Policy

Special Report

Highlights The grand U.S.-China strategic negotiation is focused on Korea and trade - only Korea is seeing good news; The trade war is expanding to include investment - and Chinese capital account liberalization is the silver bullet; Capital account openness has mixed benefits for EMs, yet the risks are dire. China's policymakers will move only gradually; If Trump demands faster liberalization, a full-blown trade war is more likely; Favor DM equities over EM. Feature The American and Chinese economies have diverged for years (Chart 1), threatening to remove the constraint on broader strategic disagreements. Amidst the uncertainty, a grand U.S.-China negotiation is taking place, focused on two primary dimensions: Korea and trade. Chart 1Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes On the Korea front, the news is mostly positive.1 The leaders of North and South Korea have held their third summit, promising an end to hostilities and a new beginning for economic engagement and possibly denuclearization. They are laying the groundwork for U.S. President Donald Trump to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sometime this month, or in June. From China's point of view, the North Korean developments are mostly positive. A belligerent North Korea provides the U.S. and its allies with a reason to build up their military assets in the region, which can also serve to contain China. A calmer North Korea removes this reason and, over the long run, holds out the potential for the reduction of U.S. troops in South Korea. On net, China has benefited from the opening up of the formerly reclusive Vietnamese and Myanmar economies and stands to do the same if North Korea follows suit. On U.S.-China trade, however, the news is not so good.2 The two countries have just seen another high-level embassy conclude without progress, all but ensuring that relations will get worse before they get better. Investors should prepare for the U.S. to take additional punitive measures and for China to retaliate in kind. The U.S. Treasury Department is on the verge of imposing landmark new restrictions on Chinese investment by May 21 or sooner. Congress, separate from the Trump administration and in a notable sign of bipartisan unity, is considering legislation that would do the same. This is independent from Trump's impending tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of Chinese goods, which could also come as early as May 21. In other words, the U.S.-China economic conflict is rotating from trade to investment. Hence, in this report, we take a look at the "Holy Grail" of American demands on China: capital account liberalization. So far the Trump administration has not pushed its demands this far. That is a good thing, because China is not willing to move quickly on this front. Rapid and complete opening to global capital flows is a "red line" for China, so it is an important indicator of whether the two great powers are heading toward a full-blown trade war. The Uncertainties Of Capital Account Liberalization A country's capital account covers foreign direct investment (FDI), portfolio investment, cross-border banking transactions, and other miscellaneous international capital flows. Since the 1960s, especially since 1989, developed market economies in the West have encouraged the free flow of capital across national borders (Chart 2). As with the free flow of goods, services, and labor, the flow of capital promised integrated markets and more efficient uses of resources. Just as freer trade would lower prices, spur competition, and improve efficiency and innovation, so would the unfettered movement of capital. Trading partners could use savings to invest in each other's areas of productive potential that lacked funds. In this sense, capital flows were nothing but future trade flows: today's cross-border investment would be tomorrow's production of freely tradable goods.3 The laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon economies promoted capital account liberalization for several reasons. First, economic theory and practice supported free trade as a means of increasing wealth, and free trade requires some degree of capital liberalization. Furthermore, liberalization played to the advantage of London and New York City, as international financial hubs, and both the U.S. and the U.K. sought to expand their role as providers of global reserve currencies.4 The European Community also sought freer capital flows due to the fact that the creation of the common market, at minimum, required it for trade financing. In the 1980s, France's bad experience with capital controls led it to adopt a more laissez-faire approach, prompting a convergence across Europe to the Anglo-Saxon model. Capital account liberalization joined free trade, fiscal conservatism, and deregulation as part of the "Washington Consensus" orthodoxy. Major economies were encouraged to liberalize their capital accounts if they wanted to join the OECD, like Japan, or if they sought economic and financial assistance from the IMF (Table 1).5 And yet the empirical evidence of the benefits of capital account liberalization is surprisingly mixed. There is not a clear causal connection between free movement of capital and improved macroeconomic variables like higher rates of growth, investment, or productivity. Relative to other kinds of international liberalization - of labor markets, for example - capital account liberalization is likely to bring small gains to growth rates (Table 2). Chart 2Global Capital Flows Expand Table 1Capital Account Liberalization: A Timeline Table 2Economic Benefits Of Open Borders We can illustrate this point simply by showing that emerging market economies with more open capital accounts, whether defined by the IMF's Capital Account Openness Index or by the ratio of direct and portfolio capital flows to GDP, do not necessarily have higher potential GDP growth or productivity (Chart 3 A&B). A change in openness also does not correlate with a change in growth potential or productivity. Chart 3AEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (1) Chart 3BEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (2) This conclusion can be reinforced by looking at portfolio investment. Portfolio investment is usually one of the last types of investment to be deregulated. Hence a large ratio of portfolio investment to GDP is a proxy for capital liberalization. However, emerging markets that rank high in this regard do not record higher potential growth, productivity, or capital productivity contributions to GDP growth (Chart 4). Chart 4EM: Larger Foreign Stock Inflows Not Correlated With Capital Productivity While the benefits of capital account liberalization are debatable, the risks are dire. It has contributed to, if not caused, a number of financial crises in recent decades. Latin America saw a series of such crises from 1982-89. Mexico's peso crisis of 1994 also owed much of its severity to destabilizing capital flows. Japan opened its capital account in 1979 and over the succeeding decade experienced a rollercoaster of massive capital influx, culminating in the property bubble and financial crash of 1990. Thailand, South Korea, and other Asian countries suffered the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 as a result of premature and poorly sequenced liberalization. All of these countries faced different financial and economic circumstances, and the crises had different causes, but what they shared in common was a relatively recent openness to large inflows and outflows of global capital that triggered or exacerbated currency moves and liquidity shortages.6 This is not to say that there are not benefits to capital account liberalization, or that the benefits never outweigh the costs. The major multilateral global institutions continue to believe that capital account liberalization is optimal policy, if only because the richest, freest, best governed, and most advanced economies have all liberalized. Capital account openness is positively correlated with "rule of law" governance indicators. And back-of-the-envelope exercises such as those shown above suggest that developed market economies do see higher potential growth and capital productivity as a result of capital account liberalization, at least up to a point (Charts 5A & 5B). Chart 5ADM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (1) Chart 5BDM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (2) While a number of countries have experienced financial and economic crises after opening their capital accounts, studies have shown that the causal connection is not always clear (the crisis did not necessarily stem from capital account liberalization).7 The removal of barriers to entry or exit of capital does not have a unidirectional effect but can exacerbate capital flows when times are good or bad. Moreover, some research shows that countries are more likely to suffer financial crises from capital controls than from the removal of them.8 And it is very difficult for countries with open current accounts (free trade) to enforce rigid capital controls anyway, since the distinction between capital flows covering trade transactions and other capital flows is difficult in practice to enforce, resulting in leakage. Because of the link between trade and capital, no country has ever fully and permanently reversed liberalization.9 The academic debate rages on, but from a political point of view, two things are clear. First, the best practices of the most advanced countries suggest that capital account liberalization is optimal policy. Second, policymakers in less open economies are faced with uncertainty and a range of views from economic advisers, orthodox and unorthodox. In the wake of crises in recent decades, this uncertainty has made them less inclined over the years to trust to economic orthodoxy or the "Washington Consensus" when making critical decisions about capital flows. Rather, opening is likely when economic problems call for a change in tack, while capital controls are likely when flows are considered excessive or destabilizing. Bottom Line: Capital account liberalization is the best practice among advanced economies but the risk-reward ratio for policymakers in EMs and partly closed economies is likely skewed to the downside. China's Stalled Capital Account Liberalization Chart 6China's Fear Of Capital Flight In recent years China's policymakers have struggled with the problem of capital account liberalization. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis they announced that they would speed up the process. In 2015 they pledged to complete it by 2020, only to re-impose capital controls when financial turmoil that year prompted large capital outflows (Chart 6). In 2017 President Xi Jinping claimed that the country remains committed to gradual liberalization. We have argued that his administration would ease these controls later rather than sooner, in order to pursue tricky domestic financial reforms first.10 As we have seen (Chart 3 above), China lies on the low end of the IMF's "Capital Account Openness" index, which ranks countries across the world based on six economic indicators and 12 asset classes. By this measure, China is slightly more open than India - a notoriously hermetic economy - and less open than the Philippines. China's closed capital account is also clear from its international investment position. China has fewer international assets and liabilities, as a share of output, than the U.S., Japan, Europe, or South Korea (Charts 7A & 7B). China's international assets are largely the result of its government's $3.1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, as well as outward FDI. As for its liabilities, China has opened up to FDI more so than portfolio investment or other capital flows. This is because FDI is long-term capital that tends to be more closely tied to real production; it is difficult to unwind it in times of crisis. China allows inward and outward FDI to gain knowhow, technology, and natural resources. It is more closed, however, to short-term capital flows, such as dollar-denominated bank debt, currency speculation, and portfolio investment. Typically it is these short-term flows that are most destabilizing, especially when countries are newly open to them. Chart 7AChina Has Fewer Foreign Assets, Mostly Official Forex Reserves Chart 7BChina Has Fewer Foreign Liabilities, Mostly FDI Western economies, however, stand to benefit if China opens up to these shorter-term capital flows. They have a comparative advantage in financial services and thus can rebalance their relationships with China if it gives its households and corporations more freedom to manage their wealth in foreign currencies and assets. It is logical that China's FDI and portfolio investment in western countries would rise if Chinese investors were allowed to go abroad, simply because the latter would wish to diversify their portfolios for the first time. China's neighbors and trade partners would receive a windfall of new investments. Meanwhile they would gain new investment opportunities, as private capital would be able to venture into China, and flee out of it, more easily.11 Western countries are also increasingly agitating for China to loosen its inward capital restrictions. Despite China's openness to FDI relative to other capital flows, it is still one of the world's most restrictive countries in which to invest long-term capital (Chart 8). China's heavy restrictions have granted monopolies to Chinese companies, depriving foreigners of the fruits of China's growth. This is especially important as China moves into consumer- and services-oriented growth. Western countries have a comparative advantage in high-end consumer goods and services relative to low-end goods and manufacturing in general, where they have largely lost out to Chinese competition in recent decades. Chart 8China Is Highly Restrictive Toward Foreign Direct Investment China, too, stands to benefit from freer capital flows, and policymakers believe there is a self-interest in liberalizing. But Beijing has repeatedly demonstrated that it wants to move very gradually because of the skewed risk-reward assessment. China's harrowing experience with capital flight in 2014-16 has vindicated this policy.12 It is not necessarily capital account opening per se that causes destabilizing capital outflows - it is also the macro and financial environment. And China has all the hallmarks of an economy that could suffer a crisis from premature liberalization, including: Large macro imbalances (Chart 9); An immature and shallow financial system (Chart 10); Lack of information transparency; Weak rule of law. Chart 9China Has Macro Imbalances Chart 10China's Financial System Is Shallow Bottom Line: It is guaranteed that China will not pursue capital account liberalization rapidly. It will continue to take small steps, and ultimately "two steps forward and one step back" if necessary to maintain overall stability. Will China Liberalize? By the same logic, why should China liberalize at all? The 2014-16 crisis not only revealed the dangers of too-rapid opening but also the dangers of an inflexible currency and draconian capital controls. When Chinese authorities devalued the yuan in August 2015, they made the capital flight (and global panic) worse. Since then, by imposing strict capital controls, China's leaders have signaled to domestic and foreign investors (1) that they are unwilling to allow global capital flows to discipline their fiscal or monetary policies (a negative sign for China's macro fundamentals), and (2) that they may deny investors the rights of their property or even confiscate it.13 This is why China has made important policy changes since the 2014-16 crisis. First, it has maintained a more flexible "managed float" of the RMB, allowing it to trade more freely along with a basket of currencies that belong to major trading partners and abandoning the dollar peg. Various measures of the exchange rate - offshore deliverable forwards, spot rates, and the exchange rate at interest rate parity - have converged, revealing an exchange rate that is more market-oriented, i.e. less heavily managed by the People's Bank of China (Chart 11).14 This process is being pursued with the long-term interest of rebalancing the economy - making it more flexible and less fixed to an export-led manufacturing model. It is also necessary in order to internationalize the yuan, which is a long and rocky road but, it is hoped, will eventually reduce foreign exchange risk to China's economy (Chart 12). One of the main reasons that governments, including China, have maintained closed capital accounts is to control exchange rates. As currencies float more freely, the economy becomes better able to withstand large or volatile capital flows. At the same time, the yuan will never be a global reserve currency if China never opens the capital account. Chart 11The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely Chart 12The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly Second, while tight capital controls remain in place, Beijing is pursuing long-delayed reforms to the financial sector and fiscal and legal systems to allow for better financial regulation, supervision, and transparency. For instance, the new central bank Governor Yi Gang's reported desire to genuinely liberalize domestic deposit interest rates will prepare China's banks for greater competition with each other, and hence ultimately to greater competition from abroad. This in turn will improve allocation of capital across the economy. Another example is the expansion of the domestic and offshore bond markets - and gradual formalization of the local government debt market - in order to deepen the financial sector.15 These reforms are desirable in themselves but also necessary for eventual capital account liberalization, as countries with deep domestic financial markets have less vulnerability to new surges of foreign inflows or outflows. Naturally, the reform process is taking place on China's timeline. Since Beijing stresses overall stability above all else, it is gradual. But we would expect the Xi administration to continue with piecemeal opening measures through the coming years, so that by 2021, the capital account is materially more open than it is today. As for full liberalization, it is beyond our forecasting horizon. Xi's goal of turning China into a "modern socialist country" by 2035 is not too late of a timeframe to consider, given the potential for serious setbacks. But such delayed progress raises the prospect of a clash with the U.S. A risk to this view is that China backslides yet again on the internal reforms, making it impossible to move to the subsequent stage of opening up to international flows. Vested financial and non-financial corporate interests often oppose capital account liberalization. State-controlled companies, for instance, will gradually have to compete more intensely for capital that comes from better disciplined domestic banks, all while watching small and medium-sized rivals gain market share due to the newfound access to foreign capital, which makes them more competitive.16 Backsliding will, again, antagonize the West. Bottom Line: China is preparing to open its capital account further, as we are in the "two steps forward" phase following Xi Jinping's political recapitalization in 2017. A New Front In The U.S.-China Trade War The U.S. has long argued that China maintains excessive capital controls that violate the conditions of China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001.17 The following statement, from one of the U.S. government's annual reports on China's compliance with the WTO, was written before the Trump administration took office and is typical of such reports and of the overall U.S. position: Although China continues to consider reforms to its investment regime ... many aspects of China's investment regime, including lack of a substantially liberalized market, maintenance of administrative approvals and the potential for a new and overly broad national security review system, continue to cause foreign investors great concern ... China has added a variety of restrictions on investment that appear designed to shield inefficient or monopolistic Chinese enterprises from foreign competition.18 The Trump administration's own reports on China's WTO compliance have amplified such criticisms.19 Remember that it was partly China's lack of WTO compliance that the Trump administration highlighted as justification for the sanctions announced in March under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. In particular, the administration argues that U.S.-China investment relations are not fair or reciprocal, i.e. that the U.S. does not have as great of investment access in China as vice versa (Chart 13). Even in FDI, where China is relatively open and the bilateral sums are fairly reciprocal, the U.S. share is smaller than that of comparable developed economies, such as Japan and Europe (Chart 14). While it is not a foregone conclusion that this is the result of discriminatory policies, the U.S. argues that it suffers from unfair practices. What is clear is that China designates a number of sectors "strategic," excluding them from foreign investment, and places caps on foreign ownership. The two countries tried but failed to conclude a bilateral investment treaty under the Obama administration, which was meant to resolve this problem and stimulate private capital flows. China also has not implemented a nationwide foreign investment "negative list," which it has promised since 2013.20 A negative list would explicitly designate sectors that are off-limits to foreign investment and thus implicitly liberalize investment in all others. Chart 13The U.S. Wants Investment Reciprocity Chart 14The U.S. Wants More Investment Access The U.S. is also demanding greater reciprocity for its banks to lend to Chinese borrowers. China is well-known for heavily restricting foreign bank access, with foreign loans accounting for only 2.75% of total. The U.S. grants much larger market access to Chinese lenders than vice versa (Chart 15). While there are perfectly good reasons for U.S. banks to hold a smaller share of China's total cross-border bank loans than European banks and comparable Asian banks (U.S. banks focus on their large domestic market while European and Japanese banks are bigger international lenders), nevertheless the Americans will see their smaller market share as evidence that American market access can go up (Chart 16). Chart 15The U.S. Wants Banking Reciprocity Chart 16The U.S. Wants More Banking Access Thus the silver bullet for the Trump administration would be to demand accelerated, full capital account liberalization from Beijing. This would address the above problems of investment access while also constituting a larger demand for China to hasten structural reforms that would favor American interests. This is why American officials have urged China to liberalize during high-level bilateral dialogues in the past - while knowing that the reform itself was of such significance that China would only move gradually.21 Chart 17Is The RMB Undervalued? So far the Trump administration has not demanded that China accelerate capital account liberalization, perhaps knowing that it would be a non-starter for China.22 One reason may be the expectation that the RMB could depreciate. True, the yuan is roughly at fair value in real effective terms, after a 7.4% appreciation since Trump's inauguration. However, China's 2014-16 capital flight episode suggests that, under the circumstances of a rapid opening of the capital account, outflow pressure could resume and the currency could fall. This would, at least for a time, drive down CNY/USD, contrary to Trump's oft-repeated desire that the currency appreciate. Trump adheres to a view that the RMB is structurally undervalued, as illustrated here by the IMF's purchasing power parity model, which suggests that it should rise by 45% against the greenback (Chart 17). Given Trump's rhetoric, it may not be far-fetched to suggest that Trump is disinclined to push for capital account liberalization and would rather see China maintain its current "managed" system in order to manage the CNY/USD even further upward. The broader point, however, is that previous U.S. administrations have pushed for faster capital account liberalization, and the Trump administration could eventually follow suit. This would mark a major escalation in the standoff, since China possibly cannot, and certainly will not, deliver such a momentous structural change on a timeline imposed by a foreign power. Bottom Line: Rapid capital account liberalization represents China's "red line" in the trade talks. If Trump pushes his demands this far, then he will be seen as threatening China's stability and will be rebuffed. This is a pathway to a full-blown trade war. Investment Conclusions Capital account liberalization is by no means the only indicator for gauging whether the U.S. and China are heading toward a full-blown trade war. As things stand, Trump will soon impose Section 301 tariffs, China will retaliate, and Trump will retaliate to the retaliation. This is our definition of a trade war. Not only is Trump threatening tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of imports. He is now demanding that China reduce the U.S.'s trade deficit by $200 billion, or 53% of the total, twice as much as earlier. To give an indication of how significant such a change would be for China over the long haul, Table 3 provides a very simple scenario analysis of what would happen to China's trade surplus, current account surplus, and GDP growth rate if the U.S. reduced its bilateral trade deficit by 10%, 33%, or 50%. It shows that if the deficit fell by 33%, Trump's initial goal, then China's current account balance would fall to less than one percent of GDP, and GDP growth would slow down to 6.24% for the year. Table 3Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes U.S. Trade Deficit With China Table 4 takes the worst-case scenario for China, in which the U.S. cuts the deficit by 50%, while oil prices average $90/bbl due to oil price shocks from unplanned production outages in Iran (where Trump is re-imposing sanctions), or Venezuela or others, amid a very tight global oil market.23 China's current account surplus would go negative, while GDP growth would fall to 5.32%! Table 4Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes Deficit, Oil Prices Soar These scenarios are significant because they are not very far-fetched. Instead, they show how easily China could undergo a symbolic transition into a "twin deficit" country - a country with an estimated 13% budget deficit and a negative current account balance. Such a development would not necessarily have immediate concrete ramifications. But it would, if it became a trend, mark a turning point in which China begins exporting rather than importing global wealth. It would cause global investors to scrutinize the country in different ways than before and to question the status and long-term trajectory of China's traditional buffers against financial and economic challenges: the country's large national savings and foreign exchange reserves. These scenarios are merely suggestive and meant to show the gravity of Trump's threats and the seriousness with which Xi will take them. In the current U.S.-China trade conflict, if China allows the CNY/USD to weaken - the logical way of alleviating tariff impacts - then it will be depreciating the currency in Trump's face: conflict will intensify. It is not clear how long the conflict will last or how bad it will get, so investors would be wise to hedge their exposure to stocks along the U.S.-China value chain, favoring small caps and domestic plays in both countries. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends staying long DM equities relative to EM equities. We are short Chinese technology stocks outright, and short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks. By contrast, BCA's China Investment Strategy service continues to recommend that investors stay overweight Chinese stocks excluding the technology sector (versus global ex-tech stocks) over the coming 6-12 months with a short leash. As highlighted in this report, the near-term risks to China from the external sector are clearly to the downside, which supports the decision of the China Investment Strategy team to place Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for Q2.24 This watch remains in effect for the coming two months, a period during which we hope fuller clarity on the U.S.-China trade dispute and the pace of decline in China's industrial sector will emerge. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Barry Eichengreen, "Capital Account Liberalization: What Do Cross-Country Studies Tell Us?" World Bank Economic Review 15:3 (2001), 341-65. Available at documents.worldbank.org. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Is King Dollar Facing Regicide?" dated April 27, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Jeff Chelsky, "Capital Account Liberalization: Does Advanced Economy Experience Provide Lessons for China?" World Bank Economic Premise 74 (2012), available at openknowledge.worldbank.org. 6 Please see Donald J. Mathieson and Liliana Rojas-Suarez, "Liberalization of the Capital Account: Experiences and Issues," International Monetary Fund, March 15, 1993, available at www.imf.org; Ricardo Gottschalk, "Sequencing Trade and Capital Account Liberalization: The Experience of Brazil in the 1990s," United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and United Nations Development Programme Occasional Paper (2004), available at unctad.org; see also Sarah M. Brooks, "Explaining Capital Account Liberalization In Latin America: A Transitional Cost Approach," World Politics 56:3 (2004), 389-430. 7 Please see Peter Blair Henry, "Capital Account Liberalization: Theory, Evidence, and Speculation," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2007-32 (2006); see also Eichengreen in footnote 1 above. 8 Please see Reuven Glick, Xueyan Guo, and Michael Hutchison, "Currency Crises, Capital-Account Liberalization, and Selection Bias," The Review of Economics and Statistics 88:4 (2006), 698-714, available at www.mitpressjournals.org. 9 Please see M. Ayhan Kose and Eswar Prasad, "Capital Accounts: Liberalize Or Not?" International Monetary Fund, Finance and Development, dated July 29, 2017, available at www.imf.org. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 This western interest in Chinese capital account liberalization exists entirely aside from any of the aforementioned capital flight pressures from Chinese investors, which could reignite again. Foreign countries would welcome such inflows to some extent but not to the point that they become destabilizing at home or abroad. 12 The earliest rumored deadline for capital account liberalization was the seventeenth National Party Congress of the Communist Party in 2007. Please see Derek Scissors, "Liberalization In Reverse," The Heritage Foundation, May 4, 2009, available at www.heritage.org. 13 Eichengreen highlighted these points with regard to the literature and observations on capital account liberalization across a range of countries. They are highly relevant to China today. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has The RMB Gone Too Far?" dated February 1, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Embracing Chinese Bonds," dated July 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 16 Raghuram G. Rajan and Luigi Zingales, "The Great Reversals: The Politics of Financial Development in the Twentieth Century," Journal of Financial Economics 69 (2003), 5-50, available at faculty.chicagobooth.edu. 17 China did not commit to fully liberalizing the capital account as part of its WTO accession agreements, but rather the U.S. cites China's use of capital controls as a means of violating other WTO commitments regarding market access, subsidization, etc. At the time China joined the WTO, it was widely believed that its commitments would include gradual liberalization. For instance, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange lifted capital controls imposed during the Asian Financial Crisis in September 2001. Please see Lin Guijun and Ronald M. Schramm, "China's Foreign Exchange Policies Since 1979: A Review of Developments and an Assessment," China Economic Review 14:3 (2003), 246-280, available at www.sciencedirect.com. 18 U.S. Trade Representative, "2015 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," December 2015, available at ustr.gov. 19 U.S. Trade Representative, "2017 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 20 Please see U.S. Department of State, "2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty," available at www.state.gov. See also U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Joint U.S.-China Economic Track Fact Sheet of the Fifth Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue," July 12, 2013, available at www.treasury.gov. 21 See, for instance, U.S. Department of the Treasury, "2015 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue Joint U.S.-China Fact Sheet - Economic Track," June 6, 2015, available at www.treasury.gov. 22 However, Michael Pillsbury, director of the Center for Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and an adviser on Trump's transition team, has argued that the Trump administration's endgame is to implement the well-known World Bank and China State Council Development Research Center report, China 2030, which full-throatedly endorses capital account liberalization. Please see Robert Delaney, "Donald Trump's trade endgame said to be the opening of China's economy," South China Morning Post, April 3, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. For the report, see "China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative Society," 2013, available at www.worldbank.org. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight," dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Despite recent softness in the data, Swedish growth will remain robust over the next 6-12 months, supported by loose monetary conditions and solid export demand. Inflation has climbed back to the Riksbank 2% target, and additional increases are likely over the next 6-12 months. Though debt levels are high, households are relatively healthy given strong wealth, solid disposable income and elevated saving rates. Swedish politics will not substantively impact the markets. If the Moderate Party comes to power, it is unlikely to make significant policy departures from the Social Democrats. Swedish banks' capital levels are elevated, particularly compared to their EU peers. Still, the massive exposure to domestic real estate suggests that banks could not withstand a meaningful decline in house prices. The uninterrupted, long-term surge in Swedish house prices suggests that a bubble has formed. A strong supply-side response has softened prices as of late, but a massive correction is not imminent given robust economic growth and very accommodative monetary policy. Negative interest rates are inconsistent with the robust growth Sweden is experiencing. Going forward, strong growth momentum, rising inflation and a tight labor market will force policymakers to raise rates earlier, and by more, than markets expect. Sweden government debt will underperform global developed market peers over the next 6-12 months. Feature Chart 1Watch What They Do,##BR##Not What They Say Sweden is a country that has been very frustrating to figure out for investors and analysts alike over the past few years. The economy has been performing very well, with real GDP growth averaging around 3% since 2013, well above the OECD's estimate of potential GDP growth of 2.2%. Over that same period, the unemployment rate has fallen from 8% to 6.5% while inflation has risen from 0% to 2%. These are the types of developments that would normally lead an inflation targeting central bank like the Riksbank to contemplate a tightening of monetary policy. Yet while the Riksbank has been projecting significant increases in policy rates and bond yields every year for the past few years, it has actually delivered additional interest rate cuts, bringing the benchmark repo rate down into negative territory in 2014 and keeping it there to this day (Chart 1). In this Special Report, we examine Sweden's economic backdrop, upcoming elections and the health of the financial system to determine the likely future path of Swedish interest rates. We conclude that investors should not fear an imminent collapse of the Swedish housing bubble or a shock outcome in the September general election. A shift in direction for monetary policy, however, is likely later this year, with the Riksbank set to become more hawkish in response to an economy that no longer requires ultra-loose monetary conditions. This has bearish strategic implications for Swedish fixed income, and could finally place a floor under the beleaguered krona. Economy: Sustained Growth Outweighs Potential Risks After experiencing slowing growth momentum in 2016, Sweden's economy made a solid recovery in 2017. Real GDP growth came in at 3.3% on a year-over-year basis in Q4/2017, following on the strong prints earlier in the year. The Riksbank believes that GDP growth will slow slightly in 2018 due to some softening in consumer spending and business investment. However, real consumption has remained resilient and should be supported by the continued recovery in wages. Capital spending has also been robust and industrial confidence remains in an uptrend. While both the OECD leading economic indicator and manufacturing PMI have pulled back in recent months, both are coming off elevated levels. The PMI remains well above the 50 line, suggesting that strong growth momentum remains intact (Chart 2). The National Institute of Economic Research's economic tendency survey bounced back in April on the back of manufacturing and construction strength, with readings for the survey having been above 100 (signifying growth stronger than normal) every month since April 2015. One important factor helping support above-trend growth is fiscal policy, which has become modestly stimulative after two years of major fiscal drag in 2015 and 2016. As an export-oriented country, Sweden is highly levered to the state of the global economy. Export growth remains supported by continued strong global activity, low unit labor costs and recent krona weakness. Real exports expanded at a 4.7% rate (year-over-year) at the end of 2017 and the outlook is bright given firming growth in Sweden's largest export partners and the considerable depreciation of the krona. This is confirmed by our export model, which is signaling a pickup in export growth through the rest of the year before moderating slightly in 2019 (Chart 3). Chart 2Swedish Growth Cooling Off A Bit,##BR##But Remains Strong Chart 3Export Growth##BR##Will Remain Solid Healthy employment growth has driven Sweden's unemployment rate to 6.5%, more than one full percentage point below the OECD's estimate of the full-employment NAIRU1 rate (Chart 4). The spread between the two (the unemployment gap) has not been this low in nearly two decades. During the last period when unemployment was below NAIRU in 2007-08, wage growth surged to over 4%. However, Swedish wage growth has been subdued following the 2008 financial crisis, has been the case in most developed countries, even as unemployment continues to fall. Currently, annual growth in average hourly earnings is now displaying positive upward momentum, both in nominal terms (+2.5%) and, even more importantly for consumer spending, in real terms (+0.9%). A tightening labor market will support additional wage increases in the coming months. Importantly, Swedish wages are also influenced by wages in countries that are export competitors. For example, they have closely tracked German wages in recent years. The strong wage increases coming out of the latest round of German labor union negotiations is therefore a positive sign for Swedish wage growth.2 In addition, there is scope for more improvement as the unemployment rate is still above its pre-crisis level. Sweden has experienced a large inflow of immigration over the last decade and the unemployment rate for non-EU-born residents is approximately four times higher than the national figure. The government is stressing education and skill-building programs to address this issue and speed up the integration process. To the extent that these programs are successful, there is scope for a decline in the immigrant unemployment rate that can pull the overall national unemployment rate even lower - as long as the economy continues to expand and the demand for labor remains robust. A rising trend in domestic price pressures from the labor market can extend the recent uptrend in Swedish inflation. Inflation has been steadily rising since the deflation scare at the end of 2013, driven by consistent above-trend economic growth which has soaked up all spare capacity in the Swedish economy (Chart 5). The latest print on headline CPI inflation was 1.9%, while CPIF inflation (the Riksbank's preferred measure that is measured with fixed interest rates) sits right at the central bank's 2% target. Market-based inflation expectations have eased a bit on the year, though most survey-based measures have remained firm. Chart 4Wage Pressures Intensifying Chart 5Inflation Back To Target, May Not Stop There Rising oil prices have lifted inflation and BCA's commodity strategists believe that there is some additional upside given high demand and declining inventories, suggesting additional inflationary pressure ahead. In addition, even though core prices have historically been weak in the summer months, our Swedish core CPI model suggests that inflationary pressures will continue to build over the next six months, primarily due to booming resource utilization (bottom panel). Additionally, inflation should remain supported by a weaker krona, which has declined 8.5% year-to-date despite robust domestic fundamentals. The real trade-weighted index (TWI) peaked in 2017 and is now at a post-crisis low. These depressed levels suggest the currency can rise without derailing export growth. Going forward, the Riksbank expects the krona to gradually appreciate, based on projections from the April 2018 Monetary Policy Report (MPR).3 However, the currency has closely tracked the real policy rate (Chart 6) and thus could continue to fall below the Riksbank's projected path if our base case scenario of inflation rising further before the Riksbank starts hiking rates plays out - providing an additional boost to inflation from an even weaker krona. While the cyclical economic story in Sweden still looks solid, there remains a significant potential structural headwind in the form of high household debt. Mortgage borrowing has propelled the debt-to-income ratio to over 180% and the debt-to-GDP ratio to over 80%, making Swedish households some of the most indebted in the developed world (Chart 7). The Riksbank projects that debt-to-income will reach 190% by 2021 and its financial vulnerability indicator is at a post-crisis high. While we are certainly not understating the risks associated with such a massive debt load, we do not view this as an imminent threat to the economy. Chart 6VERY Loose Monetary Conditions##BR##In Sweden Chart 7Swedish Households Can##BR##Manage High Debt Swedish households' financial situation is better than it appears, with wealth three times larger than liabilities. Additionally, disposable income, which suffers under Sweden's high tax rates, should receive a boost this year from the increase in child allowance and lower taxes on pensioners. Importantly, the Swedish personal saving rate has been trending upward since the financial crisis and currently is one of the highest in the developed world at 9.6%. In addition, while about 70% of Swedish mortgages are variable rate, consumers are prepared for higher interest rates. Survey data shows household expectations on rates are in line with the National Institute of Economic Research's forecast. Outside of a negative growth shock or a substantial and rapid rise in interest rates, which is not our base case, Swedish high household debt levels should not pose a risk to the current economic expansion. Bottom Line: Despite recent softness in the data, Swedish growth will remain robust over the next 6-12 months, supported by loose monetary conditions and solid export demand. Inflation has climbed back to the Riksbank 2% target, and additional increases are likely over the next 6-12 months. Though debt levels are high, households are relatively healthy given strong wealth and elevated saving rates. Politics: Moderating On All Fronts Sweden has become something of a poster child for a country where immigration policy has become unhinged. In the U.S., Sweden's struggle to integrate recent arrivals, particularly its large asylum population, is a frequent feature on right-wing news channels and websites. The narrative is that Sweden is overrun with migrants and that, as a result, anti-establishment and populist parties will be successful in the upcoming elections on September 9th. This view is based on some objective truths. First, Sweden genuinely does struggle to integrate migrants. As BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, has showed, Sweden is one of the worst performers when it comes to integrating immigrants into its labor force (Chart 8) and in educational attainment (Chart 9).4 Peter posits that the likely culprit is the country's generous welfare state, which discourages migrants from participating in the labor force and perhaps creates a self-selection process where migrants and asylum seekers looking to enter Sweden are those most likely to abuse its generous public support system.5 Chart 8Immigrants Have Trouble##BR##Integrating Into The Labor Force Chart 9Immigrants Have Trouble##BR##In Swedish Education Second, the country's premier populist party - the Sweden Democrats - is relatively successful in the European context. Its ardently anti-immigrant policy has helped the party go from just 2.9% of the vote in 2006, to 12.9% in 2014. For much of 2017, Sweden Democrats have polled as the second most popular party in the country, behind the ruling Social Democrats (Chart 10). Chart 10Anti-Establishment Party Polling Well At the same time, the pessimistic narrative is old news and misses the big picture. In Europe, the anti-establishment parties are moving to the center on investment-relevant matters - such as EU integration - while the establishment parties are adopting the populist narratives on immigration. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy described this process in a recent Special Report that outlined how political pluralism - as opposed to the party duopoly present in the U.S. - encourages such a political migration to the center.6 Sweden is a dramatic case of increasing political pluralism. As such, its political evolution is relevant to the thesis that investors should not fear pluralism because the anti-establishment will migrate to the center while the establishment adopts anti-immigrant rhetoric. This is precisely what has been happening in Sweden for the past six months. First, the ruling Social Democrats - traditionally proponents of migration in the country - have called for tougher rules on labor migration, a major departure from party orthodoxy. Second, Sweden Democrats have seen an exodus of right-wing members, including the former leader, as the party moves to the middle ground on all non-immigration-related issues. This opens up the possibility for Sweden Democrats to join the pro-business Moderate Party in a coalition deal after the election. Should investors fear the upcoming election? Our high conviction view is no. There are three general conclusions we would make regarding the election: Anti-asylum policies will accelerate. All parties are becoming more anti-immigrant in Sweden as the public turns against the country's liberal asylum policies. This is somewhat irrelevant, however, as the influx of asylum seekers into Europe has already dramatically slowed due to better border enforcement policies by the EU (Chart 11). Meanwhile, the pace of migration to Sweden from other EU countries will not moderate, given that the country is part of the continental Labor Market. This is important as EU migrants make up 32% of total migrants into Sweden and tend to be more highly educated and much better at participating in the labor market. Euroskepticism is irrelevant: There is absolutely no support for exiting the EU, with Swedes among the most ardent supporters of remaining in the bloc. Less than a third of Swedes are optimistic about a life outside the EU, for example (Chart 12). As such, the pace of migration will only moderate in so far as the country accepts less refugees going forward. There will be no break with the EU Labor Market and no "Swexit" referendum on the investable time horizon. Chart 11Asylum Flows Are Slowing Chart 12Swedes Are Europhiles The Moderate Party is not a panacea: The pro-business, center-right, Moderate Party is often seen as a panacea for investors. It is true that the party's rise to power, in 1991, coincided with a severe financial crisis and that it was under its leadership that reform efforts began in earnest. However, the Social Democrats already initiated reforms ahead of their 1991 loss and accelerated structural changes well past Moderate Party rule, which ended in 1994. Some of the deepest cuts to the country's social welfare programs were in fact undertaken under Prime Minister Göran Persson, who was either the finance or prime minister between 1994 and 2006. Bottom Line: Swedish politics will not substantively impact the markets. Sweden Democrats are shifting to the center on non-immigration issues. Meanwhile, moderate parties are becoming more anti-immigrant. While there are no risks, we would also not expect major tailwinds. If the Moderate Party comes to power, it is unlikely to make significant policy departures from the Social Democrats. Banks: In Good Shape... For Now Chart 13Sweden's Banks Are In Excellent Shape Swedish banks have been generating solid earnings growth, far outpacing their EU peers, as net interest margins are at multi-year highs and funding costs are low (Chart 13). Solid domestic economic growth has helped boost lending volumes. Non-performing loans have been in a downtrend since 2010 and have stabilized at very low levels. While we expect lending volumes to stay strong and defaults to remain low over the medium term given robust economic growth, we are more cautious on the earnings front. Our base case is that the Riksbank will finally embark on the beginning of a monetary tightening cycle at the end of 2018, and banks will likely struggle to maintain the current solid pace of earnings growth with a policy-driven flattening of the Swedish yield curve. Sweden has stricter capital requirements than their EU peers and, as such, the banks are far better capitalized. Both the aggregate Liquidity Coverage Ratio, a measure of short-term liquidity resilience, and the Net Stable Funding ratio are above Basel Committee requirements and have steadily increased over the past few quarters. The ratio of bank equity to risk-weighted assets paints an overly sanguine picture given that banks use internal models to calculate risk weights and are likely underestimating the risk associated with their massive mortgage exposure. Still, our preferred metric, the ratio of tangible equity to tangible assets, has remained firmly at elevated levels. Sweden's banking system has long been dominated by four major banks (Nordea, SEB, Svenska Handelsbanken and Swedbank). However, Nordea, Sweden's only global systemically important bank, is planning to move its headquarters to Finland later this year. The move will drastically reduce the size of Sweden's national bank assets from 400% of GDP to just under 300%. Nordea has clashed with Sweden's government over higher taxes and increased regulation and the relocation is projected to save €1.1 billion over the long run. Importantly, Nordea will be overseen by the European Banking Union. Overall, we believe this lowers the risk to the Swedish banking system given the reduction in banking assets. More importantly, Swedish authorities will no longer be financially responsible for future problems that could develop at Nordea. Bottom Line: Swedish bank earnings growth has been solid, but will come under pressure once the Riksbank begins to raise rates this year. Capital levels are elevated, particularly compared to their EU peers. Still, the massive exposure to domestic real estate suggests that banks could not withstand a sharp or prolonged decline in house prices. Housing: The Beginning Of The End? House prices in Sweden have been in an uninterrupted, secular uptrend due to low interest rates, robust demand, a structural supply shortage and considerable tax incentives for home ownership. While many of its EU counterparts had significant housing corrections over the last decade, the Swedish market escaped relatively unscathed. In fact, the last meaningful decline was during the 1990s crisis, when house prices fell close to -20%. Chart 14The Overheated Housing Market##BR##Has Cooled Off Swedish authorities believe that the bubbling housing market poses the greatest risk to the Swedish economy, given the sheer magnitude of the uptrend and the Swedish banking sector's massive exposure (Chart 14). Valuation metrics indicate that housing is overvalued and, as such, the current five-month decline has prompted concerns that a meaningful correction may be underway. However, the recent pullback was a result of a strong supply-side response that began in 2013, specifically the construction of tenant-owned apartments. Last year had the most housing starts since 1990. That new supply is still insufficient to meet expected demand, however, and Swedish policymakers are implementing a 22-point plan to both increase and speed up residential construction. Swedish regulators have introduced multiple macroprudential measures over the past few years in order to both cool demand and boost household resilience. These include placing a cap on the size of mortgages (85% of the value of a home), raising banks' risk weight floors7 and multiple adjustments to amortization requirements. Data suggests that these policies have affected consumer behavior by both decreasing the amount of borrowing and causing buyers to purchase less expensive homes. Additionally, the government has recently approved legislation that will boost the ability of the financial regulator (Finansinspektionen) to act in the event of a potential downtown. The policy measures to cool the housing market have been fairly effective, with house prices now down -4.4% on a year-over-year basis (middle panel). However, economic history teaches us that asset bubbles never deflate peacefully. We are concerned over a structural horizon, but we believe that a massive correction is unlikely over the next year. Economic growth will like remain robust and monetary policy is very accommodative. It will take multiple rate hikes before monetary conditions are restrictive, thereby drastically weakening demand and prompting a sustained reversal in the house price uptrend. Bottom Line: The uninterrupted, long-term surge in Swedish house prices suggests that a bubble has formed. A strong supply side response has softened prices as of late, but a massive correction is not imminent given robust economic growth and very accommodative monetary policy. Monetary Policy: Riksbank On Hold, But Not For Long At the most recent monetary policy meeting in late-April, the Riksbank decided to keep the benchmark repo rate at -0.5%, further exercising caution after prematurely raising rates in 2010-2011. The Riksbank acknowledged that economic growth was "strong", but also maintained that inflation was "subdued" and monetary conditions needed to remain stimulative to ensure that inflation would sustainably stay at the 2% target. They revised their projected path for the repo rate downward, with the first hike now only coming at the end of this year. Even after that liftoff, however, the Riksbank plans to continue reinvesting redemptions and coupon payments from its government bond portfolio, accumulated during its quantitative easing program that ended last December, for "some time". Chart 15Our New Riksbank Monitor##BR##Is Calling For Rate Hikes In recent years, the Riksbank has moved the repo rate alongside the ECB's policy rate, in order to protect export competitiveness by preventing an unwanted appreciation of the krona. However, the fundamentals do not justify this. Inflation is in a clear uptrend and has recovered to the Riksbank's target, while euro area inflation is still well below the ECB's target. Additionally, Swedish growth has been outpacing that of the euro area, and relative leading indicators suggest this will continue. While the ECB continues to emphasize that it has no plans to raise interest rates anytime soon, it is now far more difficult for the Riksbank to justify keeping its policy rates below zero as the ECB is doing. It is one thing to have negative interest rates and a cheap currency when there is plenty of economic slack and inflation is well below target. It is quite another to have those same loose policy settings when the output gap is closed, labor markets are at full employment and inflation is at target. This can be seen by the reading from our new Riksbank Central Bank Monitor (Chart 15). The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators designed to measure cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future monetary policy decisions. A reading above zero indicates that policymakers are facing pressures to raise interest rates. We have Monitors for most developed markets, but we had not yet built the indicator for Sweden. Currently, the Riksbank Monitor is in "tight money required" territory, as it has been since late-2015. Though the Monitor has been primarily being driven upward by the growth component, the inflation component is also above the zero line. Forward interest rate pricing in the Swedish Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve indicates that markets are not expecting the Riksbank to begin hiking rates until July 2019. Only 95bps of hikes are priced by March 2020, suggesting that the market expects a very moderate start to the tightening cycle once it begins. Given the still-positive growth and inflation backdrop, we expect that the Riksbank will begin to hike earlier - likely by year-end as currently projected by the central bank - and by more than currently discounted by markets. Bottom Line: Negative interest rates are inconsistent with a robust Swedish economy that is operating with no spare capacity. Going forward, strong growth momentum, rising inflation and a tight labor market will force policymakers to raise rates earlier, and by more, than markets expect. Investment Implications With the market not priced for the move in Riksbank monetary policy that we expect, investors can position for that shift through the following recommended positions (Chart 16): Chart 16How To Position For##BR##Higher Swedish Interest Rates Underweight Swedish bonds within a global hedged fixed income portfolio. Swedish government debt has been a star performer since the beginning of 2017, outperforming the Barclays Global Treasury Index by 101bps (currency-hedged into U.S. dollars). Global yields have risen over that period while Swedish yields have remained fairly flat. This trend is unlikely to continue, moving forward. The Riksbank ended the net new bond purchases in its quantitative easing program last December, removing a powerful tailwind for Swedish debt performance. If the Riksbank begins to hike rates by year-end, as it is projecting and we expect, then interest rate convergence will begin to undermine the ability for Sweden to continue its impressive run of fixed income outperformance. Enter a Sweden 2-year/10-year government bond yield curve flattener. As the Riksbank begins to shift to a more hawkish tone over the coming months, markets will begin to reprice not only the level of Swedish interest rates but the shape of the Swedish yield curve. That means not only higher bond yields but a flatter curve, as too few rate hikes are currently priced at the short-end. Growth is robust, inflation is at target and the unemployment rate is well below NAIRU. With their mandates met, the Riksbank will be forced to act more aggressively. Importantly, there is no flattening currently priced into the Swedish bond forward curve, thus there is no negative carry associated with putting on a flattener now. Short 2-year Sweden government bonds vs. 2-year German government bonds. The yield spread between the Swedish and German 2-year yield is only 5bps, well below its long-run average of 27bps. Relative fundamentals suggest that the Riksbank will no longer be able to shadow the actions of the ECB (negative policy rates) as it has over the past few years. Growth in Sweden is likely to outpace that of the euro area once again in 2018. Swedish inflation is already at the Riksbank target while euro area inflation continues to undershoot the ECB benchmark. Also, the currencies have moved in opposite directions since 2017, with the Euro Area trade-weighted index (TWI) rising by 7% and Sweden TWI falling by 6%, suggesting that Sweden can better handle tighter monetary policy. With the ECB signaling that it is in no hurry to begin raising interest rates (even after it ends its asset purchase program at the end of the year, as we expect), policy rate differentials will drive the 2-year Sweden-Germany spread wider over the next 12-18 months, with no spread move currently priced into the forwards. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate Of Unemployment 2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-wages/german-pay-deal-heralds-end-of-wage-restraint-in-europes-largest-economy-idUSKBN1FP0PD 3 https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/rapporter/ppr/engelska/2018/180426/monetary-policy-report-april-2018 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood," dated November 18, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The End Of Europe's Welfare State," dated June 26, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Should Investors Fear Political Plurality," dated November 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 25% of the value of a mortgage loan must be included when banks calculate their required regulatory risk-weighted capital levels.

Highlights The U.S. labor market is now at full employment and the plethora of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike could cause the economy to overheat. If the recent rebound in the U.S. dollar reverses, this will only add to aggregate demand by boosting net exports. There are two main scenarios in which the U.S. can avoid overheating while the value of the greenback resumes its decline: 1) The Fed tightens monetary policy by enough to slow growth but other central banks tighten monetary policy even more; 2) the U.S. is hit by an adverse demand shock that forces the Fed to back away from further rate hikes. Neither scenario can be easily discounted, but both seem unlikely. The first scenario assumes that the neutral real rate of interest is fairly high outside the U.S., when most of the evidence says otherwise. The second scenario ignores the fact that adverse demand shocks, even if they originate from the U.S., tend to become global fairly quickly. Weaker global growth is usually bullish for the dollar. This suggests that the dollar rally has legs. EUR/USD is on track to hit 1.15 over the coming months, but a plunge below that level is possible given that the dollar is one of the most momentum-driven currencies out there. For now, investors should favor DM over EM equities and oil over metals. Feature Running Hot More than a decade after the Great Recession began, the U.S. labor market is back to full employment (Chart 1). The headline unemployment rate stands at 4.1%, below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. Broader measures of labor slack, such as the U-6 rate, the number of workers outside the labor force wanting a job, and the share of the unemployed who have quit their jobs, are also back to pre-recession levels. Most business surveys show that companies are struggling to fill vacant positions (Chart 2). Wage growth is picking up, especially among low-skilled workers, whose compensation tends to be more closely tied to labor slack than their better-skilled counterparts (Table 1). Chart 1U.S. Is Back To Full Employment Chart 2Survey Data Point To Higher Wage Growth Ahead Table 1Wage Growth Is Accelerating Despite its recent rebound, the broad trade-weighted dollar is still down nearly 7% since its December 2016 high. According to the New York Fed's macro model, a sustained decline in the dollar of that magnitude would be expected to boost the level of GDP by about 0.5%. This would be equivalent to a permanent 50 basis-point cut in interest rates in terms of its effect on aggregate demand.1 Not that long ago, market participants and numerous pundits expected the dollar to continue its slide. Net short dollar positions reached their highest level in nearly six years in mid-April, before moving lower over the past two weeks (Chart 3). "Short dollar" registered as the second-most crowded trade in the monthly BofA Merrill Lynch survey of fund managers that was conducted between April 6 and 12, behind only "long FAANG-BAT stocks."2 Chart 3Short Dollar Is A Crowded Trade The Fed's Dilemma This raises an obvious question. If the consensus view that so many market investors subscribed to only a few weeks ago turns out to be correct and the dollar does give up its recent gains, how is the Fed supposed to tighten financial conditions by enough to keep the economy from overheating? One response is the Fed could raise rates by enough to slow growth. If the dollar falls while this is happening, so be it. The Fed can always hike rates more quickly in order to ensure that the contractionary effect of higher interest rates more than offsets the stimulative effect of a weaker dollar. The problem with this answer is that the dollar is only likely to weaken if other central banks are tightening monetary policy as much or more than the Fed. Chart 4 shows that the dollar has generally moved in line with interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners. Chart 4Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials There is little scope for rate expectations to narrow at the short end of the yield curve if U.S. growth remains above trend for the remainder of the year, as we expect will be the case. This is simply because most other major central banks are in no hurry to raise rates. The ECB has effectively pledged not to raise rates until at least the middle of next year. The U.K. remains mired in a post-Brexit slump. The BoJ is nowhere close to meeting its 2% inflation target (20-year CPI swaps are still trading at 0.6%). There is some room for rate expectations to converge further along the yield curve. However, for that to happen, investors must come to believe that the gap in the neutral rate of interest between the U.S. and its trading partners will shrink. It is far from obvious that they will do so. The Neutral Rate Is Higher In The U.S. Than The Euro Area Consider a comparison between the U.S. and the euro area. A reasonable proxy for the market's view of the neutral rate is the expected overnight rate ten years ahead, which can be calculated using eurodollar and euribor futures. The spread currently stands at about 100 basis points in favor of the U.S., down from 150 basis points at the start of 2017. Taking into account the fact that market-based inflation expectations are somewhat lower in the euro area, the spread in real terms is close to 50 basis points. That is not a lot, considering all the reasons to suppose that the neutral rate is higher in the U.S.: U.S. fiscal policy is a lot more stimulative. The IMF expects the U.S. fiscal impulse, which measures the change in the structural budget deficit, to reach 0.8% of GDP in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019. The fiscal impulse in the euro area and most other economies is likely to be much smaller (Chart 5). While the U.S. fiscal impulse will fall back to zero in 2020-21 barring a fresh wave of tax cuts or spending increases, the difference in the structural fiscal balance between the U.S. and the euro area will still widen to a record high of 6% of GDP by then (Chart 6). It is this difference that determines the gap in neutral rates.3 The U.S. will feel decreasing private-sector deleveraging headwinds in the years ahead. Euro area private-sector debt, measured as a share of GDP, is above U.S. levels and still close to all-time highs. In contrast, U.S. private-sector debt is down by 18% of GDP from its 2008 peak (Chart 7). The demographic divide between the U.S. and the euro area will widen. A rising labor participation rate allowed the euro area's labor force to grow at virtually the same pace as the U.S. between 2000 and 2015 (Chart 8). However, now that the euro area participation rate is above the U.S., the scope for further structural gains in participation in the euro area are limited. Over the past two years, labor force growth in the euro area has fallen behind the United States. If this trend continues and labor force growth in the two regions converges to the underlying rate of growth in the working-age population, it could reduce euro area GDP growth by over 0.5 percentage points relative to U.S. growth. Slower GDP growth typically implies a lower neutral rate. Chart 5U.S. Fiscal Policy##br## Is More Stimulative Chart 6U.S. And Euro Area: Gap In Fiscal##br## Balances Will Hit Record Highs Chart 7Deleveraging Headwinds Will Be##br## Stronger In The Euro Area Than The U.S. Chart 8Slowing Euro Area Labor Force ##br##Participation Will Weigh On Growth When Things Go Sour If other major central banks find themselves hard-pressed to raise rates anywhere close to U.S. levels, how about the opposite case: The one where an adverse shock forces the Fed to cut rates towards overseas levels? Since interest rates in many other economies remain at rock-bottom levels, there is little scope for their central banks to cut rates even if they wanted to. In contrast, the Fed is no longer constrained by the zero bound, which gives it greater leeway to ease monetary policy. While such a scenario cannot be easily ruled out, it is mitigated by the fact that frothy asset markets in the U.S. have not produced large imbalances in the real economy. This stands in sharp contrast to the last two recessions. The Great Recession was exacerbated by a massive overhang of empty homes. The 2001 recession was aggravated by a huge overhang of capital equipment left in the wake of the dotcom bust. The surging dollar and increased Chinese competition also laid waste to a large part of the U.S. manufacturing base, necessitating a period of painful adjustment. Today, both the housing and manufacturing sectors are in reasonably good shape. This suggests that rates can rise further before growth stalls out. And even if the U.S. economy begins to flounder, it is not clear that this would lead to a weaker dollar. Remember that the U.S. mortgage market was the focal point of the Global Financial Crisis, and yet the dollar still strengthened by over 20% between July 2008 and March 2009. A recent IMF study concluded that changes in U.S. financial conditions have an outsized effect on growth outside the United States.4 Weaker global growth is generally good for the dollar (Chart 9). The old adage "When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold" still rings true. If higher U.S. rates lead to a stronger dollar, this could put pressure on emerging markets. Similar to what transpired in the mid-to-late 1990s, a feedback loop could arise where rising EM stress causes the dollar to strengthen, leading to even more EM stress: A vicious circle for emerging markets, but a virtuous one for the greenback. Chart 10 shows that EM equities are almost perfectly inversely correlated with U.S. financial conditions. Chart 9Decelerating Global Growth Tends ##br## To Be Bullish For The Dollar Chart 10Tightening U.S. Financial Conditions Will Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Investment Conclusions The dollar is bouncing back. This week's FOMC statement caused the greenback to briefly sell off before it rallied back. We do not think the Fed's decision to include the word "symmetric" in describing its inflation target was as important as some observers believe. The Fed has stressed that it has a symmetric target for many years. If anything, the inclusion of the word could mean that the Fed now realizes that it is behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy and thus wants to prepare the market for the inevitable inflation overshoot. That could mean more rate hikes down the road, not fewer. As such, we expect the dollar to continue strengthening. Our Foreign Exchange Strategy team's intermediate-term timing model sees EUR/USD hitting 1.15 in the next three-to-six months (Chart 11). A plunge below this level is possible given that the dollar is one of the most momentum-driven currencies out there (Chart 12). Chart 11Euro Is Poised To Weaken Chart 12The Dollar Is A Momentum-Driven Currency Sterling should also edge lower against the dollar over the next few quarters. Our global fixed-income strategists remain bullish on gilts, reflecting their view that the market has been too hawkish about how many hikes the BoE can deliver over the next year. Over a longer-term horizon, the pound has upside against both the U.S. dollar and most other currencies. If a new Brexit referendum were held today, the "remain" side would probably win (Chart 13). Rules are made to be broken. It is the will of the people, rather than legal mumbo-jumbo, that ultimately matters. In the end, the U.K. will stay in the EU. The Japanese yen faces cyclical downside risks as global bond yields move higher, leaving JGBs in the dust. However, similar to sterling, the longer-term prospects for the yen are brighter. The currency is cheap and should benefit from Japan's large current account surplus and its status as a massive holder of overseas assets (Chart 14). Chart 13Bremorse Sets In Chart 14The Yen's Long-Term Outlook Is Bullish Emerging market currencies rallied between early 2016 and the beginning of this year, but have faltered lately (Chart 15). BCA's EM and geopolitical strategists expect the Chinese government to expedite structural reforms and take steps to slow credit growth and cool the bubbly housing market. We do not anticipate that this will lead to a proverbial hard landing, but it could put renewed pressure on commodity prices over the next few months. Metals are much more exposed to a China slowdown than oil (Chart 16). Correspondingly, we favor "oily" currencies such as the Canadian dollar over "metallic" currencies such as the Australian dollar. Chart 15EM Currencies Have Been ##br##Wobbling Of Late Chart 16Base Metals Are More Sensitive ##br##To Slower Chinese Growth As for risk assets in general, our model still points to near-term downside risks to global equities (Chart 17). However, we expect these risks to fade as global growth stabilizes at an above-trend pace. That should set the stage for a rally in developed market stocks into year-end. Chart 17MacroQuant* Model: Still Pointing To Moderate Downside Risks For Stocks Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Specifically, the New York Fed model says that a 10% depreciation in the dollar would be expected to raise the level of real GDP by 0.5% in the first year and by a further 0.2% in the second year, for a cumulative increase of 0.7%. A 7% decline in the dollar would thus translate into a 0.7*7 = 0.49% increase in GDP. Using former Fed chair Janet Yellen’s preferred specification of the Taylor rule equation, which assigns a coefficient of one on the output gap, a permanent 0.49% of GDP increase in net exports would have the same effect on aggregate demand as a permanent 49 basis-point decline in the fed funds rate. Assuming a constant term premium, this would also be equivalent to a 49 basis-point decline in long-term Treasury yields. 2 FAANG stands for Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. BAT stands for Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent. 3 Conceptually, changes in the budget deficit drive changes in aggregate demand, whereas the level of the budget deficit drives the level of aggregate demand. One can see this simply by noting that aggregate demand is equal to C+I+G+X-M. A one-off increase in G temporarily lifts the growth rate in demand, but permanently increases the level of demand. The neutral rate is determined by the level of demand and not the change in demand because the neutral rate, by definition, is the interest rate that equalizes the level of aggregate demand with aggregate supply. 4 Please see “Getting The Policy Mix Right,” IMF Global Financial Stability Report, (Chapter 3), (April 2017). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Feature A Conversation With Ms. Mea I met with some of our European clients over the past few weeks, and used the opportunity to connect with Ms. Mea, a long-standing client of BCA who visited us last fall.1 As always, Ms. Mea was keen to scrutinize our viewpoints, delve into intricacies of our analysis and understand the differences between our interpretations of the global macro landscape and the prevailing market consensus. I hope clients find our latest dialogue insightful. Ms. Mea: It seems your negative call on emerging markets (EM) is finally beginning to work out: EM share prices in both absolute terms and relative to developed markets (DM) have dropped to their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-1). It seems we are at a critical juncture: If share prices bottom at these levels, a major upleg is likely and, conversely, if they break below this technical support, considerable downside may be in the cards. What makes you think this is not a buying opportunity? Indeed, EM stocks are testing a critical technical level. I doubt this is a buying opportunity. It looks like EM corporate profit and revenue growth have peaked (Chart I-2, top and middle panels). The question is not if but how much downside there is. I believe the downside will be substantial because the forces that drove this recovery are in the process of reversing. Chart I-1EM Equities Are At Critical Juncture Chart I-2EM Profits Have Topped Out First, the Chinese credit and fiscal stimulus of early 2016 has been reversed, and our China credit and fiscal spending impulse projects considerable downside in EM non-financial corporate earnings growth (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Second, Asia's manufacturing cycle is downshifting (Chart I-3). Korea's export growth is flirting with contraction (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Even if U.S. final demand remains robust, U.S. imports could slow, hurting the rest of the world. Chart I-4 illustrates that America's imports have been growing faster than its final demand, implying re-stocking of imported goods. Typically, periods of re-stocking are followed by waves of de-stocking. During the latter periods, import growth decelerates. Chart I-3Asia: Trade Is Decelerating Chart I-4U.S.: Final Demand And Imports Third, investor sentiment remains quite bullish on EM and EM equity valuations are not cheap in both absolute and relative terms (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, credit spreads as well as local bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys are very narrow. Chart I-5EM Equities Are Not Cheap Last but not least, U.S. wage growth and core inflation are rising. This warrants rising U.S. interest rate expectations and a rally in the dollar. As EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM stocks and bonds will sell off too. In a nutshell, it appears that the December and January spike in EM share prices was the final blow-off phase of this cyclical bull market. It is typical for a major market move to culminate with a bang. It seems this was the case with EM share prices, currencies and local bonds in December and January. Interestingly, the fact that EM share prices have failed to break above their previous highs is a bad omen (Chart I-1 on page 1). If our negative outlook on China's industrial cycle, commodities prices and the bullish view on the U.S. dollar play out, the current selloff in EM risk assets will progress into another bear market similar to the 2014-'15 episode. Ms. Mea: There is a widely held belief in the investment community that we are in the late expansion phase of the global business cycle. Late cyclical equity sectors, especially commodities and industrials, typically outperform at this stage. If so, this warrants overweighting EM as high commodities prices are going to help EM equities outperform DM ones. This is contrary to your recommended strategy of underweighting EM versus DM. Where and why do you differ from the consensus view? When discussing cycles, it is important to specify which economy we are referencing. With respect to the U.S. economy, I agree that we may be in a late-cycle expansion phase, when growth is strong, and wages and inflation are rising. In fact, in my opinion, U.S. wages and core CPI are likely to surprise to the upside (Chart I-6). Based on America's current economic dynamics, it makes sense to be overweighting late cyclicals. That said, just because the U.S. is in the late phase of its own expansion cycle doesn't mean China is at the same stage too. China's business cycle varies greatly from that of the U.S. and Europe. In my opinion, China's industrial sector in general, and capital spending in particular, are re-commencing the downtrend that took place between 2012-'16, but was interrupted by the injection of massive credit and fiscal stimulus in early 2016. Chart I-7 portrays China's manufacturing cycle along with the performance of EM stocks relative to their DM peers, as well as commodities prices. A few observations are in order: Chart I-6U.S. Wages And Inflation To Rise Further Chart I-7Where Are EMs & Commodities In The Cycle? China's capital spending and most of its industrial sectors were in their late cycle expansion phase in 2009-2011. The post-Lehman monetary and fiscal stimulus produced an unprecedented boom in investment spending. Yet, it was unsustainable because it created a misallocation of capital, enormous amounts of debt and asset bubbles. During this period, EM outperformed DM by a large margin, and global late cyclicals - such as materials, energy and industrials - outperformed the global equity benchmark. From 2012 to early 2016, there was a major downtrend in China's capital spending. Demand for capital goods/machinery and commodities downshifted and in some cases contracted (Chart I-8). After the new round of stimulus in early 2016, the Chinese economy recovered. However, the impact of this stimulus has now waned, and policymakers have been tightening policy since early 2017. Consequently, the downtrend in the mainland's industrial sector appears to be re-commencing and will likely deepen. In short, I view the rally in EM and commodities over the past two years as a mid-cycle hiatus in the bear market that began in 2011. Odds are that EM and commodities will sell off even if DM demand holds up. Chart I-9 denotes that global machinery and chemical stocks have already been underperforming the global equity benchmark. Energy stocks are still being supported by the rally in oil prices, but in my opinion it is a matter of time before oil prices roll over (we discuss our oil outlook below). However, given energy stocks have done so poorly relative to other sectors amid rising crude prices, they may not underperform, even if oil prices relapse. Chart I-8China: Construction Industry Profile Chart I-9Global Late Cyclicals Have Underperformed In 2010, I made the call that EM share prices, currencies and commodities had peaked for the decade. At the same time, I argued that technology, health care, and the equity markets with large weights in these sectors, namely the U.S., would deliver strong returns. This roadmap by and large remains pertinent. Chart I-10China Accounts For 50% Of ##br##Global Metals Demand Typically, winners of the previous decade perform poorly during the entire following decade. EM and commodities were the superstars of the last decade. There are still two more years to go in this decade. Consistent with this roadmap, we expect EM risk assets and commodities to relapse anew in the next 12-18 months. While the last two years were very painful not to chase the EM and commodities rallies, odds are that this has been a mid-cycle hiatus in a decade-long downtrend. Ms. Mea: Don't you think strong growth in DM will drive commodities prices higher, despite weakness in China? Are you bearish on oil because of China's demand too? I am optimistic about domestic demand in the U.S. and Europe. Yet, commodities prices, especially industrial commodities, are driven by China, not the U.S., EU or India. China consumes at least 50% of industrial and base metals (Chart I-10). Consistent with our view of a downtrend in China's capital spending in general, and construction in particular, we remain downbeat on industrial metals prices. Regarding oil prices, China's share in global oil demand is much smaller than it is for metals - the country consumes 14% of the world's petroleum products. Further, we are not negative on Chinese household demand for gasoline, but we are negative on mainland diesel demand. The latter fluctuates with industrial activity, as Chart I-11 illustrates. Importantly, oil prices will likely go down even if China's oil consumption growth remains robust. The basis is as follows: Investors' net long positions in oil are at record high levels (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China's Diesel Demand Chart I-12Investors Are Record Long Oil Traders have been buying oil because of rollover yield. Since the oil market is in backwardation, investors have been capturing rollover yield when they roll over contracts. Oil has been a carry trade over the past year as expectations of tight supply and a weaker U.S. dollar have spurred record numbers of investors to go long oil. As the U.S. dollar strengthens and China's growth slows, these traders will likely head for the exits with respect to their long oil positions. China has been importing more oil than it consumes since 2014. Our hunch is it has been accumulating strategic oil reserves. With oil prices spiking to $70, the pace of accumulation of strategic oil reserves may slow, and prices could retreat. China traditionally purchases commodities on dips. Finally, oil typically shoots up in the late stages of the business cycle. Chart I-13 illustrates that oil prices lag or at best are coincident with the global industrial cycle. In fact, often these spikes in oil prices - like the current one - occur due to supply constraints in the late stages of the business cycle. Nevertheless, they often mark the top. Chart I-13Oil Is Often Late To Peak In brief, while the case for oil is different than for industrial metals, risks to crude prices are tilted to the downside over the next six-to-nine months or so.2 Ms. Mea: One of the key drivers of your view on global markets has been a strong U.S. dollar. Why do you think the recent rebound in the dollar has staying power, and how far will it rally? Odds are that the U.S. dollar has made a major bottom and has entered a cyclical bull market. While we are not sure whether the greenback will surpass its early 2016 highs, it will at least re-test those levels on many crosses, especially versus EM and commodities currencies. The euro and other European currencies will likely not drop to their early 2016 lows, and as a result, EM currencies stand to depreciate considerably versus both the U.S. dollar and the euro. This will undermine the dollar- and euro-based investors' returns in EM equities and local currency bonds, and lead to an exodus of foreign funds. Contrary to market consensus thinking, the EM local interest rate differential over DM does not drive EM exchange rates. In fact, there is an inverse relationship between local interest rate spreads over U.S. rates and their currencies (Chart I-14). It is the exchange rate that drives local rates in EM. Currency depreciation pushes interest rates up, and exchange rate appreciation leads to lower interest rates. Many EM currencies correlate with commodities prices and global trade. The latter two will likely weigh on EM exchange rates in the next six to nine months. What's more, EM are much more leveraged to China than to DM. Both EM currencies as well as EM's relative equity performance versus DM mirror marginal shifts between Chinese and DM imports - the latter is a proxy for their domestic demand (Chart I-15). Chart I-14EM Currencies And Yields Differential Over U.S. Chart I-15EM Is Much More Sensitive To China Than DM As China's growth slumps, EM will likely catch pneumonia, while DM gets away with just a cold. This entails that EM currencies will come under downward pressure against both the U.S. dollar and the euro. Finally, provided EM ex-China has accumulated a lot of U.S. dollar debt, their currency depreciation will elevate debt stress. While we do not expect this to result in massive defaults, the ability of debtor companies with foreign currency liabilities to invest and expand will be curtailed. This is a negative for growth. EM debtors with dollar debt are much more vulnerable to an appreciating dollar than rising U.S. interest rates. From the perspective of their debt servicing costs alone, 10% dollar appreciation is much more painful than a 100 basis point rise in U.S. dollar rates. Hence, regardless of whether the greenback's rally occurs amid rising or falling U.S. bond yields, it will impose meaningful pain on EM debtors. In this context, EM sovereign and corporate spreads are too tight and will likely widen if and as EM currencies and commodities prices decline. Ms. Mea: In last week's statement, China's Politburo omitted the word "deleveraging" and the People's Bank of China cut the Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR). Notably, onshore bond yields have dropped a lot. Does this not mean that stimulus is in the pipeline and the point of maximum stress for EM and commodities is now behind us? I doubt it. First, China's official media outlet, Caixin,3 explicitly stated that the Politburo statement does not mean either new stimulus or that the policy of battling financial excesses has been abandoned. Second, the RRR cut has led to only small net liquidity injections in the banking system. Its primary goal was to reduce interest rate costs for banks. Are falling bond yields in China a bullish or bearish signal for China-related risk assets? It is not clear. In 2017, interest rates rose considerably, yet China/EM risk assets completely ignored it. I was puzzled by this. Meanwhile, the recent drop in bond yields has coincided with falling EM share prices (Chart I-16). Third, the budget plan for 2018 does not entail major fiscal stimulus. Table I-1 denotes aggregate fiscal and quasi-fiscal spending will rise by 8% in 2018 compared to an actual rise of 8.6% in 2017 and 8.1% in 2016. All numbers are for nominal growth. Table I-1China: Fiscal And Quasi-Fiscal Spending (Annual Nominal Growth Rates) The government can always change its budgetary plans and boost fiscal spending beyond what is initially planned. This was the case in 2016. However, without material deterioration in growth, it is unlikely. The authorities undertook the 2015-2016 stimulus because of extremely weak growth and plunging global financial markets. Fourth, some commentators have noted that land sales have been strong, entailing more local government revenues and hence more infrastructure investment. Yet Chart I-17 portrays that the broad money impulse leads land sales. If their past relationship holds, land sales will decrease in the next 12 months. Chart I-16China's Bond Yields And EM Stocks Chart I-17China: Land Sales Are To Slump Finally, the regulatory clampdown on banks and shadow banking is ongoing. This along with the anti-corruption campaign in the financial industry could have a larger impact on credit origination than a marginal drop in interest rates or marginal liquidity provision. On the whole, if the authorities, again, open the credit and fiscal spigots wide, they will relinquish their pledge of structural reforms, a reduction of financial excesses and containing rising leverage. This would entail policymakers opting for a short-term gain in sacrifice of the country's long-term economic outlook. Growth financed by banks originating money out of thin air will ultimately (in the years ahead) lead to lower productivity and higher inflation - i.e., stagflation. I believe Beijing understands this and will not open the credit and fiscal taps too fast or too wide. In brief, China-related risk assets will likely sell off a lot before the next round of stimulus arrives. Ms. Mea: What about Chinese consumer spending and the outlook for technology companies that have become dominant in the EM equity index? Does your negative outlook for investment spending entail a downtrend in household spending? I have been bearish on China's industrial cycle and capex, but not on consumer spending. In fact, household expenditure growth is booming and is unlikely to slow a lot, even amid a downtrend in the construction sector. However, there are a number of reasons to expect a moderation of the current torrid pace of household spending: Capital spending accounts for 42% of GDP, and as it slumps, job creation and income gains will slow. If banks originate less credit, there will be less investment, and income growth will likely be affected. Contrary to widely held beliefs, Chinese households have become a bit leveraged - the ratio of household debt to disposable income is slightly higher in China than in the U.S. (Chart I-18). Further, borrowing costs in China are above those in the U.S. This entails that debt servicing costs as a share of disposable income are higher for households in China than in the U.S. Chart I-18Household Leverage: China And U.S. Not surprisingly, the authorities are clamping down on banks and shadow banking lending to households. It seems that policymakers in China worry much more about credit and leverage excesses than global investors. We published an in-depth Special Report on China's real estate market on April 6 where we argued that excesses remain large and a period of property price deflation cannot be ruled out.4 This means that property wealth effects could turn from a tailwind to a headwind for households for a period of time. All that said, I am not bearish on household spending, apart from real estate purchases. What does this entail for mega-cap companies' share prices, like Tencent and Alibaba? For sure, technology will continue to gain importance in China, like elsewhere. However, given these stocks have seen significant share price inflation and trade at high multiples, buying these stocks at current levels may not be a good investment. Valuations and business models as well as regulatory risks are key in the current circumstances. We, like all macro strategists, can add little value on how to value internet/social media companies and assess their business models. From a big-picture perspective, Chart I-19 demonstrates that Tencent's and Amazon's share prices have gone up 12- and10-fold, respectively, in real U.S. dollar terms since January 2010, as much as the run-up that occurred during previous bubbles. Chart I-19Each Decade Had A Mania With respect to performance of other heavyweights like TSMC and Samsung, the electronics cycle - like overall trade in Asia - has topped out, as evidenced by relapsing semiconductor prices (Chart I-20). Chart I-20Semiconductor Prices Have Rolled Over This is a very cyclical sector, and a further slowdown is to be expected following the growth outburst of the past 18 months. This may be enough to cause a meaningful correction in technology hardware and semi stocks. Ms. Mea: Finally, translating these themes into market strategy, what are your strongest conviction recommendations? Investment and asset allocation strategy should favor DM over EM in equity, currency and credit spaces. This strategy will likely pay off in both risk-on and risk-off environments. Our overweights within the EM equity universe are Mexico, Taiwan, Korea, India, Thailand and central Europe. In the meantime, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and Malaysia are our strong-conviction underweights. In terms of sector trades, I would emphasize our long-standing short EM banks / long U.S. banks position. Finally, it seems EM currencies are breaking down versus the U.S. dollar. There is much more downside, and traders and investors should capitalize on this trend by being short a basket of EM currencies like the BRL, the ZAR, the CLP, the MYR and the IDR versus the dollar. For fixed-income investors, depreciating EM currencies are a major headwind for both local currency and U.S. dollar bonds, and we recommend defensive positioning. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Special Report "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available on emsbcaresearch.com 2 This differs from BCA's house view which is bullish on oil prices. 3 "Caixin View: Politburo Comments on Expanding Domestic Demand Don't Signal Stimulus," Caixin Global, April 2017. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Special Report "China Real Estate: A New-Bursting Bubble?," dated April 6, 2018, the link available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Feature Chart of the WeekAg Vol Will Rise Over the coming three months markets will be zeroing in on spring planting in the U.S., looking for deviations from the USDA's March intentions report. This will occur against the cyclical backdrop of increased volatility, as markets attempt to price the real impact of Chinese tariffs (Chart of the Week). Putting aside fundamentals, U.S. financial conditions will be a headwind to ag prices this year. Longer term, despite the more favorable USD outlook, a slowdown in China, which accounts for ~ 20% of global food demand, could be bearish for ag prices. Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. crude oil output rose to a record 10.3mm b/d in February according to the U.S. EIA. U.S. crude production exceeded Saudi Arabia's in 1Q18; we expect it to exceed Russia's output of 11.2mm b/d by December, 2018. Base Metals: Neutral. Permanent waivers on steel and aluminum tariffs were granted to Australian, Argentine, and Brazilian imports by U.S. firms, while exemptions on imports from the EU, Canada and Mexico were extended to June 1. Precious Metals: Neutral. USD strength is weighing on gold and silver: Our long positions on both metals are down 3.0% and 6.2%, respectively, over the past two weeks. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Ag market volatility will increase, as markets assess U.S. spring planting progress against a backdrop of a possible trade war in ags between the U.S. and China (see below). Feature All Eyes On U.S. Planting Progress It is a busy time of year for U.S. farmers as spring planting is underway. Based on the USDA's annual Prospective Planting Report, released end-March, corn and soybean plantings will fall 2% y/y and 1% y/y, respectively. If realized, corn planted area in the 2018/19 crop year will be the lowest since 2015, and, for only the second time in the history of the series, will fall behind soybean acreage (Chart 2). The USDA's survey also indicates U.S. corn and soybeans will lose ground to wheat, where farmers intend to expand acreage by 3%. Even so, wheat planting intentions are the second lowest on record since the beginning of the series in 1919, surpassed only by last year's all-time low. Mother Nature is not co-operating either: unseasonably cold and wet weather is hindering planting this spring (Table 1). Planting of corn and spring wheat are significantly behind average for this time of the year. Similarly, heading of winter wheat - which accounts for ~ 70% of total wheat intentions - is also behind schedule. Furthermore, harsh winter weather reduced the condition of almost 40% of the crop to poor or very poor, with only 33% qualifying as good or excellent, compared to last year's assessment of 13% and 54%, respectively. Chart 2U.S. Soybean Acreage To Surpass Corn In 2018/19 Table 1U.S. Farmers Are Behind Schedule Weather-related delays are less of a risk for soybean plantings, which begin and end later in the summer. Progress is currently in line with historical averages, and, since farmers have an additional month of planting compared to corn and wheat, it is possible they will opt to switch their unplanted corn and wheat acreage to beans. This is a downside risk to the soybean market: When all is said and done, June soybean acreage may exceed targets indicated in the USDA's March intentions report. Although farmers' current lack of headway on the fields is cause for concern, it is still possible that farmers will be able to catch up, attaining their targeted acreage. A Backdrop Of Falling Inventories The termination of China's corn stockpiling scheme, which, prior to 2016 led to the rapid buildup of domestic inventories, was accompanied by policies designed to incentivize soybean plantings over corn. In the case of corn, these policies have paid off. By the end of the current crop year we expect the drawdown in Chinese inventories - along with U.S. stockpiles - to drag world corn reserves lower for the first time since 2010/11 (Chart 3).1 China's pro-soybean production policy is expected to yield a 1.1% expansion in the oilseed's planting area, leading to a 12.8% increase in output this crop year. Regardless, domestic inventories expressed in stocks-to-use (STU) terms are projected to fall (Chart 4). Similarly, world soybean reserves will contract on the back of a decline in Argentine output, which will lead to the largest - and one of only three on record - soybean deficits in the domestic market. In the case of wheat, although U.S. output is forecast to come down this year, weighing on domestic inventories, global markets remain well supplied (Chart 5). In fact, even though USDA's monthly revisions to U.S. production have been downward, forecasts of total use also were revised down. This means the net impact on the balance will be a wider-than-expected surplus. In the case of global markets, world wheat STU ratio will increase to levels last seen in 1986. Net, despite unfavorable weather weighing on the quality and quantity of U.S. wheat crops, there is no shortage of wheat in the world, unlike corn and soybeans. Chart 3Corn Deficit Eating##BR##Away At Stockpiles Chart 4China STU Falls Despite##BR##Pro-Soybean Policies Chart 5Global Wheat Markets Well Supplied##BR##Amid U.S. Supply Concerns Bottom Line: Given the slower-than-average planting progress this year, near term prices will likely reflect developments in the U.S., as farmers rush to get the crops in the ground. While winter wheat appears to be of poor quality this year, corn and spring wheat plantings are significantly behind schedule. This raises the risk that their acreages will be abandoned in favor of soybeans, which has a later planting window. All in all, if the June acreage report aligns with farmers' planting intentions, we expect to see an increase in wheat acreage at the expense of corn and soybean, which will provide some supply relief to domestic wheat markets. U.S. Farmers Less Competitive, Especially In Soybean Markets In theory, China's announced plans to levy duties on U.S. ag imports puts U.S. farmers - part of President Trump's base - at a disadvantage. But, reality may not be as bearish. The outcome hinges on whether the U.S. will be able to ramp up its exports to other markets amid declining imports from the top bean consumer. Given the impact of weather on soybean output in Argentina - where drought cut soybean output by 30% y/y - there will be a void in global supply. Since soybeans are fungible, we expect ex-China demand to remain supported on the back of limited global supply. This will provide an opportunity for the U.S. to export its surplus, at least in this crop year. To date, there appears to be some evidence of this. Domestic supply will be insufficient to cover Argentinian consumption this year (Chart 6). In an unusual move, USDA export sales data shows Argentina booked a 240k MT purchase of U.S. soybeans for delivery in the next marketing year. Argentina traditionally is a net exporter of soybeans. While we expect tariffs to reshuffle trade flows as China attempts to ensure supplies while avoiding U.S. soybeans, the net effect in terms of global demand for U.S. soybeans may not be as bearish as is feared. China simply does not have the domestic supply to satisfy its demands for beans. While opting for Brazilian or Argentinian beans may be way around importing U.S. supplies, this will open up other export opportunities for the U.S. variety, leading to a simple restructuring of trade flows.2 Recent declines in Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans amid growing imports from Brazil have been cited as evidence of a gloomy future for U.S. soybean farmers. However, this phenomenon is part of the Chinese import cycle: Brazilian soybeans flood Chinese markets in the second and third quarters, while American supplies flow in during the last and first quarters of any given year (Chart 7). Furthermore, U.S. soybean imports have been on the downtrend since the middle of last year. Thus, this observation alone does not signal a change in trend. Chart 6Weak Argentine Output##BR##Restrict Global Supplies Chart 7Chinese Preference For Brazilian Beans##BR##Typical For This Time Of Year In fact, the premium paid for Brazilian beans over those traded in Chicago spiked earlier last month. Although it has since come down slightly, it suggests Chinese consumers will have to bear the brunt of more expensive imports. Furthermore, this makes U.S. beans relatively cheaper - and more attractive - in the global market. All the same, higher costs may entice Chinese consumers to look at adjusting the feed formula by diversifying the source of feed. Although our baseline scenario is that these tariffs will remain in place, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lightizer's trip to Beijing may be the opening salvo to less hostile trade developments. If this is the case, we would expect these trade-related risks to ease. Bottom Line: Tariffs on U.S. soybean imports to China are, in theory, bearish for U.S. markets. However, China's reliance on these beans, along with a tight market this year, makes the outlook less gloomy. Courses of action that may be pursued by China are (1) diversifying the source of the bean, (2) reducing demand for the bean by adjusting feed formula, and (3) continuing to raise domestic soybean acreage. Given the cyclical nature of China's soybean imports, we are entering a period of naturally low demand for U.S. soybeans. Thus, we will not likely see the real impact of current trade disputes until China's demand for American beans kicks in again in 4Q18. In the meantime, a global deficit will open up alternative opportunities for U.S. exports. U.S. And Foreign Financial Conditions Drive Long Run Outlook As weather and the on-going trade tensions between the U.S. and China evolve, the U.S. financial backdrop - particularly real interest rates and the broad USD trade-weighted index (TWIB) - will remain crucial to ag markets. In line with BCA Research's House View, we expect Fed rate hikes to exceed those of other central banks, providing support to a stronger USD over the next 12 months. This will weigh on ag prices.3 Chinese economic growth also could figure prominently, based on recent research from the CME Group, which operates the world's benchmark grain futures markets.4 The relationship between China's unofficial economic gauge - the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) - and ag prices appear to operate through the currency channel. A weaker Chinese economy - reflected in the LKI - suppresses industrial commodity demand, which ends up weighing on the currencies of major commodity exporters. This means the local costs of production for these exporters fall, which, with a 1- to 2-year lag, incentivizes crop plantings in these regions. The increased supply at the margin is bearish for ag prices, all else equal. Given the current environment of a slowing Chinese economy, this relationship is relevant to the longer-term outlook. The significance of the LKI in our grains models provides some evidence of this relationship (Chart 8). When applying the analysis to Brazilian and Russian ag markets, we find the LKI to be positively correlated with the Brazilian Real and the Russian Ruble. This, in turn, explains the inverse correlation we find between the LKI and future ag production in these two markets (Chart 9). A weaker domestic currency does appear to entice farmers to increase plantings of ag commodities, allowing them to take advantage of greater local currency profits from USD-denominated ag exports. Chart 8China Slowdown May Weigh Down On Ags... Chart 9...By Incentivizing Production Bottom Line: This preliminary analysis uncovers a supply side channel through which China may impact global ag supplies. It implies that a slowing Chinese economy may in effect spur greater global ag supplies, eventually weighing down on ag prices. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Despite the increase in domestic supply amid greater offerings of state reserves, much of the state corn stocks are reportedly in poor condition, only suitable as a source for ethanol production - cited as the justification for upward revisions to corn consumption this year. As such, imports will likely remain indispensable. Overall it appears that China intends to raise its industrial consumption of corn in order to digest its stockpiles, with limited impact on prices. Late last year, China announced its target of nationwide use of bioethanol gasoline by 2020. It estimates that corn stockpiles are sufficient to meet near term demand for the grain used as the ingredient in E10, and hopes to achieve a physical corn market balance within five years. 2 Please see the Ags/Softs back section titled "Can China Retaliate With Agriculture," in BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 For a more detailed discussion of the impact of U.S. financial variables on ag markets, please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Global Financial Conditions Will Drive Grain Prices In 2018," dated November 30, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Will A Sino-U.S. Trade War Impact Grain, Meat Markets?" dated March 28, 2018, available at cmegroup.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Our constraints-based methodology does not rely on human intelligence or the "rumor mill" to analyze political risks; Yet insights from our travels across the U.S., including inside the Beltway, offer interesting background information and a sense of the general pulse; Anecdotal information suggests that Trump is not "normalizing" in office; that U.S.-China relations will get worse before they get better; and that Trump will walk away from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Stick to our current trades: energy over industrial metals; South Korean bull steepener; long DXY; long DM equities versus EM; long JPY/EUR; short Chinese tech stocks and U.S. S&P500 China-exposed stocks. Feature With the third inter-Korean summit demonstrating our view that "diplomacy is on track,"1 we remind investors of the key geopolitical risks we have been emphasizing - souring U.S.-China relations and rising geopolitical risks over Iran's role in the Middle East.2 We at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy do not base our analysis on information from human "intelligence" sources. No private enterprise can obtain the volume of intelligence that would make the sample statistically significant. Private political analysts relying on such intelligence are at best using flawed reasoning devoid of an analytical framework, and at worst are hucksters. Government intelligence agencies obviously collect a wide swath of not only human but also electronic and signals intelligence. Their sample can be statistically significant. However, the cost of such an effort is prohibitive to the private sector. Nonetheless, we may use human intelligence for background information, insight into how to improve our framework, and to take the subjective pulse of any particular situation. The latter is sometimes the most useful. It is not what a policymaker says that matters so much as how they say it, or the fact that they mention the subject at all. Given that we live in an era of political paradigm shifts, and that "charismatic leadership" is rising in influence relative to more predictable, established institutions and systems,3 we have decided to do something we have not done in the past: share some insights from our recent trips to Washington, DC and elsewhere in the U.S. Caveat emptor: the rumor mill is often wildly misleading, which is why we do not base our research on it. Exhibit A: Donald Trump's tax cuts, which our constraints-based methodology enabled us to predict in spite of the prognostications of in-the-know people throughout the year.4 Trump Is Not Normalizing U.S. domestic politics is the top concern of investors, policymakers, and policy wonks almost everywhere we go. It routinely ranks above concerns about Russia, China, the Middle East, or emerging markets (EM). We frequently heard that the U.S. is entering a period of political turmoil worse than anything since President Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Some old Washington hands even claim that the Trump era will cause even greater uncertainty than the Nixon era did because Congress is allegedly less willing to keep the president in check. Economic policy uncertainty, based on newspaper word count, is at least comparable today to the tumultuous 1973-74 period, which culminated with Nixon's resignation in August 1974, and is trending upward (Chart 1). Chart 1Trump Uncertainty Approaching Nixon Levels? Of course, there is a big difference between Trump's and Nixon's context: today the economy is not going through a recession but rip-roaring ahead, charged with Trump's tax cuts and a bipartisan spending splurge. And the nation is not in the midst of a large-scale and deeply divisive war (not yet, anyway). There is little chance of major new legislation this year, yet deregulation, particularly financial deregulation, will continue to pad corporate earnings and grease the wheels of the economy. The booming economy is lifting Trump's approval ratings, which are trying to converge to the average of previous presidents at this stage in their terms (Chart 2). This development poses the single biggest risk to the unanimous opinion in DC that Republicans face a "Blue Wave" (Democratic Party sweep) in the midterm elections on November 6. However, a key support of the "Blue Wave" theory is that Republicans are split among themselves - and no one in the Washington swamp will deny it. Pro-business, establishment Republicans have never trusted Trump. They are retiring in droves rather than face up to either populist challengers in the Republican primary elections this summer or enthusiastic "anti-Trump" Democrats and independents in the general election (Chart 3).5 Chart 2Is Trump's Stimulus Bump Over? Chart 3GOP Retirements Are Unprecedented Trump is expected to ignite a constitutional crisis by firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the man leading the investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia. Republicans are widely against firing Mueller, but they are not united in legislating against it, leaving Trump unconstrained. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) says he will not allow consideration on the Senate floor of a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that would protect Mueller from firing.6 If Trump fires Mueller, Democrats expect a political earthquake. Some think that mass protests, and mass counter-protests encouraged by Trump himself, will culminate in violence. (We would expect protests to be mostly limited to activists, but obviously violent incidents are probable at mass rallies with opposing sides.) The Democrats are widely expected to take the House of Representatives; most observers are on the fence about the Senate. The House is enough to impeach Trump, which is widely expected to occur, by hook or by crook. But the impact on the country's political polarization will be much worse if there is impeachment without "smoking gun" evidence against Trump's person. Nixon, recall, refused to hand over evidence (the Watergate tapes) under a court order. When he handed some tapes over, they emitted a suspicious buzzing sound at critical points in the recording. Public opinion turned against him, prompting his party to abandon ship. He resigned because the loss of party support made him unlikely to survive impeachment. By contrast, there is not yet any comparable missing or doctored evidence in Trump's case, nor any sinkhole in Republican opinion that would presage a 67-vote conviction in the Senate (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Not Yet In Nixon's Shoes Still, clouds are on the horizon. When people raise concerns about geopolitical issues - the U.S.-Russia confrontation, or the potential for a trade war with China - their starting point is uncertainty about President Donald Trump and his administration's policies. The United States is seen as the chief source of political risk in the world. Bottom Line: People in the Beltway who were once willing to believe that Trump would learn on the job and become "normalized" in office now seem to be shifting to the view that he is truly an unorthodox, and potentially reckless, president. The New (Aggressive) Consensus On China China is in the air like never before in D.C. In policy circles, the striking thing is the near unanimity of the disenchantment with China. Republicans are angry with China over trade and national security. Democrats are not to be outdone, having long been angry with China over trade, and also labor issues and human rights violations. It seems that everyone in the government and bureaucracy, liberal or conservative, is either demanding a tougher policy on China or resigned to its inevitability. American officials flatly reject the view that the Trump administration is instigating a conflict with China that destabilizes the world economy. Rather they insist that China has already instigated the conflict and caused destabilizing global imbalances through its mercantilist policies. They firmly believe that the U.S. can and should disrupt the status quo in order to change China's behavior, but that no one wants a trade war. They believe that the U.S. can be aggressive without causing things to spiral out of control. This could be a problem, as we detect a similar hardening of sentiment in China. On our travels there, the attitude was one of defiance toward Trump and Washington. We have received assurances that Beijing will not simply fold, no matter how much pain is incurred from trade measures. Of course, it is in China's interest to bluster in order to deter the U.S. from tariffs. But Chinese policymakers may be ready to sustain greater damage than Washington or the investment community expects. Tech companies are particularly out of the loop with Washington. They are said to have been unprepared for the president's actions upon receiving the Section 301 investigation results. They may also be underestimating the product list that the U.S. Trade Representative has drawn up pursuant to Section 301.7 Even products on that list that are not imported directly from China could have their trade disrupted. While China is demanding that the U.S. ease restrictions on high-tech exports, to reduce the trade imbalance (Chart 5), the U.S. believes that export controls allow for plenty of waivers and exceptions. They do not see export controls as a major risk. Chart 5U.S. Deficit Due To Security Concerns Rather, they see rising U.S. restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. as the real risk. The U.S. wants reciprocity in investment as well as trade. The emphasis lies on fair and equal access, which will require massive compromises from China, given its practice of walling off "strategic" sectors (including aviation, energy, electricity, shipping, and communications) from foreign interests. China's recent pledges to allow foreigners majority stakes in financial companies may not be enough to pacify the U.S. negotiators, especially if the promises hinge on long-term implementation. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin will cause a stir when he releases his guidelines for investment restrictions, as expected by May 21 under the president's declaration on the Section 301 probe (Table 1).8 Both the House of Representatives and Senate are expected, within a couple of months, to pass the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R, TX) and Representative Robert Pittenger (R, NC). This bill would grant greater powers to the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in conducting investigations into foreign investment deals with national security ramifications. Under the new law CFIUS will be able to review proposed investment deals on grounds that go beyond a strict reading of national security. They will now include economic security, and potential sectoral impacts as well as individual corporate impacts, and previously neglected issues like intellectual property.9 Trump is unlikely to veto the bill, as previous presidents have done when laws cracking down on China have passed Congress, given his desire to shake up the China relationship. Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Will CFIUS enforcement truly intensify? Treasury's actions may preempt the bill, and CFIUS has already been subjecting China to greater scrutiny for years (Chart 6). Moreover, American presidents have always canceled investment deals if CFIUS advised against them.10 Presumably broadening CFIUS's powers will result in a wider range of deals struck down. The government already stopped Broadcom, a Singaporean company, from taking over the U.S. firm Qualcomm, in March, for reasons that have more to do with R&D and competitiveness (economic security) than with any military applications of its technologies (national security). Separately, U.S. policy elites are starting to turn their sights toward China's global propaganda and psychological operations. The scandal over the Communist Party's subversive institutional and political influence in Australia has heightened concerns in other Western, especially Anglo-Saxon, countries.11 This is a new trend that will have bigger implications going forward in Western civil society and the business community, with state efforts to create firewalls against Chinese state intrusion exacerbating political and trade tensions. Australians have the most favorable view of China in the West, and on the whole they continue to see China in a positive light. However, this view will likely sour this year. The recent attempt by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to pass legislation guarding against Communist Party interference in Australian politics has already led to a series of diplomatic incidents, including tensions over the South China Sea and Pacific Islands. These can get worse in the near future. Consistently, over 40% of Australians view China as "likely" to become a military threat over the next 20 years (Chart 7), and this number will worsen if attempts to safeguard democratic institutions from state-backed influence operations cause China to retaliate with punitive measures toward Australia. China is offering some concessions to counteract the new, aggressive consensus in Washington. Enforcing UN sanctions against North Korea was the big turn. But it is also allowing the RMB to appreciate against the USD (Chart 8), which is an issue close to Trump's heart. The change in temperature in Washington can be measured by the fact that these concessions seem to be taken for granted while the discussion moves onto other demands like trade and investment reciprocity. Chart 6U.S. To Restrict Chinese Investment Chart 7Australian Fears About China To Rise Chart 8Is This Enough To Stay Trump's Hand On Tariffs? Simultaneously, China is courting Europe. European policymakers say that they share U.S. concerns about China's trade practices but wish to resolve disputes through the World Trade Organization and reject unilateral American actions or aggressive punitive measures that could harm global stability. Meanwhile China hopes that American policy toward Iran and the Middle East will alienate the Europeans while distracting Washington from formulating a coherent pivot to Asia. Bottom Line: Investors are underestimating the potential for a full-blown trade war. Policymakers - in China as well as the U.S. - have greater appetite for confrontation. Iran: Reversing Obama's Legacy The financial news media continue to underrate the importance of geopolitical risk tied to Iran this year (Chart 9). Our sense is that the Trump administration, when in doubt, is still biased towards reversing Obama-era policy on any given issue. Iranian nuclear deal of 2015 appears to be no exception. Chart 9Iranian Geopolitical Risk About to Shoot Up Signs have emerged for months that Trump is likely to refuse to waive Iranian sanctions (Table 2) when the renewal comes due on May 12. He has fired his national security adviser and secretary of state, as well as lesser officials, in preference for Iran hawks.12 French President Emmanuel Macron, having tried to convince Trump to retain the deal on his recent state visit to Washington, is apparently convinced Trump will scrap it.13 Table 2U.S. Sanctions Have Global Reach Moreover, discussions of Iran mark the one exception to the hardening consensus on China. A number of people we spoke with were not convinced that the Trump administration will truly devote the main thrust of its foreign policy to countering China. Some believed U.S. voters did not have the stomach for a trade fight that would affect their pocketbooks. Others believed that the Trump administration would simply revert to a more traditional Republican foreign policy, accepting a "quick win" on China trade while pursuing a confrontational military posture in the Persian Gulf. Still others believed that Trump has unique reasons, such as political weakness at home and the desire to be respected abroad, for wanting to be in lock-step with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman against Iran. All agreed that while a shift to China makes strategic sense, it may not overrule Republican policy preferences or inertia. The stakes are high. Allowing sanctions to snap back into place would affect a substantial portion of the one million barrels per day of oil that Iran has brought onto global markets since sanctions were eased in January 2016 (Chart 10). Chart 10Re-Imposing Iranian Sanctions Threatens Oil Supply And Middle East Stability As BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy notes, global oil supply is tight and the critical driver - emerging market demand - remains strong. Meanwhile the "OPEC 2.0" cartel plans to extend production cuts throughout 2018 and likely into 2019, further draining global inventories. Inventories are now on track to fall beneath their 2010-14 average level by next year. In this context, the geopolitical risk premium will add to upside oil price risks this year. Our commodity strategists still expect oil prices to average $70-$74 per barrel this year (WTI and Brent respectively), but they can see it shooting above $80 per barrel on occasion, and warn that even small supply disruptions (whether from Iran, Venezuela, Libya, or elsewhere) could send prices even higher (Chart 11).14 Chart 11Oil Prices Can Make Runs Into /Barrel Range If the U.S. re-imposes sanctions on Iran, we doubt that the full one million barrels per day of post-sanctions Iranian production will be taken offline. Global compliance with sanctions will be ineffective this time around. The Trump administration's sanctions will not have the legitimacy or buy-in that the Obama administration's sanctions did. Trump may even intend to impose the sanctions for domestic political consumption while giving Europe, Japan, and others a free pass. Still, the geopolitical and production impact will be significant. As for oil, price overshoots are even more likely when one considers Venezuela, where our oil analysts estimate that state collapse will remove around 500,000 barrel per day from last year's average by the end of this year.15 Bottom Line: We continue to expect energy commodities to outperform metals in an environment where energy prices benefit from a rising geopolitical risk premium, while metals could suffer from ongoing risks to Chinese growth. Investment Conclusions Independently of the above anecdotes, Geopolitical Strategy has laid out a case urging clients to sell in May and go away.16 Last year we were confident recommending that clients forget this old adage because we had clarity on the geopolitical risks and their constraints. This year, with both China and Iran, we lack that clarity. The U.S.'s European allies could perhaps convince Trump to maintain the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement, and Trump could perhaps accept China's concessions (such as they are) to get a "quick win" on the trade front before the midterm elections. But we have no basis for assessing that he will do either with any degree of conviction. How long will it take to resolve the raft of outstanding U.S.-Iran and U.S.-China tensions? Our uncertainty here gives us a high conviction view that this summer will be turbulent. Geopolitical tensions will likely get worse before they get better. We would reiterate our recommendation that clients be long DXY and hold a "geopolitical protector portfolio" of Swiss bonds and gold. We remain long developed market equities relative to emerging markets and long JPY/EUR. We are also maintaining our shorts on Chinese tech stocks and U.S. stocks exposed to China. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Jordain Carney, "McConnell: Senate won't take up Mueller protection bill," April 17, 2018, available at thehill.com. 7 Please see U.S. Trade Representative, "Under Section 301 Action, USTR Releases Proposed Tariff List on Chinese Products," and "USTR Robert Lighthizer Statement on the President's Additional Section 301 Action," dated April 3 and April 5, 2018, available at ustr.gov. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Senator Jon Cornyn, "S.2098 - Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017," dated Nov. 8, 2017, available at www.congress.gov. For the argument behind the bill, see Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein, "FIRRMA Act will give Committee on Foreign Investment a needed update," The Hill, dated March 21, 2018, available at thehill.com. 10 Please see Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, "CFIUS In 2017: A Momentous Year," 2018, available at www.wsgr.com. 11 Australian Senator Sam Dastyari (Labor Party) resigned on December 11, 2017 after it was exposed that he accepted cash donations from a Chinese property developer that he used to repay his own debts. He had also supported China's position in the South China Sea. The scandal prompted revelations of a range of Chinese state-linked political donations. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has introduced legislation banning foreign political donations and forcing lobbyists for foreign countries to register. 12 Mike Pompeo replaced Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, John Bolton replaced H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser, and Chief of Staff John Kelly has been sidelined; Bolton has appointed Mira Ricardel as his deputy, who has been said to clash with Secretary of Defense James Mattis in trying to staff the Pentagon with Trump loyalists. Please see Niall Stanage, "The Memo: Nationalists gain upper hand in Trump's White House," The Hill, April 25, 2018, available at thehill.com. 13 Macron has presented a framework that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May have accepted that would call for improvements to outstanding issues with Iran while keeping the 2015 deal intact. Macron has also spoken with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani about retaining the deal while addressing the Trump administration's grievances. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," dated April 19, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see footnote 14, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Looking Beyond The Next Few Months The next couple of months could remain tricky for equity markets. But, with economic growth set to remain above trend for another year or so and central banks cautious about the pace of monetary tightening, we continue to expect risk assets to outperform over the 12-month horizon. To begin, our short-term concerns. Global growth has clearly slowed in recent months, with Q1 U.S. GDP growth coming in at 2.3%, well below the 2.9% in Q4; global PMIs have also come down from their recent peaks, led by the euro zone and Japan (Chart 1). Inflation has begun to spook investors, with a sharp pick-up in core U.S. inflation, including a rise to 1.9% YoY in the core PCE inflation measure that the Fed watches most closely (Chart 2). Geopolitics will dominate the headlines over the next six weeks, with the waiver on Iran sanctions expiring on May 12, the end of the 60-day consultation for U.S. tariffs on China on May 21, the possible imposition of tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods starting on June 4, and likely developments with North Korea and NAFTA. Recommended Allocation Chart 1Global Growth Has Slowed Chart 2...And Inflation Picked Up Investors inclined to make short-term tactical shifts might, therefore, want to reduce risk over the next one to three months. For most clients of the Global Asset Allocation service with a longer perspective, however, we continue to recommend an overweight on equities and other risk assets. In the U.S., in particular, fiscal stimulus will, according to IMF estimates, boost GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points this year and 0.9 percentage points next (Chart 3). U.S. corporate earnings should grow by almost 20% this year and around 12% next and, while this is already in analysts' forecasts, it is hard to imagine equity markets struggling against such a strong backdrop. Not one of the recession/bear market warning signals we are watching (inverted yield curve, rising credit spreads, Fed policy in restrictive territory, significant decline in PMIs, peak in cyclical spending) is yet flashing. Neither do we see any signs that higher interest rates or expensive energy prices are slowing growth. Lead indicators of capex have come off a little, but still point to robust growth (Chart 4). The housing market tends to be the most vulnerable to rising rates and the average rate on a 30-year U.S. fixed mortgage has risen to 4.5% (from 3.7% at the start of the year and a low of 3.3% in late 2016). But housing data still look strong, with a continued rise in house prices and mortgage applications steady (Chart 5). Perhaps the sector most vulnerable to rising U.S. rates in this cycle is emerging markets, where borrowers have grown foreign-currency debt to $3.2 trillion, according to the BIS - one reason for our longstanding caution on EM assets (Chart 6). With crude oil rising to $75 a barrel, U.S. retail gasoline prices now average $2.80 a gallon, up from below $2 in 2016, and transportation companies are complaining of rising costs. But, historically, oil prices have needed to rise by 100% YoY before they triggered recession (Chart 7). Chart 3U.S. Stimulus Will Boost The Economy Chart 4Capex Remains Robust Chart 5No Signs Of Higher Rates Hurting Housing Chart 6Could EM Be Most Affected By Higher Rates? Chart 7Oil Hasn't Risen Enough To Cause Recession Eventually, however, strong growth, especially in the U.S., will become a headwind for risk assets. There is still some slack in the labor market, with another 500,000 people likely to return to work eventually (Chart 8). When that happens, perhaps early next year, the currently sluggish wage growth will begin to accelerate. Fiscal stimulus is likely to prove inflationary, since it is unprecedented for a government to stimulate the economy so aggressively when it is already close to full capacity (Chart 9). These factors will push inflation expectations back to their equilibrium level, and the market will then need to adjust to the Fed accelerating the pace of rate hikes to choke off inflation, which will push up real bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 8Still 500,000 Who Could Return To Work Chart 9Stimulus Unprecedented In Such A Strong Economy Chart 10Eventually Real Rates Will Need To Rise When that starts to happen - perhaps late this year or early next year - the yield curve will invert, and investors will start to price in the next recession. That will be the time to turn defensive, but it is still too early now. Fixed Income: Markets are currently pricing only a 50% probability of three more Fed hikes this year, and only two hikes next year. As markets start to anticipate further tightening, long rates are also likely to rise (Chart 11). We see 10-year U.S. Treasury yields at 3.3-3.5% by year-end, and so recommend an overweight in TIPs and a short duration position. The ECB is unlikely to need to rush rate hikes, however, given the slack in the euro zone (Chart 12), and so the spread between U.S. and core euro yields should widen further. Corporate credit spreads are unlikely to contract further but, as long as growth continues, we see U.S. high-yield bonds, in particular, providing attractive returns within the fixed-income bucket. Our bond strategists find that between the 2/10 yield curve crossing below 50 BP and its inverting, high-yield debt has since 1980 given an annualized 368 BP of excess return.1 Chart 11Fed Expectations Drive Long Rates Chart 12Still Plenty Of Slack In The Euro Zone Equities: Our preference remains for developed equities over emerging, and for more cyclical, higher-beta markets such as euro zone and Japan. The risk of a stronger yen over the coming months is a concern for Japanese equities in local currency terms but, as our recommendations are expressed in U.S. dollars, the currency effect cancels out, and so we keep our overweight for now. At this stage of the cycle our preference is for value stocks (especially financials) over growth stocks (especially IT): value/growth usually performs in line with cyclicals/defensives, but the relationship has moved out of sync in the past year or so (Chart 13), mostly because of the performance of internet stocks, whose premium valuation makes them very vulnerable to any bad news. Currencies: A widening of interest-rate differentials between the U.S. and euro zone is likely to push down the euro against the U.S. dollar over the next few months, especially given how crowded the long-euro trade has become. The vulnerability of EM currencies to rising U.S. rates has been seen in the past few weeks, with sharp falls in currencies such as the Turkish lira, Brazilian real, and Russian ruble. We expect this to continue. Overall, we expect a moderate appreciation of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Commodities: The crude oil price continues to rise in line with our forecasts, and we expect to see Brent crude above $80 a barrel before the end of the year. The price next year will depend on whether the OPEC agreement is extended, and how much U.S. shale oil production reacts to the higher price. On the assumption of a moderate increase in supply from both OPEC and the U.S., the crude price is likely to fall back moderately in 2019. We see the long-term equilibrium crude price in the $55-65 range, the level where global supply can be increased enough to satisfy around 1.5% annual growth in demand. We remain more cautious on industrial commodities, and see the first signs coming through of a slowdown in China, which will dent demand (Chart 14). Chart 13Value Stocks Look Attractive Chart 14Signs Of China Slowing Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt," dated 24 April, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Duration: The global bond bear market is still intact, although the "leadership" has passed over to the U.S. where growth is the firmest and inflation expectations are rising the fastest. Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, focusing underweights in countries that can actually tighten monetary policy this year (U.S., Canada, the euro area). ECB: The ECB has started to take notice of the latest batch of softening euro area economic data. Yet it will take a much more prolonged slowdown for the ECB's medium-term economic forecasts to be proven incorrect, which would alter the likely timetable for a tapering of asset purchases by year-end. Canada: The Bank of Canada has adapted a more cautious tone of late, which seems overly pessimistic given the underlying trends in Canadian growth and inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Feature We're Sticking With Our Country Allocations One of our key investment themes for 2018 has been that economic growth, monetary policies and bond yields would be far less correlated between countries than was seen in 2017. This would create cross-country fixed income trading and investment opportunities that were much harder to come by last year. With the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield finally reaching the 3% level last week, that story looks to be playing out. Yields are going up elsewhere, but nothing like what is happening in the U.S., where growth remains firm compared to the string of negative data surprises seen in other countries (Chart of the Week). This theme of divergence can also be seen in the recent actions and comments from central bankers. Officials at the U.S. Federal Reserve have continued to signal, with increasing conviction, that additional rate hikes will be needed later this year (although not at this week's FOMC meeting). This is to be expected given that not only is U.S. growth holding up well (Q1 real GDP growth "only" slowed to an above-potential pace of 2.3%), but both core PCE inflation and the Wages & Salaries component of the Employment Cost Index are accelerating at a marginal pace not seen since the 2008 crisis (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekU.S. Economy Outperforming,##BR##USTs Underperforming Chart 2No Reason For The Fed##BR##To Turn Less Hawkish At the same time, policymakers in other major developed countries have turned somewhat more cautious: The Bank of Japan (BoJ) announced that it will no longer provide a specific date when it expects inflation to reach its target The European Central Bank (ECB) took the highly unusual step of holding a monetary policy meeting last week without actually discussing the monetary policy outlook, according to ECB President Mario Draghi Bank of England (BoE) Governor Mark Carney dampened expectations of a rate hike in May that was nearly fully discounted by markets The Bank of Canada (BoC), which had already delivered several rate hikes when inflation was below its 2% target, chose to keep rates on hold despite inflation finally breaching 2% Sweden's Riksbank pushed out the expected timing of its next rate hike (yet again) to the end of 2018, even with inflation now at target With global growth losing some momentum, it is no surprise that policymakers are trying to not sound too hawkish, which could trigger an unwelcome decline in inflation expectations. Here again, divergences between countries have opened up. Rising oil prices are translating into higher market-based inflation expectations in countries like the U.S. and Canada where growth is still above-potential and leading economic indicators are rising (Chart 3). This is not the case in places like the U.K., Australia and Japan where growth is sluggish, leading indicators are slowing, but with markets still pricing in interest rate increases over the next year (Chart 4). This divergence is a critical underpinning of our current recommended country allocation within government bond markets - overweighting the U.K., Australia and Japan where tighter monetary policy will be difficult to achieve; while underweighting the U.S. and Canada, where rate hikes are still in the cards. Chart 3Shifting Oil/Inflation Correlation... Chart 4...In Countries Where Growth Is Slowing The European Duration Call Gets A Bit Trickier The evidence on the euro area is a bit less conclusive on this front, however. The OECD's leading economic indicator has only dipped modestly from its recent peak, and the correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations has not broken down. Draghi stated in his press conference following last week's policy meeting that the ECB Governing Council was focused on "very important" current euro area economic data that had clearly lost momentum in the first quarter of this year. He noted that there were many one-off factors that could have caused the softer growth (weather, labor strikes, the timing of holidays), but that the slump was very broad-based and hit almost all euro area countries. This makes the next few months of data critical to determine the ECB's next policy move, which could be an announcement of a tapering of its asset purchases when the current program ends in September. From our perspective, the sluggish Q1 euro area economic performance looks to be driven by a major slowing of export growth. Industrial confidence remains at a high level and growth in retail sales volumes has remained stable since the middle of 2017 (Chart 5). Yet the annual growth rate of total euro area exports has slumped to less than 3%, with exports to Asia now contracting on a year-over-year basis (bottom two panels). If the export slump continues in the coming months, this could begin to impact hiring activity across the euro area. A rise in unemployment would definitely change the ECB's calculus in altering its policy stance. At the moment, the Governing Council can look at a steadily declining overall euro area unemployment rate - which is approaching the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU - combined with moderate increases in core HICP inflation, wage growth and inflation expectations, as confirmation that trends are still broadly following the path laid out in its latest economic projections (Chart 6). Chart 5An Export-Led Cooling##BR##Of Euro Area Growth Chart 6ECB Will Not Lift Rates Until##BR##Inflation Expectations Move Back To 2% The ECB has made it clear that it views a tapering of its asset purchases and any subsequent interest rate hikes as separate policy decisions. The hurdle to end the bond purchases is much lower than it is for raising interest rates. On the former, as long as unemployment and inflation continue to evolve along the lines of the ECB's projections, then a full tapering of bond purchases will occur by year-end (with an announcement occurring at either of the June or July ECB meetings). On the latter, it will take inflation expectations (as measured by the 5-year EUR CPI swap, 5-years forward) rising back above 2% for the ECB to feel confident that rate increases will be necessary, as was the case during the mid-2000s tightening cycle and the 2011 mini-cycle (bottom panel). For now, we are maintaining our moderate underweight stance on euro area government debt. Looking ahead, we will be watching the correlation between oil prices denominated in euros and inflation expectations, as well as the development of leading economic indicators in the euro area. If the Q1 growth slump widens into a broader downturn, then the ECB could be forced to revise its economic projections lower and continue with the asset purchases into 2019. While that is not our base case scenario, such a development would force us to reconsider our stance on euro area debt. Bottom Line: The global bond bear market is still intact, although the "leadership" has passed over to the U.S. where growth is the firmest and inflation expectations are rising the fastest. Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, focusing underweights in countries that can actually tighten monetary policy this year (U.S., Canada, the euro area). In Europe, it will take a much more prolonged slowdown for the ECB's medium-term economic forecasts to be proven incorrect, which would alter the likely timetable for a tapering of asset purchases later this year. Canada: Still On Track For More Hikes This Year The BoC has been sending more cautious signals of late regarding its next policy moves, after delivering 75bps of rate hikes since last summer. Some of this simply reflects a more measured tone taken by other central banks in response to signs of global growth losing some momentum, as discussed earlier. Yet in the case of Canada, it is difficult to make a credible case that the central bank should not continue its rate hiking cycle, particularly with inflation now above the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band. Upside Risks To Canadian Growth Versus BoC Projections Yes, the Canadian economy has lost some of the rapid upward momentum seen in 2016 and 2017, led mostly by weakness in exports which are now contracting on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). This was focused in aircraft, transportation equipment, and energy products. The latter is due to poor weather conditions and transportation bottlenecks involved in getting oil out of Alberta rather than a sign of weakening demand for Canadian oil. The BoC did take a more cautious view on exports in the latest set of economic projections presented in the April Monetary Policy Report (MPR). The central bank now expects real exports to be stagnant in 2018, downgrading the expected contribution to real GDP growth to zero from the +0.6 percentage points presented in the January MPR. This was, by far, the biggest downgrade to any of the GDP growth components in the BoC's forecast, and was main reason why the BoC downgraded its overall 2018 real GDP growth projection to 2.0% from 2.2%. Yet at the same time, the BoC actually upgraded its global growth projection to 3.8% from the 3.6% figure in the January MPR. We suspect that the downgrade to the export contribution to expected 2018 growth was the BoC trying to inject some room for error in its growth forecasts for any negative outcome in the current round of NAFTA trade negotiations with the U.S. and Mexico. Otherwise, it makes no sense to have such a large downgrade without becoming more pessimistic on global growth. Our Geopolitical strategists are now much more optimistic that a NAFTA deal will be reached, rather than having the U.S. exit the agreement as President Trump has threatened. If that happens, the BoC's growth projections may end up being too low. We can see a similar level of "excessive cautiousness" with regards to the BoC's assessment of the Canadian labor market and the outlook for consumption. Consumer spending has also cooled off a bit from very robust levels, although an unusually long and harsh winter likely played a large role there, as evidenced by the suspiciously large plunge in retail sales growth (Chart 8). The fundamental underpinnings for Canadian consumption still look solid, though. Chart 7Canadian Economy Holding Up Well,##BR##Despite Weak Exports Chart 8Solid Income Fundamentals##BR##For The Canadian Consumer Consumer confidence remains near cyclical highs. Wage growth currently sits at 3.2% in nominal terms and 1.5% in real terms. The BoC noted in its Spring Business Outlook Survey that wage pressures are increasing due to greater competition in the labor market (3rd panel) and, to a lesser extent, recent minimum wage increases. The BoC noted in the April MPR that wages were growing "somewhat below what would be expected were the economy operating with no excess labor." Yet that argument appears overly pessimistic - the unemployment rate is currently 0.7 percentage points below the OECD's NAIRU estimate, at a time when nominal wages are growing in excess of 3%. Again, there is a greater chance that the BoC will end up surprised by how strong Canadian wage growth will turn out over the next 6-12 months. Even the persistent structural problems of very high Canadian household debt levels and overheated house prices appear less of an issue at the moment. The household debt/GDP ratio has stabilized as growth in mortgage debt has decelerated since mid-2017 - an outcome that can be attributed to rising mortgage rates, tighter lending standards on mortgage lending and poor housing affordability in the major cities (Chart 9). Meanwhile, the supply side of the housing market is finally improving with housing starts now back to pre-recession levels. National house price inflation has cooled from the overheated 15% growth rates to a more "normal" pace around 5%, according to data from Terranet. There will be a long-term day of reckoning for the highly-indebted Canadian homeowner during the next recession. In the near term, however, the combination of rising supply, lower demand and softer house prices suggest that the Canadian housing market is trending in a direction of becoming less imbalanced. The BoC took note of these developments in the April MPR, using much less cautious language in describing the risk to the inflation outlook from household debt and overheated housing markets. The outlook for Canadian business investment also has the potential to give an upside surprise to the BoC. The Spring Business Outlook Survey showed that firms' capital spending intentions remain very strong (Chart 10), a fact confirmed by the robust growth in import volumes of machinery & equipment (middle panel). Finally, the overall financial condition for Canadian companies is in good shape, according to our new Canadian Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) that was introduced last week.1 The CHM correlates strongly with the overall Business Outlook Survey Indicator (bottom panel), which suggests that the cyclical improvement in the financial health of Canadian companies will support capital spending in the coming quarters - especially if the uncertainty over the NAFTA negotiations fades away. Chart 9A Better Supply/Demand Balance##BR##In Canadian Housing? Chart 10Canadian Capex##BR##Is In Good Shape The BoC Will Be Surprised By Canadian Inflation, Too Chart 11Inflation Now Above The BoC's 2% Target With the economy likely to continue expanding at an above-potential pace in the next 6-12 months, the current uptrend in inflation is should continue. Headline CPI inflation is already above the 2% target and core inflation is right at target (Chart 11). The BoC is forecasting that CPI inflation will only remain modestly above 2% until the end of 2018, and will return back to 2% in 2019. Yet there is essentially no spare capacity left in the Canadian economy, based on output gap estimates of both the BoC and International Monetary Fund (IMF). The BoC has slightly revised its projection for the Q1 2018 output gap, leaving it somewhat wider than the previous forecasts due to positive revisions of potential GDP growth (now 1.8% from 1.6% in the January MPR, based on a faster pace of trend labor productivity). These are small changes, however, and real GDP growth is likely to be faster than the BoC is projecting in 2018. Market-based inflation expectations have been steadily rising along with the increase in global energy prices (bottom panel), and we continue to expect inflation breakevens to widen over the balance of 2018. BoC Will Not Disappoint Market Expectations On Rate Hikes The markets are currently discounting a similar pace of rate hikes in Canada and the U.S. over the next year, according to pricing in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) markets (Chart 12). The BoC's estimate of the neutral policy rate is between 2.5% and 3.5%, which is well above the current policy rate of 1.25%. The OIS market is discounting 75bps of hikes over the twelve months, which would take the policy rate to 2% - still a below-neutral, accommodative level for an economy that is already at full employment and where inflation has risen back to the BoC's target. We expect the BoC to continue to follow its typical pattern of following moves by the Fed with a lag. This is a sensible strategy given how exposed Canadian growth is to U.S. growth through exports, and also given how responsive the Canadian dollar is to the expected rate differentials between the U.S. and Canada. Given our view that the Fed will deliver at least another 50bps of rate hikes over the course of 2018, with the potential for more if inflation continues to accelerate without any growth slowdown, the BoC will likely deliver on the rate hikes currently discounted by markets. This is the main reason why we are maintaining our underweight stance on Canadian Government bonds (bottom panel). The BoC has a much higher potential to actually hike rates by at least as much as the market is expecting, which is not the case in every other developed market country except the U.S., where we are also underweight. This week, however, we are stopping ourselves out of our recommended Tactical Overlay trade in the Canadian BAX interest rate futures curve (long the Dec/18 contract versus the June/18 contract). We introduced that trade back in January, positioning for more rapid BoC rate hikes in the latter half of 2018 that would flatten the BAX futures curve. The recent dovish turn by the BoC has resulted in a steepening of the BAX futures curve, however, and we are stopping ourselves out at a modest loss of -0.12% (Chart 13). Chart 12Stay Underweight##BR##Canadian Government Debt Chart 13We Are Stopped Out Of##BR##Our BAX Futures Curve Trade Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada has adapted a more cautious tone of late, which seems overly pessimistic given the underlying trends in Canadian growth and inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: Growth Is Papering Over The Cracks", dated April 24, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Both the euro's undervaluation and the euro area's massive trade surplus constitute disequilibria, which cannot persist in the long term. Hence, the trade-weighted euro will structurally appreciate... ...and euro area sectors that are domestically-oriented, like travel and leisure, will structurally outperform those that are export-oriented, like autos. Banks are not a sector to buy and hold for the long term, but rather a sector to own for periodic cyclical rallies. We anticipate the next such cyclical opportunity will arise later this year. Feature Yanis Varoufakis, the former Finance Minister of Greece, recently highlighted EU institutions' obsession with protecting their credibility at all costs. Once set on a course, EU institutions tend to suffer a blinkered tunnel-vision. A big fan of Shakespeare, Varoufakis likened this resistance to change course - no matter the repercussions - to Lady Macbeth's declaration that "what's done cannot be undone."1 As Mario Draghi prepares to take the stage again, we recall the final line of his last performance on March 8 as an echo of Lady Macbeth. Asked to justify the ECB's obsession with the 2 per cent inflation point-target, Draghi declared that "there are serious costs about changing course on credibility". We fully understand the ECB's desire to protect its credibility. The trouble is that it is set on a course that is incredibly difficult to accomplish: a single mandate to sustain a 2 per cent inflation point-target, based on a consumer price basket that omits one of the largest items of household expenditure - housing itself. Chart of the WeekAs The Euro's Undervaluation Corrects, It Will Help Euro Area Domestics And Hurt Exporters Euro Area Inflation Is Running Higher Than The HICP Suggests Homeowners will testify that the cost of maintaining their homes constitutes one of their largest expenses. Which makes the omission of this cost from the euro area Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) completely ludicrous. Using the experience of U.S. inflation which does include owner occupiers' housing costs, we estimate that a price basket that correctly included home maintenance costs would outperform the HICP by an average of 0.5 percentage points a year (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Including Owner Occupiers' Housing Costs ##br##Adds 0.5% To Inflation Recognizing this error, the U.K.'s Office For National Statistics recently changed its main inflation index from the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) to the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers' housing costs (CPIH), acknowledging that "the costs of housing services associated with owning, maintaining and living in one's home are an important component of household expenditure that are not included in the CPI... Therefore the CPIH is the most comprehensive measure of inflation." We expect the BoE's target for 2 per cent inflation to switch eventually to the CPIH too, albeit it remains the CPI for the time being. However, a 1 to 3 per cent 'variation band' around the CPI inflation target does give the BoE considerable breathing space. By comparison, the ECB's target for 2 per cent inflation excluding owner occupiers' housing costs and excluding a variation band gives it a significantly more difficult task than its peer central banks. The crucial point is that the ECB's ultra-loose policy is to a large extent a function of a tunnel-vision pursuit of an HICP inflation rate which significantly understates true inflation. As true inflation is higher than suggested, it means that true real interest rates are lower than suggested. And as currency markets feel true real interest rate differentials - rather than those derived from the faultily constructed HICP - it means that markets have undervalued the euro. This has resulted in an over-competitive euro area, and a massive trade surplus (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Euro Area Trade Surplus Is A Mirror-Image ##br##Of The Undervalued Euro Both the currency undervaluation and the associated trade surplus constitute disequilibria, which cannot persist in the long term. We have no strong conviction for the very near term move in the euro, but there are two longer term implications: the trade-weighted euro will structurally appreciate by about 10%; and euro area sectors that are domestically-oriented, like travel and leisure, will structurally outperform those that are export-oriented, like autos (Chart of the Week). Japanese Lessons For Europeans: The Homework A few weeks ago in Japanese Lessons For Europeans we made some counterintuitive observations about Japan's post-bubble economic experience.2 Most notably, we showed that on a real GDP per head basis, Japan has outperformed every other major economy over the past twenty years. Our finding was based on real GDP divided by working age (15-64) population because we wanted to capture real productivity gains - which rely mainly on the productive population. The counterintuitive finding elicited a couple of questions. One question was whether the result changes if we were to divide by the total population rather than the working age population. The answer is, not really. Dividing by total population, Japan would no longer be top of the leader board, but the broad result would still hold. Japan has performed impressively, and we fail to see the so-called 'lost decades' (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Japan Has Performed Impressively On ##br##Real GDP Per Working Age Population... Chart I-5...And Real GDP Per##br## Total Population Still, some people pointed out that Japan's public indebtedness now equals 210% of its GDP, up from 120% at the start of the century. So a second question was whether Japan's impressive performance is entirely due to its fiscal largesse. The answer is, not exactly. What matters is the change in total indebtedness - public plus private. As a share of GDP, public indebtedness is up by 90% but private indebtedness is down by 40%. So total indebtedness is up by 50% of GDP, considerably less than the increases elsewhere in the developed world. For example, over the same period, the U.K.'s total indebtedness is up by 100% of GDP. Moreover, even the level of Japan's total indebtedness as a share of GDP - at 370% - is not that different to other major economies. In Belgium, it is 340%; in France it is 305%; in Canada it is approaching 300% (Charts I-6-Chart I-17). Chart I-6Japan: Total Debt Up From 315% ##br##To 370% Of GDP Chart I-7U.S.: Total Debt Up From 185% ##br##To 250% Of GDP Chart I-8Canada: Total Debt Up From 225%##br## To 290% Of GDP Chart I-9Australia: Total Debt Up From 150% ##br##To 235% Of GDP Chart I-10U.K.: Total Debt Up From 180%##br## To 280% Of GDP Chart I-11Switzerland: Total Debt Up From 245%##br## To 270% Of GDP Chart I-12Germany: Total Debt Down From 185%##br## To 180% Of GDP Chart I-13France: Total Debt Up From 190%##br## To 305% Of GDP Chart I-14Italy: Total Debt Up From 195%##br## To 265% Of GDP Chart I-15Spain: Total Debt Up From 165% ##br##To 270% Of GDP Chart I-16Belgium: Total Debt Up From 260% ##br## To 340% Of GDP Chart I-17Sweden: Total Debt Up From 210% ##br##To 275% Of GDP Public Sector Leveraging Must Counterbalance Private Sector Deleveraging People who take on debt tend to be young, while those who pay down debt tend to be older. As population pyramids in developed economies shift to older cohorts, there are fewer people who wish to take on debt and more people who wish to pay it down. Specifically, the 50-70 age cohort tends to use pre-retirement income and retirement lump-sum payments to extinguish any outstanding mortgage debts. Consider an older person with an income of €1000 who wishes to pay down €100 of debt. It follows that the person will spend €900. Ordinarily, the banking sector will then reallocate the paid-down €100 to, say, a younger person who wants to borrow it. When the borrower spends the €100, aggregate expenditure totals €1000, which equals the original income. And all is well and good. However, in a world where there is an excess of people who wish to pay down debt versus those that wish to borrow, it might not be possible to reallocate the paid-down €100 to a new borrower in the private sector, even with interest rates at ultra-low levels. In this case, the only way to prevent a contraction in expenditure - a recession - is if the government steps in to borrow and spend the aforementioned €100 to keep the economy's expenditures at €1000. Moreover, because the private sector is paying down debt, what seems to be fiscal largesse does not lead to crowding out, inflation, or surging interest rates. The above illustration describes the structural situation in many developed economies at the moment. And it explains why we should not look at the evolution of indebtedness in the public sector and the private sector separately, but rather in combination. This is another important Japanese lesson for Europeans. A final observation is that if the private sector is deleveraging, private indebtedness as a share of GDP tends to drift lower. This necessarily means that banks total assets' are growing slower than overall sales in the economy. As banks' asset growth is their main driver of long-term profit growth, it also means that banks struggle to outperform the market on a sustained basis. This has been the experience in Japan since 1990 and in the euro area since 2008 (Chart I-18). Chart I-18When The Private Sector Pays Down Debt, Banks Structurally Underperform With private indebtedness declining as a share of GDP in many major economies, we conclude that banks are not a sector to buy and hold for the long term, but rather a sector to own for periodic cyclical rallies. We anticipate the next such cyclical opportunity will arise later this year. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 From Yanis Varoufakis's 2018 Rose Shakespeare Lecture. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Japanese Lessons For Europeans" April 5, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* It was a mixed week for our trades. Long USD/ZAR is approaching the end of its 3 month maximum holding period comfortably in profit. Against this, the recent intense volatility in the metals market closed the pair-trade long lead/short nickel at its stop-loss. We are not initiating any new trades this week. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-19 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights The scale of "de-capacity" reforms is diminishing considerably - old, inefficient capacity shutdowns are declining. Sizable new technologically advanced and ecologically friendly capacity is coming on stream for both steel and coal in 2018 and 2019. We project this will boost steel and coal output by 5.2% and 4.7% respectively, this year at a time when demand is set to slow. Steel, coal, iron ore and coke prices are all vulnerable to the downside. Share prices of the companies and currencies of countries that supply these commodities to China are most at risk. Feature Last November, our report titled, "China's "De-Capacity" Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," painted a negative picture for steel and coal prices over 2018 and 2019.1 Since then, after having peaked in December and February respectively, both steel and thermal coal prices have so far declined by about 20% from their respective tops (Chart 1). In the meantime, iron ore and coking coal have also exhibited meaningful weakness (Chart 2). Chart 1More Downside In Steel And Coal Prices Chart 2Iron Ore And Coking Coal Prices Are Also At Risk In this report, we revisit the topic of de-capacity reforms and examine how Chinese supply side reforms in 2018 will affect steel and coal prices. The key message is as follows: Having implemented aggressive capacity reduction over the past two years, the authorities are shifting the focus of supply side reforms from "de-capacity" to "replacement" of already removed capacity with technologically advanced capacity. This means the scale of "de-capacity" reforms is diminishing considerably - old, inefficient capacity shutdowns are declining. In addition, sizable new technologically advanced and ecologically friendly capacity is coming on stream for both steel and coal in 2018 and 2019. From an investing standpoint, this means both steel and coal prices are still vulnerable to the downside. Both could drop by more than 15% from current levels over the course of 2018. Diminishing Scale Of "De-Capacity" Reforms Reducing capacity (also called "de-capacity") in the oversupplied steel and coal markets has been a key priority within China's structural supply side reforms over the past two years. Steel Table 1 shows that the capacity reduction target for steel in 2018 is 30 million tons, which is much lower than the 45 million tons in 2016 and 50 million tons in 2017. Table 1Capacity Reduction: Target And Actual Achievement In addition, between May and September 2017, the "Ditiaogang"2 removal policy eliminated about 120 million tons of steel capacity, and sharply reduced steel products production. Most of Ditiaogang capacity was completely dismantled last year. Therefore, there is not much downside to steel production from Ditiaogang output cutbacks going forward. Furthermore, between October and December 2017, environmental policies aimed at fighting against winter smog also cut steel products output substantially, which pushed steel prices to six-year highs in December (Chart 3). Chart 3Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Steel Sector In particular, in the last quarter of 2017, to ensure fewer smog days around the Beijing area, Tianjin's steel products output was reduced by 50% from a year earlier. The second biggest contribution to total steel output decline occurred in Hebei - the largest steel-producing province in China - where steel output plummeted by 7%. Excluding Tianjin and Hebei, national steel products output fell only by 3.9% from a year ago. As a long-term solution to ameliorate ecology and air quality around Beijing, the government is aiming to reduce the heavy concentration of steel production in Tianjin and Hebei by shifting a considerable portion of steel capacity to other regions in 2018 and following years. These two provinces together accounted for about 30.6% of the nation's steel products output in 2016; their share dipped to 27.6% in 2017. As a result, next winter the required production reduction from these regions to achieve the air quality targets in Beijing will be smaller. In short, the scale of specific policy driven steel output reduction in 2018 will be meaningfully lower than last year. Coal For coal, despite the same target as last year (150 million tons), the actual capacity cut this year will be much less than last year's actual reduction of 250 million tons, which exceeded the 150 million-ton target. Amid still-high coal prices, the authorities will be more tolerant of producers not cutting too much capacity. Plus, with nearly two-thirds of the 2016-2020 target for capacity cuts having already been achieved in the past two years, there is much less outdated capacity in the industry (Table 1 above). In addition, the government's environment-related policies also led to a decline in total national coal output between October-December 2017 (Chart 4), with Hebei posting the biggest cut in coal output among all provinces. Chart 4Policy Actions And Market Dynamics: Coal Sector However, the authorities shortly thereafter relaxed restrictions on coal output, as the country was severely lacking gas supply for heating. In January and February of this year, the authorities reversed course, demanding that producers accelerate new advanced capacity replacement and increase coal production. Bottom Line: The scale of China's "de-capacity" reforms are diminishing, resulting in a lessening production cuts. Installing Technologically Advanced Capacity China's supply side reforms have included two major components - reducing inefficient capacity and low-quality supply that damaged the environment while boosting medium-to-high-quality production that is economically efficient and ecologically friendly. In brief, having removed significant obsolete capacity in the past two years, the policy focus is now shifting to capacity replacement. The latter enables China to upgrade its steel and coal industries to become more efficient and competitive worldwide, as well as ecologically safer. To guard against excessive production capacity of steel and coal, the authorities are reinforcing the following replacement principle: the ratio of newly installed-to-removed capacity should be less or equal to one. Two important points need to be noted: First and most important, the zero or negative growth of total capacity of steel and coal does not necessarily mean zero or negative growth in steel and coal output. For example, while total capacity for crude steel and steel products declined 4.8% and 1.8% year-on-year in 2016 respectively, output actually increased 0.5% and 1%. Despite falling total capacity, rising operational capacity could still contribute to an increase in final output. Total capacity (measured in tons) for steel and coal production includes both operational capacity and non-operational capacity, the latter representing obsolete/non-profitable capacity. As more technologically advanced capacity is installed to replace the already-removed one, both the size of operational capacity and the capacity utilization rate (CUR) will rise. Typically, advanced technologies have a higher CUR - consequently, production will grow. Second, an increase in the CUR of existing operational capacity will also result in rising output. In 2018, odds are that both the steel and coal industries in China will have non-trivial output increases as a result of new advanced capacity coming on stream. Steel Since late 2015, in environmentally sensitive areas of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta, steel plants have been required to add no more than 0.8 tons of new capacity for every 1 ton of outdated capacity removed. For other areas, the same ratio is 1 or less. Electric furnace (EF) steel-producing technology - which is cleaner, more advanced and used to produce high-quality specialized steel products - has become the major type of new capacity addition. This technology is favored by both the government and steel producers. Chinese EF-based steel production accounted for only 6.4% of the nation's total steel output in 2016, far lower than the world average of 25.7% (Chart 5). The EF technology uses scrap steel as raw materials, graphite electrodes and electricity to produce crude steel. Graphite electrodes, which have high levels of electrical conductivity and the capability of sustaining extremely high levels of heat, are consumed primarily in electric furnace steel production. Chart 6 demonstrates that prices of both graphite electrode and scrap steel have surged since mid-2017. This signifies that considerable new EF production capacity has been coming on stream. Chart 5Chinese Electric Furnace Crude Steel ##br##Production Will Go Up Chart 6Considerable New Addition Of##br## Chinese Electric Furnace Capacity Indeed, in 2017 alone, 44 units of EF were installed. In comparison, between 2014 and 2016, only 47 units of EF were installed. As the completion of a new EF installation in general takes eight to 10 months, all of EF capacity installed in 2017 - about 31 million tons of crude steel production capacity - will be operational in 2018. In addition, a report from China's Natural Resource Department indicates that as of mid-December there have been 54 replacement projects with total new steel production capacity of 91 million tons (including new EF capacity, new traditional capacity and recovered capacity). This compares to 120 million tons of capacity removed in 2016-'17. Assuming 60% of this 91 million tons capacity will be operating throughout 2018 at a utilization rate of 80% (the NBS 2017 CUR for the ferrous smelting and pressing industry was 75.8%), this alone will result in 43.6 million tons more output in 2018 from a year ago (5.2% growth from 2017 output) (Table 2). Table 2Strong Profit Margins Will Encourage Steel Production At the same time, strong profit margins will encourage steel makers to produce as much as possible to maximize profits (Chart 7). This will be especially true if the incumbent companies have to absorb liabilities of firms that were shutdown (please refer to page 14 for the discussion on this point). Facing more debt from shutdowns of other companies, steel incumbent producers would have an incentive to ramp up their production to generate more cash. Yet, we do not assume a rise in CUR for existing steel capacity. Hence, crude steel output growth in 2018 will likely be around 5.2%, higher than the 3% growth in 2017. This is in line with the top 10 Chinese steel producers' projected crude steel output growth in 2018 of 5.5%, based on their published production guidance data. The Ditiaogang and environmental policy caused a significant contraction in steel products growth in 2017, but will have limited impact in 2018 as discussed above. Eventually, increasing crude steel output will translate into strong growth in steel products output3 (Chart 8). Chart 7Strong Profit Margins ##br##Will Encourage Steel Production Chart 8Steel Products Production ##br##Will Rebound In 2018 Coal China's current coal capacity is about 5310 million tons, with 4780 million tons as operational capacity and the remaining 530 million tons as non-operational capacity, which has not produced coal for some time. As in general it takes roughly three to five years to build a coal mine, it will take a long time to replace the obsolete capacity. Yet there is hidden coal capacity in China. The China Coal Industry Association estimated last year that there was about 700 million tons of new technologically advanced capacity that has already been built and is ready to use, but has not yet received government approval. This is greater than the 530 million tons of coal production removed in the past two years by de-capacity reforms - equivalent to about 20% of China's total 2017 coal output. This hidden capacity originated from the fact that coal producers in China historically began building mines before applying for approval. However, since 2015, all applications for new coal mines have been halted. Consequently, in the past three years a lot of capacity has already been built but has not been put into operation. Some 70% of this hidden capacity includes large-scale coal mines, each with annual capacity of above 5 million tons. In comparison, China has about 126 million tons of small mines with annual capacity of 90,000 tons that will be forced to exit the market this year as they are non-competitive due to their small scale and inferior technology. Why do we expect this hidden capacity to become operational going forward? The authorities now allows trading in the replacement quota for coal across regions. Producers having these ready-to-use high-quality mines can buy the replacement quota from the producers who have eliminated the outdated capacity. The government wants to accelerate the process of allowing the advanced capacity to be in operation as fast as possible. The following policy initiative supports this: A new policy directive released this past February does not even require coal producers with advanced capacity to pay the quota first in order to apply for approval - they can apply for approval to start the replacement process first, and then have one year to pay for it. Economically, quotas trading makes sense. The mines with advanced technology that have lower costs and higher profit margins should be able to pay a reasonably high (attractive) price for quotas to companies with inferior technologies, so that the latter will be better off selling their quotas than continuing operations. The proceeds from the selling quotas will be used to settle termination benefits for employees of low-quality coal mines. Regarding our projections for coal output in 2018, assuming 30% of the 700 million tons of capacity among high-quality mines will be operational this year at a CUR of 78% (the NBS 2017 coal industry CUR was 68.2%), this alone will bring a 164 million-ton increase in coal output (4.7% of the 2017 coal output) (Table 3). Table 3Chinese Coal Output Will Rise By 4.7% In 2018 In addition, still-high profit margins could encourage existing coal producers to increase their CUR this year (Chart 9). Yet, we do not assume a rise in CUR for existing coal mining capacity. In total, Chinese coal output may increase 4.7% this year, higher than last year's 3.2% growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Strong Profit Margins Will Boost Coal Production Chart 10Coal Output Is Already Rising Bottom Line: Sizable technologically advanced new capacity is coming on stream for both steel and coal. This will boost both steel and coal output by about 5.2% and 4.7%, respectively, this year. Impact On Global Steel And Coal Prices In addition to diminishing capacity cuts and new technologically advanced capacity additions, the following factors will also weigh on steel prices: Relatively high steel product inventories (Chart 11, top panel) Weakening steel demand, mainly due to a potential slowdown in the property market4 Declining infrastructure investment growth (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chinese net steel product exports contracted 30% last year as steel producers opted to sell steel products domestically on higher domestic steel prices (Chart 12). Chart 11Elevated Steel Product Inventory##br## And Weakening Demand Chart 12China's Steel Product Exports ##br##Will Rebound Falling domestic steel prices may lead steel producers to ship their products overseas. In addition, the government has reduced steel products export tariffs starting January 1, 2018, which may also help increase Chinese steel product exports this year. This will pass falling Chinese domestic steel prices on to lower global steel prices. Between 2015 and 2017, about 1.6% of all Chinese steel exports were shipped to the U.S. Even if U.S. tariffs dampen its purchases of steel from China, mainland producers will try to sell their products to other countries. In a nutshell, U.S. tariffs will not prevent the transmission of lower steel prices in China to the global steel market. With respect to coal, in early April the Chinese government placed restrictions on Chinese coal imports at major ports in major imported-coal consuming provinces including Zhejiang, Fujian and Guangdong (Chart 13). The government demanded thermal power plants in those areas to limit their consumption of imported coal and use domestically produced coal. Clearly the government is trying to avoid cheaper imports flooding into the domestic coal market amid still elevated prices. This will help prevent a big drop in domestic coal prices but will be bearish for global coal prices. For example, 40% and 30% of Chinese coal imports are from Indonesia and Australia, respectively (Chart 14). These economies and their currencies are at risk from diminishing Chinese coal imports. Chart 13Chinese Coal Imports Will Decline Chart 14Indonesia and Australia May Face Falling ##br##Coal Demand From China For the demand side, continuing strong growth in non-thermal power supplies such as nuclear, wind and solar will curb thermal power growth in the long run and thus limit thermal coal consumption growth in China. This may also weigh on domestic coal prices and discourage coal imports. Bottom Line: The downtrend in domestic steel and coal prices will weigh on the global steel and coal markets. What About Iron Ore And Coking Coal? Iron ore and coking coal prices are also at risk: Chart 15Record High Chinese Iron Ore Inventory Given about 40% of newly installed steel capacity is advanced electric furnace (EF) based - which requires significant amounts of scrap steel rather than iron ore and coke - rising steel output will increase demand for iron ore and coke disproportionally less. As more Chinese steel producers shift to EF technology, mainland demand for iron ore and coke will diminish structurally in the years to come. Despite weakness in both domestic iron ore production and iron ore imports, Chinese iron ore inventories at major ports, expressed in number of months of consumption, have still reached record highs (Chart 15). This suggests rising EF capacity has indeed been constraining demand for iron ore. Increasing coal output will bring more coking coal and a corresponding rise in coke supply, thereby further depressing coke prices. Bottom Line: Global iron ore and coking coal prices are also vulnerable to the downside. Investment Implications From a macro perspective, investors can capitalize on these themes via a number of strategies: Shorting iron ore and coal prices, or these commodities producers' stocks. Chart 16Chinese Steel And Coal Shares:##br## Puzzling Drop Amid High Profit Going short the Indonesian rupiah (and possibly the Australian dollar) versus the U.S. dollar. Australia and Indonesia are large exporters of coal and industrial metals to China - they account for 30% and 40% of Chinese coal imports, respectively, so their currencies are vulnerable. Notably, although steel and coal prices are still well above their 2015 levels and producers' profit margins are very elevated, share prices of Chinese steel makers and coal producers have dropped almost to their 2015 levels (Chart 16). From a top-down standpoint, it is hard to explain such poor share price performance among Chinese steel and coal companies when their profits have been booming. Our hunch is that these companies have been forced by the government to shoulder the debt of the peer companies that were shut down. This is an example of how the government can force shareholders of profitable companies to bear losses from restructuring by merging zombie companies into profitable ones. On a more granular level, rapidly expanding EF steel-making capacity in China will lead to outperformance of stocks related to EF makers, graphite electrode producers and domestic scrap steel collecting companies. First, demand for graphite electrodes continues to rise, as EF steel production expands. Prices of graphite electrodes may stay high for quite some time (Chart 6 above, top panel). Second, scrap steel prices may go higher or stay high to encourage more domestic scrap steel collection. Companies who collect domestic scrap steel may soon have beneficial policy support, which will create huge potential for expansion (Chart 6 above, bottom panel). Third, EF makers will also benefit due to strong sales of electric furnaces. As a final note, equity investors should consider going long thermal power producers versus coal producers as thermal power producers will benefit from falling coal prices. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Frontier Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed", dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 "Ditiaogang" is low-quality steel made by melting scrap metal in cheap and easy-to-install induction furnaces. These steel products are of poor quality, and also lead to environmental degradation. 3 The big divergence between crude steel production expansion and steel products output contraction last year was due to both the removal of "Ditiaogang" and statistical issues. "Ditiaogang" is often converted into steel products like rebar and wire rods. As steel produced this way is illegal, it is not recorded in official crude steel production data. However, after it is converted into steel products, official steel products production data do include it. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China Real Estate: A New-Bursting Bubble?", dated April 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations