment, the only way for companies to garner pricing power is to decrease competition, and M&As are the quickest way to achieve this goal. After examining nearly 50 merger and antitrust studies spanning more than 3,000 merger cases, John Kwoka found that, following mergers that augmented an industry’s concentration, prices increased in 95% of cases, and on average by 4.5%.8 In no industry is this effect more vividly demonstrated than in the healthcare field, an industry that has undergone a massive wave of consolidation – from hospitals, to pharmacies to drug manufacturers. As Chart II-17 illustrates, between 1980 and 2016, healthcare costs have increased at a much faster pace in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. However, life expectancy increased much less than in other advanced economies. Chart II-17 In this context of growing market concentration, it is easy to see why, as De Loecker and Eeckhout have argued, markups have been rising steadily since the 1980s (Chart II-18, top panel) and have tracked M&A activity (Chart II-18, bottom panel).9 In essence, mergers and acquisitions have been the main tool used by firms to increase their concentration. Another tool at their disposal has been the increase in patents. The top panel of Chart II-19 shows that the total number of patent applications in the U.S. has increased by 3.6-fold since the 1980s, but most interestingly, the share of patents coming from large, dominant players within each industry has risen by 10% over the same timeframe (Chart II-19, bottom panel). To use Warren Buffet’s terminology, M&A and patents have been how firms build large “moats” to limit competition and protect their businesses. Chart II-18Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Chart II-19How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat?   Why is this rise in market concentration affecting productivity? First, from an empirical perspective, rising markups and concentration tend to lead to lower levels of capex. A recent IMF study shows that the more concentrated industries become, the higher the corporate savings rate goes (Chart II-20, top panel).10 These elevated savings reflect wider markups, but also firms with markups in the top decile of the distribution display significantly lower investment rates (Chart II-20, bottom panel). If more of the U.S. output is generated by larger, more concentrated firms, this leads to a lower pace of increase in the capital stock, which hurts productivity. Second, downward pressure on real wages is also linked to a drag on productivity. Monopolies and oligopolies are not incentivized to maximize output. In fact, for any market, a monopoly should lead to lower production than perfect competition would. Diagram II-I from De Loecker and Eeckhout shows that moving from perfect competition to a monopoly results in a steeper labor demand curve as the monopolist produces less. As a result, real wages move downward and the labor participation force declines. Does this sound familiar? Chart II-20 Chart II-   The rise of market power might mean that in some way Martin Feldstein was right about productivity being mismeasured – just not the way he anticipated. In a June 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, Peter Berezin showed that labor-saving technologies like AI and robotics, which are increasingly being deployed today, could lead to lower wages (Chart II-21).11 For a given level of technology in the economy, productivity is positively linked to real wages but inversely linked to markups – especially if the technology is of the labor-saving kind. So, if markups rise on the back of firms’ growing market power, the ensuing labor savings will not be used to increase actual input. Rather, corporate savings will rise. Thus, while today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins.12 Unsurprisingly, return on assets and market concentration are positively correlated (Chart II-22). Chart II-21 Chart II-22     Finally, market power and concentration weighing on capex, wages and productivity are fully consistent with higher returns of cash to shareholders and lower interest rates. The higher profits and lower capex liberate cash flows available to be redistributed to shareholders. Moreover, lower capex also depresses demand for savings in the economy, while weak wages depress middle-class incomes, which hurts aggregate demand. Additionally, higher corporate savings increases the wealth of the richest households, who have a high marginal propensity to save. This results in higher savings for the economy. With a greater supply of savings and lower demand for those savings, the neutral rate of interest has been depressed. Investment Implications First, in an environment of low inflation, investors should continue to favor businesses that can generate higher markups via pricing power. Equity investors should therefore continue to prefer industries where horizontal mergers are still increasing market concentration. Second, so long as the status quo continues, wages will have a natural cap, and so will the neutral rate of interest. This does not mean that wage growth cannot increase further on a cyclical basis, but it means that wages are unlikely to blossom as they did in the late 1960s, even within a very tight labor market. Without too-severe an inflation push from wages, the business cycle could remain intact even longer, keeping a window open for risk assets to rise further on a cyclical basis. Third, long-term investors need to keep a keen eye on the political sphere. A much more laissez-faire approach to regulation, a push toward self-regulation, and a much laxer enforcement of antitrust laws and merger rules were behind the rise in market power and concentration.13 The particularly sharp ascent of populism in Anglo-Saxon economies, where market power increased by the greatest extent, is not surprising. So far, populists have not blamed the corporate sector, but if the recent antitrust noise toward the Silicon Valley behemoths is any indication, the clock is ticking. On a structural basis, this could be very negative for asset prices. An end to this rise in market power would force profit margins to mean-revert toward their long-term trend, which is 4.7 percentage-points below current levels. This will require discounting much lower cash flows in the future. Additionally, by raising wages and capex, more competition would increase aggregate demand and lift real interest rates. Higher wages and aggregate demand could also structurally lift inflation. Thus, not only will investors need to discount lower cash flows, they will have to do so at higher discount rates. As a result, this cycle will likely witness both a generational peak in equity valuations as well as structural lows in bond yields. As we mentioned, these changes are political in nature. We will look forward to studying the political angle of this thesis to get a better handle on when these turning points will likely emerge. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1       A monopsony is a firm that controls the price of its input because it is the dominant, if not unique, buyer of said input. 2       G. Grullon, Y. Larkin and R. Michaely, “Are Us Industries Becoming More Concentrated?,” April 2017. 3       The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is calculated by taking the market share of each firm in the industry, squaring them, and summing the result. Consider a hypothetical industry with four total firm where firm1, firm2, firm3 and firm4 has 40%, 30%, 15% and 15% of market share, respectively. Then HHI is 402+302+152+152 = 2,950. 4       J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 5     J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 6     M. Weinberg, “The Price Effects Of Horizontal Mergers”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 433–447. 7     O. Ashenfelter, D. Hosken, M. Weinberg, "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages S67 - S100. 8    J. Kwoka, “Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: A Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Policy,” MIT Press, 2015. 9     J. De Loecker, J. Eeckhout, G. Unger, "The Rise Of Market Power And The Macroeconomic Implications," Mimeo 2018. 10     “Chapter 2: The Rise of Corporate Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Effects,” World Economic Outlook, April 2019. 11     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?"dated May 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 12     Productivity can be written as: Image 13     J. Tepper, D. Hearn, “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Wiley, November 2018.

Highlights The report reviews our framework for predicting broad market earnings in China based on the experience of the past decade, and documents the relationship between sector earnings and broad market earnings for both the investable and domestic market. We also review the cyclicality of earnings in each sector, and highlight the sectors where relative earnings have been successful at predicting relative performance. Energy and consumer discretionary in both markets, along with real estate and financials in the domestic market, have historically been the best candidates for a classic top-down fundamental “sector rotation” strategy. Compared with these sectors, investable telecom stocks have exhibited a weaker link between sector and index earnings, but this has occurred because of relatively steady, low volatility earnings growth. As such, telecom stocks are reliably defensive, but only in the investable market. We conclude by noting the extreme nature of long-term de/re-rating trends that have occurred for several of China’s equity sectors, and argue that the strength of the relationship between earnings and stock prices for these sectors is set to rise over a secular time horizon. Over the coming few years, investors should focus nearly exclusively on the earnings outlook for high flying and beaten down sectors, as further multiple expansion/contraction is unlikely to drive future returns (without an earnings catalyst). Feature Last week’s joint report with our Geopolitical Strategy service provided investors with an update on the trade war in the lead up to the G20 meeting in Osaka.1 While a new tariff ceasefire may emerge from the meeting, the report underscored why the odds are skewed against a positive outcome over the coming 18 months. Our bet is that investors are unlikely to assume that a deal will occur merely in response to a new timetable for talks, implying that any near-term boost to stock prices will be minimal until negotiators provide market participants with evidence (rather than hope) that a deal is achievable. This means that a financial market riot point remains likely over the coming few months, and that a cyclically bullish stance towards Chinese stocks rests on the likelihood of a major policy response in China to counter the likely shock to its export sector. During times of high policy uncertainty, we often take the opportunity to review and update our framework for key asset drivers. In today’s report we review our framework for predicting broad market earnings in China based on the experience of the past decade, and then document the relationship between sector earnings and broad market earnings for both the investable and domestic market. We review the cyclicality of earnings in each sector, and highlight the sectors where relative earnings have been successful at predicting relative performance. We conclude with a summary of what our results would imply over the tactical and cyclical investment horizons given our view of China’s likely growth trajectory, and highlight why several sectors may see a stronger relationship between their earnings and stock prices over the secular horizon. The report illustrates our key conclusions in the body of the text, but reference charts for each sector/industry group in both the investable and domestic market are provided as a convenience on pages 12 - 23. Predicting Chinese Equity Index Earnings Our framework for predicting index EPS is straightforward but reliable. Chart 1Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Chart 1 presents the first element of our framework for predicting Chinese investable earnings per share (EPS) growth. The chart illustrates the strong leading relationship between our BCA China Activity Indicator and the year-over-year growth rate of investable EPS, which underscores that the fundamental performance of Chinese equities is still predominantly driven by China’s “old economy”. The leading nature of our activity index partly reflects the fact that earnings per share are measured on a trailing basis; the key point for investors is that indicators such as our Activity Index have been more successful at capturing the coincident trend in China’s economy than, for example, real GDP growth has over the past several years. Chart 2illustrates that the earnings cycle for the investable and domestic equity markets is the same, with the magnitude of a given cycle accounting for the difference between the two markets. This means that investors exposed to the Chinese equity market should be focused heavily on predicting the coincident trend in the economy, as doing so will lead investors to the same conclusion about the trend in H- and A-share EPS growth. Chart 2Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Chart 3Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity In turn, Chart 3 presents our framework for predicting Chinese economic activity, which we originally laid out in our November 30, 2017 Special Report.2 The chart shows that our leading activity indicator has reliably predicted inflection points in actual activity over the past several years, including the slowdown of the past two years (the leading indicator peaked in Q1 2017). As detailed in the report, our indicator is based on monetary conditions and money & credit growth. Panel 2 of Chart 3 shows that monetary conditions are very easy and credit growth is picking up, though it needs to continue to improve alongside a forceful pickup in money growth in order for the economy to strengthen. The key takeaway for investors is that the overall earnings cycle in China is strongly linked to “old economy” economic activity, which in turn appears to reliably predicted by our indicator. This provides us with a stable platform from which we can examine (and ultimately predict) equity sector EPS. Sector Earnings: Predictability And Cyclicality Given the strong link between Chinese economic activity and equity market EPS that we noted above, the question for equity-oriented investors is then to identify the relationship between sector and overall index EPS. In other words, to what degree are sector EPS in China linked to the overall earnings trend (versus being driven by idiosyncratic factors), and is this relationship pro- or counter-cyclical in nature? Charts 4 and 5 present the answers to these questions, based on the 2011 – 2018 period.3 The charts present the highest R-squared value resulting from a regression of detrended sector EPS versus broad market EPS for both the investable and domestic markets, after accounting for any leading/lagging relationships. The color/shading of each bar denotes whether the beta of the relationship for each sector or industry group is above or below 1. Chart 4 Chart 5 The charts present a mix of surprising and unsurprising results. Among the latter in the investable market, the cyclicality of typically high-beta sectors such as energy, materials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and technology would be readily accepted by most investors, as would the defensive characteristics of financials, telecom services, health care, utilities, and consumer staples. Investable consumer staples, health care, and utilities EPS are driven by either bottom-up/industry-specific factors or macro factors that are not fully captured by the trend in China’s business cycle. However, there were several less-intuitive results that emerged from our analysis, related to both the investable and domestic markets: Chart 6 Within the investable market, the low predictability of health care, utilities, and consumer staples EPS is somewhat difficult to explain. A weak relationship would easily be explained if EPS growth for these sectors were somewhat constant in the face of fluctuations in overall index EPS, but Chart 6 shows that the volatility in EPS growth for these sectors are not bottom-ranked (see also pages 16, 17 and 22). In fact, utilities EPS growth vol has been relatively high, and it is higher for health care and consumer staples than it is for financials and banks, whose EPS growth are highly linked to the overall earnings cycle. This result suggests that the determinants of earnings for these sectors are driven by either bottom-up/industry-specific factors or macro factors that are not fully captured by the trend in China’s business cycle. The low predictability of consumer staples and utilities EPS observed in the investable market is also evident in the domestic market, suggesting that this finding is not the result of quirky data. We noted earlier that overall index earnings are highly correlated with our BCA China Activity Index, and we have noted in past reports that China’s business cycle continues to be subject to its “old” growth model centered on investment and exports rather than the services and consumer sectors.4 This may explain the relatively idiosyncratic EPS profile for consumer staples, although it still fails to explain the low predictability and relatively high volatility of utilities earnings. Telecom services and technology earnings also have a very low correlation with overall earnings in the domestic market, which is similar to the investable market but more extreme. On the tech front, this is explained by the fact that Alibaba and Tencent, China’s tech giants, are not listed in the domestic market, underscoring that investable tech and domestic tech should be considered by investors to be distinctly separate sectors. In the investable market the low predictability and defensive characteristic of telecom services EPS can be explained by stable, low-volatility growth, but this is not true in the domestic market. In fact, over the past several years the volatility of domestic telecom EPS growth has been among the highest of any of China’s domestic equity sectors, and it has been cyclical rather than defensive in nature. These findings are difficult to explain from a top-down perspective. Finally, while Charts 4 and 5 show a difference in the cyclicality of real estate earnings between the investable and domestic markets, the difference is not substantial: the beta of the former is 1.03 versus 0.94 for the latter. The truly surprising result from real estate stocks is that their EPS growth is not considerably high-beta, given the boom & bust nature of Chinese property prices and the enormous amount of activity that has occurred in Chinese real estate over the past decade. Given that beta is determined relative to the overall index, this is emblematic (and an important reminder) of the underlying cyclicality of China’s economy and its financial markets relative to its global counterparts. Sector Earnings: Relevance For Stock Prices Following our review of the predictability and cyclicality of Chinese sector EPS, Charts 7 and 8 illustrate the relationship between relative EPS and relative stock price performance for these sectors. The charts highlight several notable points: Chart 7 Chart 8 In both the investable and domestic markets, the relative performance of energy and consumer discretionary stocks have been highly explained by the trend in relative EPS. Both of these sectors have also shown reasonably high EPS predictability (based on overall index EPS), suggesting that these two sectors have historically been the best candidates for a classic top-down fundamental “sector rotation” strategy. The relative re-rating of consumer staples and de-rating of banks reflects the existence of a long consumer economy / short industrial economy trade. Chart 9Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Within the investable market, relative EPS has not been successful at predicting relative stock price performance for financials/banks, health care, consumer staples, and industrials. This means that multiple expansion/contraction has been a relatively more important factor in driving returns, which can clearly be seen in Chart 9. The chart shows that investable banks, health care, and industrials have been meaningfully de-rated over the past several years, whereas the relative P/E ratio for consumer staples stocks has risen (albeit in a choppy fashion). Domestic consumer staples have also benefited from re-rating, although it has occurred entirely within the past three years and has merely made up for the substantial de-rating that took place in 2012 (Chart 9, panel 2). Taken together, the relative re-rating of consumer staples and de-rating of banks and industrials reflects, at least in part, the existence of a long consumer economy / short industrial economy trade. The relative EPS trend of utilities in both markets and that of telecom services stocks in the investable market have done a decent-to-good job of predicting relative stock price performance. We noted earlier that investable telecom services earnings appear to have a weak relationship with overall index earnings because of their low variability, meaning that they have also been a good top-down rotation candidate on the defensive side of the spectrum. The high responsiveness of the relative equity performance of Chinese utilities to relative EPS raises the importance of predicting the latter, which is likely to be a topic of future reports for BCA’s China Investment Strategy service. Finally, Chart 7 shows that the most important sector trend in the investable market over the past several years, the outperformance of information technology, has been strongly explained by the trend in relative EPS. This is good news for investors, as it suggests that relative tech returns can be reasonably predicted by accurate earnings analysis. From a top-down perspective, we noted earlier that the relationship between tech and overall index EPS has not been extremely high, which raises the bar for investors to understand the idiosyncratic drivers of earnings for the BAT (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) stocks. Chinese consumer spending remains the most important macro factor for these stocks, but our understanding of this relationship is not complete and is an area of ongoing research at BCA. Investment Conclusions Chart 10 summarizes the results of Charts 4-5 and 7-8, by grouping investable and domestic equity sectors into four quadrants based on top-down EPS predictability (x-axis) and the impact of the trend in relative EPS on relative stock price performance (y-axis): Chart 10 Over a multi-year time horizon, the relationship between relative earnings and relative stock prices is likely to rise for several sectors. As we noted above, energy and consumer discretionary in both markets along with real estate and financials in the domestic market have had the strongest relationship across both dimensions (top-right quadrant). The EPS relationship is cyclical in both markets in the case of energy and consumer discretionary, whereas it is modestly cyclical for domestic real estate and defensive for domestic financials. Sectors in the top-left quadrant have shown a strong link between earnings and stock price performance, but a weaker link between sector and index earnings. This is the case for telecom services because of relatively steady, low volatility earnings growth, meaning that telecom stocks are reliably defensive. Fluctuations in the growth of index EPS do not explain the majority of changes in investable tech EPS, but it is an important driver in a cyclical relationship. Sectors in the bottom-right quadrant have a predominantly strong and defensive relationship with index earnings growth (with the exception of domestic industrials), but have experienced significant changes in multiples over the past several years that have materially impacted their relative stock price performance. We showed in Chart 9 that banks have been meaningfully de-rated over the past several years; this process appears to have halted at the end of 2017, suggesting that the relationship between relative earnings and relative stock prices may be stronger going forward. Chart 11Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Finally, sectors in the bottom left quadrant have had relatively idiosyncratic earnings trends, and relative EPS have not explained a majority of the trend in relative performance. We would draw a distinction between investable industrials, real estate, and materials and the rest of the sectors shown, as they are on the cusp of being in the top-right or bottom-right quadrants, and all three appear to have suffered from meaningful de-rating. Investable real estate and materials now trade at over a 40% discount to the overall index (Chart 11), raising a serious question as to whether relative P/Es can continue to compress and explain the majority of relative equity performance. However, investable consumer staples and health care, along with domestic technology and telecom services stocks, do appear to be legitimately idiosyncratic, suggesting that an equity beta approach (regressing sector returns against index returns) is the best top-down method available to investors when allocating to these sectors. For investable staples and health care their equity return betas are clearly defensive, whereas domestic tech and telecom services stocks are market neutral. What does this all mean for investors? Our findings above lead us to some specific conclusions over the tactical (0-3 months), cyclical (6-12 months), and secular (multi-year) horizons: Over the cyclical horizon, we expect Chinese co-incident economic activity to pick up and for overall index EPS to improve, suggesting that global investors have a fundamental basis to be overweight investable energy, consumer discretionary, materials, media & entertainment (within the new communication services sector) and industrial stocks, at the expense of telecom services and financials.5 Investable health care, consumer staples, and utilities stocks are also likely to underperform, although this view is based on a statistical/empirical relationship rather than a fundamental one. In the domestic market, our findings support substituting real estate for technology in comparison to the investable sectors we listed above, but we are concerned that policymakers may crack down more heavily on the property sector if they allow overall credit growth to rise meaningfully as part of a stimulative response. For now, we would not recommend aggressive bets in favor of the domestic real estate sector. Chart 12Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Over the tactical horizon, however, we would advise either the opposite stance, or a benchmark sector allocation. In addition to our view that a financial market riot point remains likely over the coming few months to force policymakers to address the economic weakness that an escalated tariff scenario would entail, broad-market Chinese EPS growth continues to decelerate (Chart 12). We see this continued slowdown as a lagged response to past economic weakness, which we expect will be reversed over the coming year due to stronger money & credit growth. However, sectors with pro-cyclical earnings growth may fare poorly in the near term until investors gain confidence that the (inevitable) policy response will stabilize the earnings outlook. Over the secular horizon, the most important conclusion is that there have been several long-term sectoral de/re-rating trends within China’s equity market. In the investable market, health care, consumer staples, and consumer discretionary (of which Alibaba is heavily represented) trade at 100-200% of a premium relative to the broad equity market on a trailing earnings basis, whereas financials, materials, and real estate stocks trade at a 40-60% discount. These divergences also exist in the domestic market, although the range is somewhat less extreme. A simple contrarian instinct might be to strategically overweight/underweight expensive/cheap sectors, but to us the simpler conclusion is that the extreme nature of these trends means that the strength of the relationship between EPS and stock prices for these sectors is set to rise. Over the coming few years, investors should focus nearly exclusively on the earnings outlook for high flying and beaten down sectors, a question that is very likely to be the topic of additional China Investment Strategy reports this year. Stay tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Reference Charts Energy Chart 13 Energy Energy Chart 14 Energy Energy Materials Chart 15 Materials Materials Chart 16 Materials Materials   Industrials Chart 17 Industrials Industrials Chart 18 Industrials Industrials   Consumer Discretionary Chart 19 Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Chart 20 Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary   Consumer Staples Chart 21 Consumer Staples Consumer Staples Chart 22 Consumer Staples Consumer Staples   Health Care Chart 23 Health Care Health Care Chart 24 Health Care Health Care   Financials Chart 25 Financials Financials Chart 26 Financials Financials   Banking Chart 27 Banking Banking Chart 28 Banking Banking   Information Technology Chart 29 Information Technology Information Technology Chart 30 Information Technology Information Technology   Telecom Services Chart 31 Telecom Services Telecom Services Chart 32 Telecom Services Telecom Services   Utilities Chart 33 Utilities Utilities Chart 34 Utilities Utilities   Real Estate Chart 35 Real Estate Real Estate Chart 36 Real Estate Real Estate   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Another Phony G20? And A Word On Hong Kong”, dated June 14, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      S&P Dow Jones and MSCI Inc. implemented major structural changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) in Q4 2018 that substantially altered the sector composition of the MSCI China Investable index. The weight of the information technology sector in the investable index dropped dramatically after the GICS changes occurred. Investors should note that we used Q3 2018 as the end date of our analysis in order to remove any impact from the GICS sector change; the reference charts shown on pages 12 – 23 provide all data since 2011. 4     Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Three Pillars Of China’s Economy”, dated May 16, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5      Due to the changes to the GICS classification structure noted in footnote 3, the tech sector relationships that we highlighted above now apply to the consumer discretionary sector (level 1) and media & entertainment industry-group (level 2, within the new level 1 communication services sector. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Dear Client, Credit in China has expanded at an exponential pace, with the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio climbing from 143% to more than 250% over the last decade. The speed and scale of China’s debt surge dwarfs Japan and the U.S.’ respective credit binges in the 1980’s and 2000’s, each of which ultimately led to financial market meltdowns. Why should China’s experience be any different? Given that China has pursued a different economic model whereby the banking sector is largely state-sponsored and the currency is tightly managed by the central bank, the answer to this pressing question for global markets is the subject of spirited debate at BCA and within the investment community at large. Clients are already aware that my colleagues, Peter Berezin and Arthur Budaghyan, disagree on the macro and market ramifications of China’s decade-long credit boom. The aim of this report is to provide visibility on the root sources of the view divergence, not to reconcile the gaps. We hope these insights will help shape your own conviction about this important topic. Caroline Miller Global Strategy Feature   Caroline: Arthur, your cautious outlook towards emerging markets in general and China’s prospects in particular stems from your belief that China’s economy is dangerously addicted to credit as a growth driver. Please explain why you dismiss the more sanguine view that China’s elevated debt burden is a function of an equally unusually high household savings rate. Arthur: It is simple: When people use the word “savings,” they typically and intuitively refer to bank deposits or securities investments; but this is incorrect. Chart 1 (Arthur)No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = 'Savings' No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = 'Savings' No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = 'Savings' Money supply/deposits in the banking system have no relationship with the savings rate of a nation in general or households in particular (Chart 1). When households save, they do not change the amount of money supply and deposits. Hence, households’ decision to save neither alters liquidity in the banking system nor helps banks to originate loans. In fact, banks do not intermediate deposits into loans or savings into credit.1 The terms “savings” in economics does not denote an increase in the stock of money and deposits. The term “savings” in economics means the amount of goods and services produced but not consumed. When an economy produces a steel bar, it is registered as national “savings.” We cannot consume (say, eat or expense) a steel bar. Therefore, once a steel bar or any equipment is produced, economic statistics will count it as “savings.” Besides, the sole utilization of a steel bar is in capital goods and construction, and hence, it cannot be consumed. Once a steel bar is produced, both national savings and investment will rise. That is how the “savings” = “investment” identity is derived. Chart 2 (Arthur)Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones It would avoid confusion and help everyone if economists were to call it “excess production” not “excess savings.” Banks do not need “excess production” – i.e., national “savings” – to create loans. Critically, the enormous amount of bank deposits in China is not due to household “savings” but is originated by banks “out of thin air.” In fact, Chinese households are now more leveraged than U.S. ones (Chart 2). Chart 3 The surge of credit and money supply in China during the past 10 years has been due to animal spirits running wild among lenders and borrowers on the mainland, not its households’ “savings.” In short, the root of China’s credit bubble is not any different from Japan’s (in the 1980s), or the U.S.’ (in the 2000s) and so on. Peter: Yes, banks can create deposits “out of thin air,” as Arthur says. However, people must be willing to hold those deposits. The amount of deposits that households and businesses wish to hold reflects many things, including the interest rate paid on deposits and the overall wealth of the society. The interest rate is a function of savings. The more people save, the lower interest rates will be. And the lower interest rates are, the more demand for credit there will be (Chart 3). It’s like asking what determines how many apples are consumed. Is it how many apple trees farmers want to plant or how many apples people want to eat? The answer is both. Prices adjust so that supply equals demand. How about national wealth? To a large extent, wealth represents the accumulation of tangible capital – factories, plant and machinery, homes and office buildings: the sort of stuff that banks can use as collateral for lending. And what determines how much tangible capital a country possesses? The answer is past savings, of the exact sort Arthur is referring to: the excess of production over consumption. So this form of “economic” savings also plays an important indirect role in determining the level of bank deposits. Chart 4 (Peter)China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt I think the main problem with Arthur’s argument is that he is observing an accounting identity, which is that total bank assets (mostly loans) must equal liabilities (mostly deposits and capital) in equilibrium, without fully appreciating the economic forces – savings being one of them – that produce this equilibrium. In any case, the whole question of whether deposits create savings or savings create deposits misses the point. China’s fundamental problem is that it does not consume enough of what it produces. In the days when China had a massive current account surplus, it could export its excess savings abroad (Chart 4). It can’t do that anymore, so the government has consciously chosen to spur investment spending in order to prop up employment. Since a lot of investment spending is financed through credit, debt levels have risen. It really is just that simple.   Arthur: First, neither the stock nor the flow of credit and deposits has any relevance to (1) the economic term “savings;” (2) a country’s capital stock; or (3) national wealth, contrary to what Peter claims. China’s broad money supply (M2) now stands at 190 trillion yuan, equivalent to US$28 trillion (Chart 5, top panel). It is equal to the size of broad money supply in the U.S. and the euro area combined (US$14 trillion each). Yet, China’s nominal GDP is only two-thirds the size of the U.S. Does the level of China’s wealth and capital stock justify it having broad money supply (US$28 trillion) equivalent to the U.S. and the euro area combined? Chart 5 (Arthur)“Helicopter” Money In China “Helicopter” Money In China “Helicopter” Money In China Second, are Chinese households and companies willing to hold all RMB deposits that banks have created “out of thin air”? The answer: not really. Without capital controls, a notable portion of these deposits would have rushed into the foreign exchange markets and caused currency depreciation. Another sign of growing reluctance to hold the yuan is that households have been swapping their RMB deposits for real assets (property) at astronomical valuations. There is a bubble in China but people are looking for reasons to justify why it is different this time. Caroline: OK, let’s get away from the term “savings,” and agree that China continues to generate a chronic surplus of production of goods and services relative to consumption, and that how China chooses to intermediate that surplus is the most market-relevant issue. Arthur, you have used the terms “money bubble” and “helicopter money” in relation to China. This implies that banks are unconstrained in their ability to make loans. Just because savings don’t equal deposits, and banks can create deposits when they make loans doesn’t mean there is no relationship between the flow of credit and the stock of deposits. Arthur: Money supply and deposits expand only when banks originate a loan or buy an asset from a non-bank. In short, both credit and money/deposits are created by commercial banks “out of thin air.” This is true for any country.2 Consider a loan transaction by a German commercial bank. When it grants a €100 loan to a borrower, two accounting entries occur on its balance sheet. On the assets side, the amount of loans, and therefore total assets, increases by €100. Simultaneously, on the liabilities side, this accounting entry creates €100 of new deposits “out of thin air” (Figure 1). Hence, new purchasing power of €100 has been created via a simple accounting entry, which otherwise would not exist. Chart Critically, no one needed to save for this loan and money to be originated. The bank does not transfer someone else’s deposits to the borrower; it creates a new deposit when it lends. Banks also create deposits/money “out of thin air” when they buy securities from non-banks. In China, fiscal stimulus is largely financed by commercial banks – banks purchase more than 80% of government-issued bonds. This also leads to money creation. In short, when banks originate too much credit – as they have in China – they generate a money bubble. The money bubble is the mirror image of a credit bubble. Chinese banks have created 141 trillion yuan (US$21 trillion) of new money since 2009, compared with $8.25 trillion created in the U.S., euro area, and Japan combined over the same period (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is why I refer to it as “helicopter” money. Caroline: If banks need capital and liquidity to make loans, and deposits are one potential source of funds, don't these capital and liquidity constraints drive banks’ willingness and ability to lend, creating a link between the two variables? Arthur: Let me explain how mainland banks were able to circumvent those regulatory lending constraints. In 2009, they expanded their credit assets by about 30%. Even though a non-trivial portion of those loans were not paid back, banks did not recognize NPLs and instead booked large profits. By retaining a portion of those earnings, they boosted their equity, say, by 20%. As a result, the next year they were able to expand their credit assets by another 20% and so on. If banks lend and do not recognize bad loans, they can increase their equity and continue lending. With respect to liquidity, deposits are not liquidity for banks; excess reserves at the central bank are true liquidity for them. The reason why banks need to attract deposits is not to appropriate the deposits themselves, but to gain access to the excess reserves that come with them. When a person shifts her deposit from Bank A to Bank B, the former transfers a similar amount of excess reserves (liquidity) to the latter. When expanding their credit assets aggressively, banks can: (1) create more loans per one unit of excess reserves/liquidity, i.e., expand the money multiplier; and (2) borrow excess reserves/liquidity from the central bank or other banks. Chinese banks have used both channels to expand their balance sheets over the past 10 years (Chart 6). Chart 6 (Arthur)Broad Money Can Expand Without Growing Banks' Excess Reserves At The Central Bank Broad Money Can Expand Without Growing Banks' Excess Reserves At The Central Bank Broad Money Can Expand Without Growing Banks' Excess Reserves At The Central Bank Crucially, commercial banks create deposits, but they cannot create excess reserves (liquidity).3 The latter are issued only by central banks “out of thin air.” So, neither deposits nor excess reserves have any relevance to household or national “savings.” Caroline: Peter, Arthur argues that Chinese credit policy has been unconstrained by the traditional metrics of capital adequacy that prevail in capitalist, free-market economies. In other words, there is no connection between the availability of funds to lend via deposits in the banking system, and the pace of credit creation. Rather, the central bank has controlled the terms and volume of lending via regulation and fiat reserve provisioning. You’ve argued that credit creation has served the greater good of propping up employment via investment spending. Moreover, you posit that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. Our colleague, Martin Barnes, has analyzed national savings rates (as a proxy for over-production) relative to debt-GDP ratios in other countries. The relationship doesn’t look that strong elsewhere (Chart 7). Please elaborate on why you see credit growth as an inevitable policy response to the dearth of aggregate demand we observe in China? Chart 7 Peter: I would not say that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. For example, if most business investment is financed through retained earnings, you can have a lot of investment with little new debt. Debt can also result from activities not directly linked to the intermediation of savings. For instance, if you take out a mortgage to buy some land, your consumption and savings need not change, even though debt will be created. I think Arthur and I agree on this point. Thus, I am not saying that debt is always and everywhere the result of savings. I am simply pushing back against Arthur’s extremist position that debt never has anything to do with savings. Caroline: So what determines the level of debt in an economy in your view, Peter? Peter: In general, debt levels will rise if there are large imbalances between income and spending within society and/or if there are significant differences in the mix of assets people wish to hold. Think about the U.S. in the pre-financial crisis period. First, there was a surge in income inequality beginning in the early 1980s. For all intents and purposes, rich households with excess savings ended up lending their surplus income to poor households struggling to pay their bills. Overall savings did not rise, but debt levels still increased. That’s one reason why Martin’s chart doesn’t show a strong correlation between the aggregate savings rate and debt-to-GDP. Sometimes you need to look beneath the aggregate numbers to see the savings intermediation taking place. Unlike in the U.S., even poor Chinese households are net savers (Chart 8). Thus, the aggregate savings rate in China is very high4 (Chart 9). Much of these savings are funnelled to finance investment in the corporate and public sectors. This fuels debt growth. Chart 8 Chart 9 (Peter)Chinese Households Have More Savings Than The U.S., Europe And Japan Combined Chinese Household Savings Are More Than The U.S., Europe And Japan Combined Chinese Household Savings Are More Than The U.S., Europe And Japan Combined The second thing that happened in the U.S. starting in 2000 was a massive housing boom. If you bought a second home with credit, you ended up with one more asset (the house) but one more liability (the mortgage). The person who sold you the home ended up losing one asset (the house) but gaining another asset (a bigger bank deposit). The net result was both higher debt and higher bank deposits. Lending to finance asset purchases has also been a big source of debt growth in China, as it was in the U.S. before the crisis. The U.S. mortgage boom ended in tears, and so the question that we should be asking is whether the Chinese debt boom will end the same way. Arthur: We agreed not to use the term “savings,” yet Peter again refers to “savings” being funnelled into credit. As I explained above, banks do not funnel “savings” (i.e., “excess production”) into credit. China, Japan, and Germany have high “savings” rates because they produce a lot of steel, chemicals, autos, and machinery that literally cannot be consumed and, thus, are recorded as “savings.” The U.S. produces too many services that are consumed/expensed and, hence, not recorded as “savings.” That is why the U.S. has a lower “savings” rate. Chart 10 (Arthur)The Myth Of Deficient Demand In China The Myth Of Deficient Demand In China The Myth Of Deficient Demand In China Economic textbook discussions on “savings” and “investment” are relevant for a barter economy where banks do not exist. When this framework is applied to modern economies with banks, it generates a lot of confusion.5 Caroline: OK, so Peter argues that an imbalance between spending and income CAN be a marker for high debt levels. Arthur, please explain why you see no relationship between China’s chronic shortfall in demand and authorities’ explicit decision to support growth via credit creation. Arthur: First, China does not have deficient demand – consumer spending and capital expenditures have been growing at 10% and 9.4%, respectively, in real terms annually compounded for the past 10 years (Chart 10). The mainland economy has been suffering from excess production, not a lack of demand. China has invested a lot (Chart 11) and ended up with too much capacity to produce steel, cement, chemicals and other materials as well as machinery and industrial goods. So, China has an excess production of goods relative to firms’ and households’ underlying demand. In a market economy, these producers would become non-profitable, halt their investments, and shut down some capacity. Chart 11 (Arthur)China Has Been Over-Investing On An Unprecedented Scale China Has Been Over-Investing On An Unprecedented Scale China Has Been Over-Investing On An Unprecedented Scale In China, to keep the producers of these unwanted goods operating, the government has allowed and encouraged banks to originate loans creating new purchasing power literally “out of thin air” to purchase these goods. This has created a credit/money bubble. In a socialist system, banks do not ask debtors to repay loans and government officials are heavily involved in resource and capital allocation. China’s credit system and a growing chunk of its economy have been operating like a typical socialist system. Socialism leads to lower productivity growth for well-known reasons. With labor force growth set to turn negative, productivity is going to be the sole source of China’s potential growth rate. If the nation continues expanding this money/credit bubble to prop up zombie enterprises, its potential growth rate will fall considerably. As the potential growth rate drops, recurring stimulus will create nominal but not real growth. In short, the outcome will be stagflation. Caroline: The theoretical macro frameworks that you have both outlined make for interesting thought experiments, and spirited intellectual debate. However, investors are most concerned about the sustainability of China’s explosive credit growth, implications for the country’s growth rate, and the return on invested capital. Arthur, given your perspective on how Chinese credit policy has been designed and implemented, please outline the contours of how and when you see the music stopping, and the debt mountain crumbling. Arthur: Not every credit bubble will burst like the U.S. one did in 2008. For example, in the case of the Japanese credit bubble, there was no acute crisis. The bubble deflated gradually for about 20 years. In the cases of the U.S. (2008), Japan (1990), the euro area (2008-2014), Spain (2008-2014) and every other credit bubble, a common adjustment was a contraction in bank loans in nominal terms (Chart 12). Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (I) All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (II) All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans Why do banks stop lending? The reason is that banks’ shareholders absorb the largest losses from credit booms. Given that banks are levered at least 20-to-1 at the peak of a typical credit boom, every $1 of non-performing loans leads to a $20 drop in their equity value. Bank shareholders halt the flow of credit to protect their wealth. Chart 13 (Arthur)China: Deleveraging Has Not Yet Begun China: Deleveraging Has Not Yet Begun China: Deleveraging Has Not Yet Begun Chart 14 In fact, credit in China is still growing at a double-digit rate, above nominal GDP growth (Chart 13). Hence, aggregate deleveraging in China has not yet begun. If banks do not curtail credit origination, the music will not stop. However, uninterrupted credit growth happens only in a socialist system where banks subsidize the economy at the expense of their shareholders. But even then, there is no free lunch. Credit origination by banks also expands the money supply as discussed above. An expanding money bubble will heighten devaluation pressure on the yuan in the long run. The enormous amount of money supply/deposits – the money bubble – in China is like “the sword of Damocles” hanging over the nation’s currency. Chinese households and businesses are becoming reluctant to hold this ballooning supply of local currency. Continuous “helicopter” money will only increase their desire to diversify their RMB deposits into foreign currencies and assets. Yet, there is an insufficient supply of foreign currency to accommodate this conversion. The nation’s current account surplus has almost vanished while the central bank carries US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserve representing only 11% of the yuan deposits and cash in circulation (Chart 14). It is inconceivable that China can open its capital account in the foreseeable future. “Helicopter” money also discourages innovation and breeds capital misallocation, which reduces productivity growth. A combination of slowing productivity growth, and thus potential GDP, and strong money growth ultimately lead to stagflation – the dynamics endemic to socialist systems. Peter: Arthur’s answer implicitly assumes that private investment would increase if the government removed credit/fiscal stimulus. But where is the evidence for that? We had just established that the Chinese economy suffers from a lack of aggregate demand. Public-sector spending, to the extent that it increases employment and incomes, crowds in private-sector investment rather than crowding it out. Ask yourself what would have happened if China didn’t build that “bridge to nowhere.” Would those displaced construction workers have found more productive work elsewhere or would they have remained idle? The answer is almost certainly the latter. After all, the reason the Chinese government built the bridge in the first place was to increase employment in an economy that habitually struggles to consume enough of what is produces. Arthur talks about the “misallocation” of resources. But doesn’t an unemployed worker also represent a misallocation of resources? In my view, it certainly does – and one that is much more threatening to social stability than an underutilized bridge or road. If you understand the point above, you will also understand why Arthur’s comparison between Chinese banks and say, U.S. banks is misplaced. The Chinese government is the main shareholder in Chinese banks. The government cares more about social stability than anything else. There is no way it would let credit growth plunge. Moreover, as the main shareholder, the government has a strong incentive to raise the share price of Chinese banks. After all, it is difficult to have a reserve currency that rivals the U.S. dollar, as China aspires to have, if your largest banks trade like penny stocks. My guess is that the Chinese government will shut down a few small banks to “show” that it is concerned about moral hazard, but then turn around and allow the larger banks to sell their troubled loans to state-owned asset management companies on very favourable terms (similar to what happened in the early 2000s). Once investors get wind that this is about to happen, Chinese bank shares will rally like crazy. Caroline: Isn’t shuffling debt from one sector of the economy to another akin to a shell game? Wouldn’t rampant debt growth eventually cause investors to lose confidence in the currency? Peter: China has a problem with the composition of its debt, not with its total value. Debt is a problem when the borrower can’t or won’t repay the loan. Chart 15 (Peter)China Is On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers China On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers China On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers I completely agree that there is too much shadow bank lending in China. There is also too much borrowing by state-owned enterprises. Ideally, the Chinese government would move all this quasi-public spending onto its own balance sheet. It would significantly raise social spending to discourage precautionary household savings. It would also adopt generous pro-natal policies — free childcare, education, government paid parental leave, and the like. The fact that the Chinese working-age population is set to shrink by 400 million by the end of the century is a huge problem (Chart 15). If the central government borrowed and spent more, state-owned companies and local governments would not have to borrow or spend as much. Banks could then increase their holding of high-quality central government bonds. Debt sustainability is only a problem if the interest rate the government faces exceeds the growth rate of the economy.6 That is manifestly not the case in China (Chart 16). And why are interest rates so low in relation to growth? Because Chinese households save so much! We simply can’t ignore the role of savings in the discussion. Chart 16 (Peter)China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy As far as the currency is concerned, if debt growth rose so much that the economy overheated and inflation soared, then yes, the yuan would plunge. But that’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about bringing debt growth to a level that generates just enough demand to achieve something resembling full employment. No one is calling for raising debt growth beyond that point. Curbing debt growth in a demand-deficient economy, as Arthur seems to be recommending, would cause unemployment to rise. Investors would then bet that the Chinese government would try to boost net exports by engineering a currency devaluation. Capital outflows would intensify. Far from creating the conditions for a weaker yuan, fiscal/credit stimulus obviates the need for a currency depreciation. Caroline: Peter, even if we accept your argument that the counterfactual of curbing credit growth in a demand-deficient economy would be a more deflationary outcome than sustaining the government-sponsored credit growth engine, how is building bridges to nowhere a positive sum for investors? Even if this strategy maintains social stability in the interests of the CCP’s regime preservation, won’t investors eventually recoil at the retreat to socialism that Arthur outlines, reducing the appeal of holding the yuan, even if, as you both seem to agree, no apocalyptic debt crisis is at hand? In other words, isn’t two times nothing still nothing? Peter: First of all, many of these infrastructure projects may turn out to be quite useful down the road, pardon the pun. Per capita vehicle ownership in China is only one one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 17). A sparsely used expressway today may be a clogged one tomorrow. Chart 17 (Peter)The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Would China really be better off if it had fewer infrastructure projects and more big screen TVs? An economy where people are always buying stuff they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people they don’t like, is hardly a recipe for success. I am not sure what these references to socialism are supposed to accomplish. You want to see a real retreat to socialism? Try creating millions of unemployed workers with no jobs and no hope. All sorts of pundits decried Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as creeping socialism. The truth is that the New Deal took the wind out of the sails of the fledgling U.S. communist movement at the time. Arthur: I believe that Peter is confusing the structural and cyclical needs for stimulus. When an economy is in a recession – banks are shrinking their balance sheets and property prices are deflating – the authorities must undertake fiscal and credit stimulus. Chart 18 (Arthur)What Will Productivity Growth Look Like If Public Officials Allocate 55%-60% Of GDP? What Will Productivity Growth Look Like If Public Officials Allocate 55%-60% Of GDP? What Will Productivity Growth Look Like If Public Officials Allocate 55%-60% Of GDP? Credit and fiscal stimulus made sense in China in early 2009 when growth plunged. However, over the past 10 years, we have witnessed credit and property market booms of gigantic proportions. Does this economy warrant continuous stimulus? What will productivity growth look like if government bureaucrats continuously allocate 55-60% of GDP each year (Chart 18)? Caroline: Arthur and Peter, you can both argue with one another about the semantic economic definition of the term ‘savings’, the implications of chronic excess production (relative to consumption), and the root drivers of credit growth in China long past the expiry of every BCA client’s investment horizon. Clients benefit from understanding your distinct perspectives only to the extent that they inform your outlook for markets. Will each of you now please outline how you see high levels of credit in China’s economy impacting the following over a cyclical (6-12 month) and structural (3-5 year) horizon: Global growth Commodity prices China-geared financial assets Peter: Regardless of what one thinks about the root causes of China’s high debt levels, it seems certain to me that the Chinese are going to pick up the pace of credit/fiscal stimulus over the next six months in response to slowing growth and trade war uncertainties. If anything, the incentive to open the credit spigots this time around is greater than in the past because the Chinese government wants to have a fast-growing economy to gain leverage over trade negotiations with the U.S. Chart 19 (Peter)Stronger Chinese Credit Growth Bodes Well For Commodity Prices Stronger Chinese Credit Growth Bodes Well For Commodity Prices Stronger Chinese Credit Growth Bodes Well For Commodity Prices Chart 20 (Peter)The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Stronger Chinese growth will boost growth in the rest of the world. Commodity prices will rise (Chart 19). As a counter-cyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will likely peak over the next month or so and then weaken in the back half of 2019 and into 2020 (Chart 20). The combination of stronger Chinese growth, higher commodity prices, and a weaker dollar will be manna from heaven for emerging markets. If a trade truce between China and the U.S. is reached, investors should move quickly to overweight EM equities. European stocks should also benefit. Looking further out, China’s economy will slow in absolute terms. In relative terms, however, Chinese growth will remain near the top of the global rankings. China has one of the most educated workforces in the world (Chart 21). Assuming that output-per-hour reaches South Korean levels by the middle of the century, Chinese real GDP would need to expand by about 6% per year over the next decade (Chart 22). That’s a lot of growth – growth that will eventually help China outgrow its debt burden. Chart 21 Chart 22 (Peter)China Has More Catching Up To Do China Has More Catching Up To Do China Has More Catching Up To Do Keep in mind that credit growth of 1% when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 300% yields 3% of GDP in credit stimulus, compared with only 1% of stimulus when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. That does not mean that more debt is intrinsically a good thing, but it does mean that China will eventually be able to slow debt growth even if excess savings remains a problem. Structurally, Chinese and EM equities will likely outperform their developed market peers over a 3-to-5 year horizon. The P/E ratio for EM stocks is currently 4.7 percentage points below that of developed markets, which is below its long-term average (Chart 23). While EM EPS growth has lagged DM earnings growth over the past eight years, the long-term trend still favors EM (Chart 24). EM currencies will appreciate over this period, with the RMB leading the way. Chart 23 (Peter)EM Stocks: Valuations Are Attractive EM Stocks: Valuations Are Attractive EM Stocks: Valuations Are Attractive Chart 24 (Peter)Earnings Growth In EM Has Outpaced That Of DM Over The Long Haul Earnings Growth In EM Has Outpaced That Of DM Over The Long Haul Earnings Growth In EM Has Outpaced That Of DM Over The Long Haul Arthur: China is facing a historic choice between two scenarios. Medium- and long-term macro outcomes will impact markets differently in each case. Table 1 shows my cyclical and structural investment recommendations for each scenario. Table 1 (Arthur)Arthur’s Recommended Investment Strategy For China-Geared Financial Assets China’s Credit Cycle: A Spirited Debate China’s Credit Cycle: A Spirited Debate Allowing Markets to Play A Bigger Role = Lower credit growth (deleveraging), corporate restructuring, and weaker growth (Chart 25). This is bearish for growth and financial markets in the medium term but it will make Chinese stocks and the currency structural (long-term) buys. Credit/Money Boom Persists (Socialist Put) = Secular Stagnation, Inflation and Currency Depreciation: The structural outlook is downbeat but there are mini-cycles that investors could play (Chart 26). Cyclically, China-geared financial assets still remain at risk. However, lower asset prices and more stimulus in China could put a floor under asset prices later this year. Timing these mini-cycles is critical. A buy-and-hold strategy for Chinese assets will not be appropriate in this scenario. In short, capitalism is bad but socialism is worse. I hope China will pursue the first path. Chart 25 Chart 26 Caroline: Thank you both for clarifying your perspectives. Over a multi-year horizon, markets will render the ultimate judgement on whether China’s credit boom has represented a reckless misallocation of capital, or a rational policy response to an imbalance between domestic spending and income. In the meantime, we will monitor the complexion of Chinese stimulus and evidence of its global growth multiplier effect over the coming weeks and months. These will be the key variables to watch as we determine when and at what level to upgrade BCA’s cyclical outlook for China-geared assets. Can’t wait for that debate. Footnotes 1 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 2 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 3 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB,” dated November 23, 2016. 4 For a discussion on the reasons behind China’s high savings rate, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 5 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil,” dated March 22, 2018. 6 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019 and “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019.

Highlights Global equities face near-term downside risks from the trade war, but should be higher in 12 months’ time. Its claims to novelty notwithstanding, Modern Monetary Theory is basically indistinguishable from standard Keynesian economics except that MMT assumes that changes in interest rates have no discernible effect on aggregate demand. This straightforward but unrealistic assumption allows MMT’s proponents to argue that the neutral rate of interest does not exist, that crowding out is impossible, and that while fiscal deficits do matter (because too much government spending can stoke inflation), debt levels do not. Despite its many shortcomings, MMT’s focus on financial balances and the role of sovereign-issued money is laudable. A better understanding of these concepts would have made investors a lot of money during the past decade. Today, most economies are still running large private-sector financial surpluses. This surplus of desired savings relative to investment has kept interest rates low, which have allowed governments to finance their budgets at favorable terms. As these surpluses decline, inflation will rise. Feature Greetings From Down Under I have been meeting clients in Australia and New Zealand this week. The mood has been generally negative on the outlook for both the domestic and global economies. As one might imagine, the brewing China-U.S. trade war has been a hot topic of discussion. We went tactically short the S&P 500 on May 10th, a move that for the time being effectively neutralizes our structurally overweight stance on global equities. As we indicated when we initiated the hedge, we will take profits on the position if the S&P 500 drops below 2711. Despite the darkening clouds hanging over the trade war, we still expect a detente to be reached that prevents a further escalation of the conflict. Both sides would suffer from an extended trade war. For China, it is no longer just about losing access to the vast U.S. market. It is also about losing access to vital technology. The blacklisting of Huawei deprives China of critical components needed to realize its dream of becoming a world leader in AI and robotics. The trade war will not harm the U.S. as much as it will China, but it has still raised prices for American consumers, while lowering the prices of key agricultural exports such as soybeans. It has also hurt the stock market, which Trump seems to view as a barometer for his own success as president. If a trade detente is eventually reached, market attention will shift back to the outlook for global growth. We expect the combination of aggressive Chinese fiscal/credit stimulus and the palliative effects of falling global bond yields over the past seven months to lift growth in the back half of the year. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar is likely to weaken when global growth starts to strengthen. This will provide an opportune time to go overweight EM and European equities as well as the more cyclical sectors of the stock market. Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been A Member Of The MMT Movement? Last week’s report1 argued that a global deflationary ice age is unlikely to transpire because politicians will pursue large-scale fiscal stimulus to preclude this outcome. We noted that many countries are easing fiscal policy at the margin, partly in response to populist pressures. Even in Japan, the likelihood that the government will raise the sales tax this year has diminished, while structural forces will continue to drain savings for years to come. This will set the stage for higher inflation in Japan, something the market is not at all anticipating. Somewhat controversially, we contended that larger budget deficits are unlikely to imperil debt sustainability, at least for countries that are able to issue debt in their own currencies. This implies that any government with its own printing press should simply ease fiscal policy until long-term inflation expectations reach their target level. MMT can best be thought of as a special case of Keynesian economic theory where monetary policy is not just relegated to the back burner, but banished from the kitchen altogether. A number of readers pointed out that our analysis sounded suspiciously supportive of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Are we really closet MMT devotees? No, we are not. Our approach shares some commonalities with MMT (so if you want to call me a “MMT sympathizer,” go ahead). However, it also differs from MMT in a number of important respects. As we discuss below, these differences have significant implications for market outcomes, particularly one’s views about the long-term direction of government bond yields. MMT: A “Special Case” Of Keynesian Economics Chart 1 Modern Monetary Theory is not nearly as novel as its backers claim. In fact, MMT can best be thought of as a special case of Keynesian economic theory where monetary policy is not just relegated to the back burner, but banished from the kitchen altogether. Outside of liquidity trap conditions, most economists believe that monetary policy is an effective aggregate demand management tool. MMT’s supporters reject this. In their view, changes in interest rates have no impact on spending. In the technical parlance of economics, MMT is basically the Hicksian IS/LM model but with a vertical IS curve and an LM curve that intersects the IS curve at an interest rate of zero (Chart 1). This seemingly small variation on the traditional Keynesian framework has far-reaching consequences. For one thing, it renders meaningless the entire concept of the neutral rate of interest. If changes in interest rates have no effect on aggregate demand, then one cannot identify an equilibrium level of interest rates that is consistent with full employment and stable inflation. Given their leftist roots, it is not surprising that most MMTers favor keeping rates low, preferably near zero. Higher rates shift income from borrowers to lenders. The latter tend to be richer than the former. Why reward fat cats when you don’t have to? Low rates also allow the government to spend more without putting the debt-to-GDP ratio on an unsustainable trajectory. If the interest rate at which the government borrows stays below the growth rate of the economy, the government can run a stable Ponzi scheme, perpetually issuing new debt to pay the interest on existing debt (Chart 2). In such a world, budget deficits only matter to the extent that too much fiscal stimulus can stoke inflation. The level of debt, in contrast, never matters. Chart 2 Interest Rates Do Affect Aggregate Demand Chart 3Mortgage Rate Swings Matter For The Housing Market Mortgage Rate Swings Matter For The Housing Market Mortgage Rate Swings Matter For The Housing Market Despite MMT’s efforts to deny any role for monetary policy in stabilizing the economy, the empirical evidence clearly shows that changes in interest rates do affect consumption and investment decisions. Housing activity, in particular, is very sensitive to movements in mortgage rates. The recent drop in mortgage rates bodes well for U.S. housing activity during the remainder of the year (Chart 3). The dollar, like most currencies, is also influenced by shifts in interest rate differentials (Chart 4). Changes in the dollar affect net exports, and hence overall employment. Once we acknowledge that interest rates affect aggregate demand, we are back in a world of trade-offs between monetary and fiscal policy. One can have easy monetary policy and tight fiscal policy, or tight monetary policy and easy fiscal policy. But outside of liquidity trap conditions, one cannot have both easy monetary and fiscal policies for a prolonged period of time without tolerating higher and rising inflation.   Chart 4Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials The Perils Of Accounting Identities MMT proponents love accounting identities. They are particularly fond of saying that government deficits endow the private sector with additional wealth in the form of government bonds or cash. Unfortunately, the penchant to “argue by accounting identity” is almost always a recipe for disaster since such arguments usually fail to identify the causal forces by which one thing affects the other. For example, no competent economist would deny that an increase in the fiscal deficit must tautologically imply an increase in the private sector’s financial balance (the difference between the private sector’s income and spending). What MMT adherents fail to appreciate is that private-sector savings can increase either if incomes rise or spending falls. Ironically, what often gets overlooked is that the predictions made by standard Keynesian economic theory over the past decade have proven to be broadly accurate. When an economy is depressed, fiscal stimulus is likely to increase employment. In such a setting, rising payrolls will boost incomes, leading to a larger private-sector surplus. In contrast, when the economy is operating at full employment, any increase in the private-sector surplus must come about through a decline in private-sector spending. That is to say, if the government consumes more of the economy’s output, the private sector has to consume less.  There is a huge difference between the two cases. MMTers tend to gloss over this distinction because they do not really have a theory for why the private-sector financial balance moves around in the first place. To them, private-sector spending is completely exogenous. It is determined by such things as animal spirits that the government has no control over. The government’s only job is to adjust the fiscal balance to ensure that it is the mirror image of the private-sector’s balance. Budget deficits cannot crowd out private-sector spending in this context because the government plays no role in determining how much the private sector wishes to spend. Investment Conclusions Economics gets a bad rap these days. Although most people would not go as far as Nassim Taleb who once mused about running over economists in his Lexus, it is fair to say that there is a lot of disillusionment towards the economics profession. Ostensibly heterodox theories like MMT help fill an intellectual void for those hoping to rewrite the economics textbooks for the 21st century. Ironically, what often gets overlooked is that the predictions made by standard Keynesian economic theory over the past decade have proven to be broadly accurate. Shortly after the financial crisis, when the world was still mired in a deep slump, Keynesian economics predicted that large budget deficits would not push up interest rates and that QE would not lead to runaway inflation. In contrast, Taleb said in early February 2010, when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at around 3.6%, that Ben Bernanke was “immoral” and that “Every single human being should short Treasury bonds. It’s a no-brainer.” The study of financial balances is not unique to MMT, nor is MMT’s approach to thinking about financial balances the best one. Even so, a basic understanding of the concept would have prevented Taleb and countless others from making the mistakes they did. The fact that MMT has brought the discussion of financial balances, along with related concepts such as the role of sovereign-issued money in an economy, back into the spotlight is its greatest virtue. Today, most economies are still running large private-sector financial surpluses (Chart 5). Given that interest rates are so low, it is difficult to argue that budget deficits are crowding out private spending. This may change over time, however. Falling unemployment is boosting consumer confidence, which will bolster spending. U.S. wage growth has already accelerated sharply among workers at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 6). These are the workers with the highest marginal propensity to consume. Chart 5AMost Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (I) Most Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (I) Most Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (I) Chart 5BMost Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (II) Most Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (II) Most Major Countries Run Private-Sector Surpluses (II) Meanwhile, baby boomers are leaving the labor force. More retirees means less production, but not necessarily less consumption. Once health care spending is added to the tally, consumption actually increases in old age (Chart 7). If production falls in relation to consumption, excess savings will decline and the neutral rate of interest will rise. Chart 6 Chart 7Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle When this happens, will governments tighten fiscal policy, as the MMT prescription requires? In a world where entitlement programs are politically sacrosanct, that seems unlikely. The end result is that economies will overheat and inflation will rise. Will central banks tighten monetary policy in response to higher inflation? That depends on what one means by tighten. Central banks will undoubtedly raise rates, but in a world of high debt levels, they will be loath to push interest rates above the growth rate of the economy. Interest rates will rise in nominal terms, but probably very little or not at all in real terms. In such an environment, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure in their fixed-income portfolios, while favouring inflation-linked bonds over nominal bonds. Owning traditional inflation hedges such as gold would also make sense.    Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1          Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Ice Age Cometh?” dated May 24, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Chart 8 Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades