Trade / BOP

Highlights Overstated geopolitical risks in 2017 are giving way to understated risks in 2018; The reshuffle of China's government raises policy headwinds for global growth and EM assets; U.S. politics will be roiled by a leftward turn and Trump's protectionism and foreign policy; Italian politics, more than German, is the chief threat to European risk assets; Volatility and the USD will rise; shift to neutral on European risk assets; close tactical long on Chinese Big Banks. Feature BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has operated this year on a high conviction view that geopolitical risks would be overstated, thus generating considerable upside for risk assets. Our analysis focused on three particular "red herrings": European populism, U.S. politics, and Brexit.1 Meanwhile we identified North Korea as a genuine geopolitical risk, though not one that would cause us to change our "risk on" outlook. We therefore take issue - and perhaps offense - with the contemporary narrative that "geopolitics did not matter" in a year when the S&P 500 rose by 15% and VIX plumbed historic lows (Chart 1). Stocks rose and the VIX stayed muted precisely because geopolitical risks were overstated earlier in the year. Investors who correctly assessed the balance of geopolitical risks and opportunities would have known to "buy in May and enjoy your day."2 At the same time that we encouraged investors to load up on risk this year, we cautioned that 2018 would be a challenging year.3 Three themes are now coming into focus as 2017 draws to a close: Politics has become a headwind to growth in China as Beijing intensifies deleveraging and structural reforms; U.S. fiscal and monetary policy favor the USD, which will reignite trade protectionism from Washington D.C.; Italian elections may reignite Euro Area breakup risk. In this report, we update our view on these three risks. Data out of China are particularly concerning: broad money (M3) growth has decelerated sharply with negative implications for the economy (Chart 2).4 M3 is at last ticking up but the consequences of its steep drop have not yet translated to the economy. Our message to clients since 2016 has been that the nineteenth Party Congress would mark a turning point in President Xi Jinping's tenure, that he would see his political capital replenished, and that Beijing's pain threshold would therefore rise appreciably in 2018. Hence we do not expect any new stimulus to be quick in coming or very large. Chart 1Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Chart 2China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown What happens in China will not stay in China. Signs of cracks are emerging in the buoyant global growth narrative (Chart 3), with potentially serious consequences for emerging markets (EM) (Chart 4).5 Chart 3Signs Of Cracks Forming Signs Of Cracks Forming Signs Of Cracks Forming Chart 4EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over China: Ramping Up For The New Year Crackdown The aftermath of the Communist Party's nineteenth National Party Congress is unfolding largely as we expected: with a reboot of President Xi Jinping's reform agenda. Chinese economic data are starting to reflect the consequences of tighter policy since late last year (Chart 5), and BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown consumer-oriented sectors outperforming industrials and materials since the party congress, as the reform drive would have one expect.6 China's policymakers have already allowed the monetary impulse - the rate of growth in the supply of money - to slow to the lowest levels in recent memory. This bodes ill for Chinese imports and base metal prices (Chart 6), as BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has emphasized.7 Chart 5Expect More Disappointments From China Expect More Disappointments From China Expect More Disappointments From China Chart 6Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk It is true that policymakers will re-stimulate the economy when they reach their pain threshold, but with Xi Jinping's political capital replenished and the party and state unified under him, we expect that threshold to have moved higher than financial markets expect. Yes, the government will try to prevent its policies from being highly disruptive and destabilizing - as with the People's Bank of China injecting liquidity to ease rapidly rising bond yields (Chart 7) - but the bottom line is that it is pressing forward with tightening. How can we be so sure that this policy trajectory is set? The initiatives in the early stages of implementation after the congress confirm our view that the central government is hardening the line on several key economic-political fronts: Financial regulatory overhaul: People's Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan has made a series of dire comments about China's financial risks and the danger that it is reaching a "Minsky Moment," or accumulation of risks that will end in a catastrophe.8 Zhou's likeliest replacements are both financial reformers, and one of them, Guo Shuqing, is the hawkish regulator who has led the crackdown on shadow lending this year (Chart 8). Moreover, whoever heads the central bank will have the benefit of new financial oversight capabilities. The Financial Stability and Development Commission (FSDC), a new entity charged with coordinating the country's various financial regulatory agencies, has just held its first meeting. Its inaugural chairman, Vice-Premier Ma Kai, is likely to retire soon, but rumors are swirling that his replacement will be Liu He, President Xi's top economic thinker and a reformist, who wrote an ominous article about excessive leverage in the People's Daily in May 2016 and has now made it onto the Politburo. If Liu He takes charge, given his very close relationship with Xi, the FSDC will be irresistible. If not, the FSDC will still be effective, judging by the fact that Ma Kai's replacement will likely be someone, like Ma, who sits on both the Politburo and State Council. Chart 7China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply Chart 8Shadow Banking Has Peaked Shadow Banking Has Peaked Shadow Banking Has Peaked Local government crackdown: Local government officials in two cities in Inner Mongolia have canceled urban metro projects due to excessive debt, reportedly under orders from the central government. Other cities in other provinces have suggested that approvals for such projects are being delayed.9 In other words, the central government is no longer endlessly accommodating debt-financed local government projects, even projects that support priority goals like urbanization and interior development. This news, so soon after the party congress, is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, which suggests that local government spending cannot be assumed to shake off its weakening trend anytime soon (Chart 9). Top officials pointed out local government leverage as a systemic risk, along with shadow banking, at the National Financial Work Conference in July, and both the outgoing finance minister and the outgoing central bank chief have called for reining in local governments. The latter's comments were formally endorsed by being included in the Communist Party's official "party congress study guide," suggesting that they are more than just the parting advice of a soon-to-be retiree. Property tightening: China's real estate sector, which provides 22% of investment in the country, is feeling the squeeze from financial tightening and targeted measures to drive out speculation since October 2016 (Chart 10). More, not less, of a squeeze is expected in both the short and long term. In the short term, inspections of commercial housing for corruption and speculative excesses could exert an additional dampening effect. In the medium and long term, the Xi administration plans to roll out a nationwide property tax, according to Huang Qifan, an economic policymaker tied to the legislature, "in the near future, not ... 10-20 years. It could happen in the next several years."10 The tax was delayed in 2016 amid economic turmoil. A national property tax would be an important fiscal reform that would tamp down on the asset bubble, rebalance the growth model, and enable the government to redistribute wealth from multiple homeowners to lower income groups. Chart 9Local Government Spending Is Weak Local Government Spending Is Weak Local Government Spending Is Weak Chart 10Property Tightening Continues Property Tightening Continues Property Tightening Continues Industrial restructuring: Environmental curbs on outdated and excess industrial capacity are continuing. Although China aggressively cut overcapacity in coal, steel and other sub-sectors over the past twelve months, it continues to face larger overcapacity than other economies (Chart 11), particularly in glass, cement, chemical fertilizers, electricity generation and home construction. It is also possible that SOE restructuring will become more aggressive. Currently, SOEs listed on the Shanghai exchange are rallying relative to the A-share market, as they have tended to do when the Communist Party reaffirms its backing of the state sector (Chart 12). However, announcements of SOE reforms in this administration have also triggered phases of under-performance. SOEs targeted for reforms face greater scrutiny of their finances and operations.11 Moreover, any SOE is vulnerable to the new wave of the anti-corruption campaign.12 National Supervision Commission: The new anti-corruption czar, Zhao Leji, will be a very influential figure if he is even to hold a candle to his predecessor, Wang Qishan. Zhao is to oversee the creation of a nationwide anti-corruption system that targets not only the Communist Party, as before, but every public official. The new commission will have branches at each level of administration (city, province, central government) and will combine the various existing anti-corruption agencies under one head. The purpose is not merely to root out political enemies (as administration critics, with some justice, would argue) but also to improve the effectiveness of policy implementation and address public grievances that threaten to undermine the regime. The latest environmental curbs have shown that employing anti-corruption teams to help enforce broader economic policy can be highly effective. Xi and Zhao Leji look set to extend this practice to state ministries, including financial regulators.13 It is not clear whether they will succeed in rebuilding the regime's legitimacy in public eyes, but in the short term an initiative like this should send a chilling effect throughout the state bureaucracy, similar to that which occurred among local government party chiefs in 2014 after the initial anti-corruption campaign was launched.14 Chart 11Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Chart 12SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms In short, preparations are under way for Xi's second five-year term in office. (Perhaps not his last term, as the party congress also made clear.)15 New agencies and personnel suggest that the administration is embarking on an intensification of policy tightening. Tougher policy is viewed as necessary, not optional: top leadership has repeatedly stated that a lack of action on systemic threats will lead to regime-threatening crises down the road.16 Chart 13China's Impact On Global Growth Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks How will this agenda impact the rest of the world? Our colleagues at China Investment Strategy hold that China may step up reforms but will not do so in a way that will negatively impact China's imports or key assets like base metal prices.17 However, from a political perspective, we view the combination of Xi's political capital with the new financial and anti-corruption commissions as likely to increase policy effectiveness to an extent that causes banks to lend less eagerly and local governments and SOEs to err on the side of less borrowing and spending. This will reduce demand for imports and commodities and will also raise the tail-risk of excessive tightening. China's contribution to global growth had fallen over the years, but has recently rebounded on the back of stimulus in 2015-16 (Chart 13). As such, it will not take much of a drag on import growth in 2018 to have a global impact. The most exposed commodity exporters to China (outside of oil) are Brazil, Chile and Peru (with Indonesia and South Africa also at risk), while the most exposed exporters of capital goods are Taiwan and South Korea, followed by Southeast Asia (the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand). Looking at the China-exposed countries whose stocks rallied the most while China stimulated in 2016, the prime candidates for a negative impact in 2018 will be Brazil and Peru, and less so Hungary and Thailand. Bottom Line: The Xi administration is rebooting its reform agenda and has a higher tolerance for pain than the market yet realizes. Centralization, deleveraging and industrial restructuring have been deemed necessary to secure the long-term stability of the regime. China's policy risks are understated and the next wave of stimulus will not be as rapidly forthcoming as financial markets expect. U.S.: Trouble In (GOP) Paradise Markets have rallied throughout the year despite a lack of policy initiatives from the U.S. Congress. Judging by the performance of highly taxed S&P 500 equities, the rally this year has not been about the prospects of tax reform (Chart 14).18 Rather, markets have responded to strong earnings data and a lack of policy initiatives. Wait, what? Yes, markets have rallied because nothing has been accomplished. Investors just want President Trump and the Republican-held Congress to maintain a pro-business regulatory stance (Chart 15) and not do anything anti-corporate. Doing nothing is just fine. Chart 14Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Chart 15Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Here Come The Socialists Dems The Democratic Party leads the 2018 generic Congressional vote polling by 10.8%, up from 5.9% in May (Chart 16). The generic ballot polling is notoriously unreliable as most U.S. electoral districts are politically designed to be safe seats - "gerrymandered" - and as such are unlikely to respond to nation-wide polling (Chart 17). However, Republican support has fallen and Democratic candidates have performed extremely well this year. Chart 16U.S. Public Leans Democratic U.S. Public Leans Democratic U.S. Public Leans Democratic Chart 17Electoral System Reduces Competition Electoral System Reduces Competition Electoral System Reduces Competition First, candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey have outperformed their polling in November elections. Second, in the four special elections this summer, Democrats narrowed Republican leads by 18%. If the electoral results from Table 1 are replicated in 2018, Republicans could face a massacre in the House of Representatives. In addition, Republicans are suddenly vulnerable in Alabama, where the anti-establishment Senate candidate, and Breitbart-endorsee, Roy Moore is struggling with accusations of pedophilia (Chart 18). Table 12017 Special Elections Are Ominous For The GOP Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Chart 18Republican Senate Majority May Lose A Seat Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Why should investors fear a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives? Yes, the odds of impeachment proceedings against President Trump would rise, but we are on record saying that investors should fade any impeachment risk to assets.19 The greater risk is that the Democratic Party has turned firmly to the left with its new manifesto, "A Better Deal." A strong performance by unusually left-of-center Democratic candidates could spook financial markets that have been lulled into complacency by the lack of genuine populism from the (thus far) pluto-populist president. Protectionism While most investors are focused on the ongoing NAFTA negotiations - which we addressed in last week's Special Report20 - we would draw attention again to the shift towards protectionism by the Republicans in the Senate. Normally a bastion of pro-business free-traders, the Senate has turned to the left on free trade. Senator John Cornyn (R, Texas) has introduced a bill to make significant reforms to the process by which the United States reviews foreign investments for national security, led by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Two further bills, one in the House and another in the Senate, would also significantly tighten access to the U.S. by foreign investors. China is foremost in their sights. In early 2018, investors will also be greeted by two significant decisions. First, on tariffs: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. The International Trade Commission has already determined that imports of these goods can cause material injury to U.S. industries, so Trump merely has to decide whether to impose tariffs (likely from 35% to 50%), import quotas (which have never received limits from courts), or bilaterally negotiated export limitations from trade partners.21 The consequences would go beyond the current, country-specific tariffs on these items, setting a precedent that would expose a wide range of similar imports to punitive action, and more broadly would signal to the world that the U.S.'s protectionist turn under Trump is real.22 Second, the White House has allegedly completed a comprehensive review of China policy under way since June.23 The review is said to focus on economic rather than strategic matters and to call for the use of punitive measures to insist that China alter tactics long complained about by the United States, including intellectual property theft, export subsidies, and forced tech transfer from joint ventures in China. Already the U.S. is investigating China for intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, with results that could prompt tariffs no later than August 2018.24 As if on cue, Wang Yang, a new inductee on China's Politburo Standing Committee and a prominent reformer, wrote an editorial in the People's Daily declaring that China should protect intellectual property, not require tech transfers, and give foreign firms equal treatment under the "Made in China 2025" plan.25 China has made similar promises and the U.S. has made similar threats many times before, so decisions in the coming months will be telling. Ultimately we fear that President Trump may feel compelled to ratchet up protectionism in 2018 for two reasons. First, Americans within his populist base will grow restless as they do the math on the tax legislation and realize that their champion is not quite the populist they voted for. Trump will need to re-convince them of his protectionist credentials and independence from Washington elites and the policy status quo. Second, if our view on Chinese slowdown and American fiscal thrust is correct, the USD bull market should restart in 2018. This would hurt U.S. export competitiveness, expand the trade deficit, and motivate U.S. companies to invest abroad, a paradox of President Trump's tax and fiscal policy. The White House may, therefore, be compelled to reach for mercantilist solutions to an FX problem. Foreign Policy The final reason to worry is a "Lame Duck" presidency. Far more predictable presidents sought relevancy abroad late in their mandate. For example, President George H. W. Bush committed troops to Somalia on his way out of the White House. President Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia. Given Trump's dismal approval polling and a potentially historic "wave" election for the Democrats in November, President Trump could similarly shift focus to geopolitics. If that shift includes confronting regional powers like China (and/or North Korea), or Iran, risk premiums may rise. In the meantime, we expect tax cuts to pass. The going is getting tougher in the Senate. The decision to include the repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate - designed to cut another $300 billion in government spending over the next ten years - will make it more difficult to secure 51 Senate votes. We maintain our view that the final legislation may need until Q1 to pass. Between now and then, legislators may need a failure or two in order to realize that the clock is ticking toward the midterms. Bottom Line: Markets have cheered lack of action from the Congress. However, the going will get tougher in 2018 as investors fret about protectionism, President Trump's itch to remain relevant, and a potential takeover of the House by the most left-of-center Democratic Party in a generation. Europe: Germany Is A Passing Risk, Focus On Italy The collapse of coalition talks in Germany is not a structural concern for Europe. The breakdown in the negotiations occurred because of the immigration debate, in which the right-of-center Christian Social Union (CSU) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) struck out a different position from the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the liberal Green Party. Of course, the disagreement is not about immigration today, given that inflows of asylum seekers this year has been well below past flows (Chart 19A). Rather, the fundamental disagreement is over how the CDU and its leader Angela Merkel handled the 2015 migration crisis and how it will be handled in the future. Chart 19ANo Immigration Crisis Today No Immigration Crisis Today No Immigration Crisis Today Chart 19BGermans Love Europe Germans Love Europe Germans Love Europe For investors, what matters is that there is no substantive disagreement over the EU, European integration, or Germany's role in it. The mildly euroskeptic FDP did not draw any red lines. The reason is obvious: the German euroskeptic constituency is small, shrinking, and largely already captured by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) anti-establishment party (Chart 19B). Germans are objectively the most europhile people in Europe. Going forward, a new election would cause further political uncertainty. On the margin, it could cause business confidence to stall. However, Germany runs a 14 billion euro budget surplus and is not expected to launch any structural reforms or fundamental economic changes. As such, if the formation of a government is delayed by three-to-six months, the economic implications will be fleeting. In fact, the result of a new election could be a Grand Coalition between the CDU and Socialists, which would be positive for European integration. However, as we have argued before, hopes for a significant restart of integration have probably run ahead of reality.26 For us, Italy is the immediate concern. Italy passed a new electoral law in late October, setting the stage for the election due by May 2018. The consensus in the news media is that the president will call elections in January, with the vote taking place sometime in March.27 The consensus is that the new law will make it more difficult for the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) to win a majority of seats in the Italian Parliament. In addition, it will give a lift to the parties with strong regional ties - such as the governing Democratic Party (PD) and Lega Nord. Chart 20Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Italy Set For A Hung Parliament The nuances of the new law are largely irrelevant, however, given the close polling of the three electoral blocs. The most likely outcome will be a hung parliament (Chart 20). Nonetheless, we can still learn something from the law: the Italian establishment parties are cooperating to subvert the electoral chances of M5S. The ruling PD and the center-right Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are working together to design an electoral system that favors the pre-election norm of coalition-building and parties with strong regional representation. Neither of these factors fits M5S's profile. This suggests that the two centrist blocs will be able to put together an establishment coalition following the election. On one hand, this will give stability to the Euro Area for at least the duration of that government. On the other hand, the underlying data continues to point to structural euroskepticism in Italy. Unlike their European peers, Italians seem to be flirting with overt euroskepticism. When it comes to support for the common currency, Italians are clear outliers, with support levels around 55% (Chart 21). Similarly, over 40% of Italians appears to be confident in the country's future outside the EU (Chart 22). These are ominous signs for the future. Still, both M5S and the mildly euroskeptic Lega Nord have tempered their demands for an exit from the common currency union. The official stance of the M5S is that the exit from the Euro Area is only "option B," that is, an option if the bloc is not reformed. Meanwhile, Lega Nord is on record opposing a referendum on membership in the currency union because it is illegal.28 Chart 21Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Chart 22Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU The stance of Italy's euroskeptics will change as soon as it is convenient. The country's establishment is likely making a mistake by contemplating a grand coalition alliance. Unless such a government develops a serious plan for painful structural reforms - it will not - it will likely waste its mandate and fall at the first sign of recession or crisis. At that point, the only alternative will be the M5S, which will stand alone in opposition to such an ineffective government. Investors can therefore breathe a sigh of relief in the medium term. Italy will likely not be a source of risk-off in 2018 or even 2019, although it is still the main risk in Europe for next year and bears monitoring. However, in the long term, we maintain that Italy will be a catalyst for a serious global risk-off episode within the next five years. We remain optimistic that such a crisis will ultimately strengthen Italy's commitment to the Euro Area, as we outlined in a recent Special Report.29 But that is a low conviction view that will require constant monitoring. Could there be another scenario? Several clients have asked us if an Emmanuel Macron could emerge in Italy? Our answer is that there already was an Emmanuel Macron: Matteo Renzi, the former prime minister and current PD leader, was Macron before Macron. And yet he failed to enact significant structural and constitutional reforms. Yet two potential candidates may be ready to swoop in from the "radical center" position that Renzi and Macron characterize. The first is ECB President Mario Draghi. He is widely respected in Italy and is seen as someone who not only allayed the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, but also stood up to German monetarist demands in doing so. The second is Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, one of the world's most recognizable business leaders and a media star inside and outside Italy. If the centrist coalition begins to fray by the end of 2019, both of these individuals may be available to launch a star-studded campaign to "save Italy." Bottom Line: We remain cautiously optimistic about the upcoming Italian elections. While our baseline case is that Italian elections will produce a weak and ineffective government, though crucially not a euroskeptic one, nevertheless risks abound and require monitoring. Investment Implications There are a lot of unknowns heading into 2018. What will become of U.S. tax cuts? How deep will the policy-induced slowdown become in China? What will President Trump do if he becomes the earliest "Lame Duck" president in recent U.S. history? Will he embark on military or protectionist adventures abroad? Asset implications are unclear, but we offer several broad takeaways. First, the VIX will not stay low in 2018. Second, the USD should rally. Both should happen because investors are far too complacent about the Fed's pace of hikes and because of potential global growth disappointments as Beijing tinkers with the financial and industrial sectors. Chart 23AEuro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Chart 23BEuro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Third, it is time to close our recommendation to be overweight European risk assets. European equities have a higher beta to global growth due to the continent's link to Chinese demand. As our colleague Mathieu Savary has pointed out, when Chinese investment slows, Europe feels it more acutely than the U.S. (Chart 23). Chart 24U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback We are also closing our tactical long position on China's big banks versus its small-to-medium-sized banks. This position has been stopped out at a loss of 5%, despite the riskier profile of the latter banks and the fact that their non-performing loans are rising. Faced with these challenges, Beijing decided to open the door to foreign investment and too ease regulations on these banks so that they can lend to small cap companies as part of the reform drive. These actions inspired a rally relative to the Big Banks that worked against our trade. As financial tightening will continue, however, we expect this rally to be short-lived, and for big banks to benefit from state backing. Our highest conviction view is that it is time to short emerging markets. Our two core views - that politics will become a tailwind to growth in the U.S. and a headwind to growth in China - should create a policy mix that will act as a headwind to EM (Chart 24). The year 2017 may therefore turn out to have been an anomaly. Emerging markets outperformed as China aggressively stimulated in 2016 and as both the U.S. dollar and bond yields declined. This mix of global fiscal and liquidity conditions proved to be a boon for EM, giving it a liquidity-driven year to remember. That year is now coming to an end. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 China's official broad money (M2) measure has also sharply decelerated, as have all measures of China's money. We prefer BCA's Emerging Market Strategy's broader M3 measure. The official M2 has underestimated the amount of new money in China because banks and shadow banks have done extensive off balance sheet lending. The M3 measure includes bank liabilities excluded from M2, it is calculated by taking the total of non-financial institution and household deposits, plus other financial corporation deposits, and other liabilities. Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy, "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Temporary Short-Term Risks," dated November 10, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Cracks Are Appearing," dated November 15, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA 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. 8 Zhou's comments should not be interpreted merely as a farewell speech of a retiring central bank governor, since they echo the general policy shift in the administration since December 2016's Central Economic Work Conference, and April 2016's Politburo meeting, toward tackling financial risk. For Zhou's comments, please see "China's central bank chief lays out plans to avert future financial crisis," South China Morning Post, November 4, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 9 Xianyang in Shaanxi, and Wuhan in Hubei. Please see Wu Hongyuran and Han Wei, "Another City Halts Subway Projects Amid Financing Concerns," Caixin, November 13, 2017, available at www.caixinglobal.com. 10 Please see Kevin Yao, "China central bank adviser expects less forceful deleveraging in 2018," Reuters, November 15, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 11 The latest official announcement claims that an additional 31 SOEs will be listed for restructuring. Please see "More SOEs to be included in reform plan," People's Daily, November 16, 2017, available at en.people.cn. 12 We fully expect SOEs to be subjected to rigorous treatment from the National Supervision Commission. Note that the crackdown on overseas investment earlier this year merely touches the tip of the iceberg in terms of the SOE corruption that could be revealed by probes. See, for example, the following report on the National Audit Office's public notice on SOE fraud and irregularities, "20 Central Enterprises Overseas Investment Audit Revealed A Lot Of Problems," Pengpai News (Shanghai), June 26, 2017, available at news.163.com. 13 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. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Mistakes And Silver Linings," dated October 7, 2015, and "Legacies Of 2014," dated December 17, 2014, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Xi Jinping has called financial security an important part of national security and declared that "safeguarding financial security is a strategic and fundamental task in the economic and social development of our country." Please see Wang Yanfei, "Leaders aim to fend off financial risks," China Daily, April 26, 2017, available at www.chinadailyasia.com. For Zhao Leji's post-congress comments on this topic in the People's Daily, please see "China faces historic corruption battle, new graft buster says," The Guardian, November 11, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 17 See footnote 6. 18 More anecdotally, a clear majority of our clients disagrees with our bullish prospects of tax cuts. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see Chad P. Bown, "Donald Trump Now Has The Excuse He Needs To Open The Floodgates Of Protectionism," Peterson Institute of International Economics, October 9, 2017, available at piie.com. 22 Other measures could follow thereafter. For instance, the Commerce Department will issue its final report on steel and aluminum in January and Trump could decide to take punitive actions on these goods under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Please see Ana Swanson, "Democrats Pressure Trump to Fulfill Promise to Impose Steel Tariffs," New York Times, October 26, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. 23 The review itself began in June, around the time when Trump's and Xi's initial "100-day plan" to improve trade relations expired. The report that the review is completed is from Lingling Wei et al, "Beyond Trump-Xi Bond, White House Looks to Toughen China Policy," Fox Business News, November 19, 2017, available at www.foxbusiness.com. See also Adam Behsudi et al, "White House conducting wide-ranging review of China policy," Politico, September 28, 2017, available at www.politico.com. 24 The U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is supposed to finish his investigation into intellectual property under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act within a year of August 18, 2017. Please see Gary M. Hnath and Jing Zhang, "Trump Administration Initiates Section 301 Investigation of China's Acts, Policies and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property and Innovation," dated August 25, 2017, available at www.lexology.com. 25 Please see "Chinese vice premier pledges fair treatment of foreign firms as China opens up," Reuters, November 10, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Stick To The Macro(n) Picture," dated May 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Just in time to get a new government in place ahead of the World Cup! Oh wait... Too soon? 28 Which is an odd position to take given their supposed anti-establishment orientation. For example, the U.K. referendum on EU membership was non-binding, and yet it took place and had relatively binding political consequences. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, Instead of our Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Marko argues that while there is considerable risk that NAFTA is abrogated, the Trump administration would quickly move to alleviate the effects to trade flows. The risk to our view is that President Trump is a genuine populist, a view that his actions thus far do not support. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The "Great Gatsby" Curve NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto Manufacturing More Competitive NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 Chart 11Mexico's Growing Population Is A Potential Market NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).1 0Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto##br## Manufacturing More Competitive NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has ##br##Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment:##br## China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).10 Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know,” dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “U.S. Election: The Great White Hype,” dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency,” dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The potential for wrongheaded reform initiatives will be a key policy risk to monitor when judging the likely stability of the Chinese economy over the coming 6-12 months. Brash reform efforts without offsetting fiscal stimulus are unlikely, but this possibility bears monitoring. Chinese export growth will likely moderate over the coming year, but the absence of severe dislocations in the commodity and currency markets, like what occurred in 2015, will be an important factor supporting a stable deceleration in exports. Chinese stocks are outperforming the EM and global benchmarks, even after excluding the high-flying tech sector. Stay overweight. Feature China's 19th Party Congress has concluded, following yesterday's announcement of the new members of the Politburo Standing Committee. We will be providing investors will a full "postmortem" on the Party Congress and what it means for investors next week in a joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy Service, but for now we have a few brief observations. The Congress has confirmed that President Xi has greatly increased his political capital, and that the implementation of his policy directives over the coming years will be greatly aided by this increase in influence. But the principle contradiction highlighted by Xi looms large for investors, as it remains unclear how he plans on managing the dual goal of further increasing living standards and shifting the country's growth model to one that is more environmentally and economically sustainable. Our view remains that brash reform efforts without offsetting fiscal stimulus are unlikely, as they would risk a major policy mistake that could undermine overall stability. But the risk of wrongheaded (and now largely unencumbered) reform initiatives from the President will be a key policy risk to monitor when judging the likely stability of the Chinese economy over the coming 6-12 months. Turning to this week's research topic, today's report is the first of two parts examining the key differences facing China today from what prevailed in mid-2015, when the Chinese economy operated below what investors and market participants considered to be a "stable" pace of growth. In part I we focus on trade, and provide answers to the following questions: What were the root causes of the extremely weak external demand environment that China faced in 2015, and should investors expect these conditions to return? Why has Chinese export growth disappointed over the past several years relative to what BCA's export model would have predicted? Are Chinese exports likely to accelerate or decelerate over the coming year, and does this outlook suggest that China's will experience a gradual or sharp deceleration in economic growth? Revisiting China's External Demand Environment In 2015 Before judging the outlook for China's export sector, it is important to revisit the dynamics of global trade since the global financial crisis. As we will illustrate below, the weak external demand environment faced by China in 2015 was a function of severe dislocations in the commodity and currency markets that are unlikely to occur again over the coming 6-12 months. While Chinese export growth will likely moderate over the coming year, the absence of these shocks is an important factor supporting a stable deceleration. Chart 1 presents the trend in global import volume over the past decade, as well as its emerging market (EM) and developed market (DM) subcomponents. From 2007 until late-2011, the coincident nature of global trade is clearly evident: EM and DM import volume growth rose and fell in lockstep with each other, with the former growing at a consistently higher rate than the latter over the period. Chart 1In 2015, China's Export Sector Suffered From A Synchronized Global Slowdown In 2015, China's Export Sector Suffered From A Synchronized Global Slowdown In 2015, China's Export Sector Suffered From A Synchronized Global Slowdown Starting in 2012, however, regional import volume growth trend began to decouple. DM import volume growth continued to decelerate in 2012 and 2013 following the end of the V-shaped post-recession recovery, largely driven by the negative economic impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis. While euro area imports were the most affected by the crisis within the DM world, Japanese and U.S. import volume growth also eventually contracted (albeit only modestly in the case of the U.S.). Conversely, EM import volume accelerated materially during this period, boosted by material liquidity easing by Chinese policymakers. The impact of liquidity easing in China appeared very clearly in the total social financing data (excluding equity issuance), which, from mid-2012 to mid-2013, accelerated from 16 to 22%. From a global perspective, the rise in EM import volume growth from 2012 to 2013 successfully offset demand weakness in DM economies, which kept global import volume growth within a low but stable range of 1-3%. Growth in real global imports rose to the high-end of this range by mid-2014, as DM economies recovered from the end of the acute phase of the euro area crisis. The massive collapse in oil prices that began in June 2014 was clearly the trigger for a relapse in global trade from 2014 to early-2016 (which led to very weak export growth for China), but there is a particular aspect of U.S. import volume weakness during this period that is crucial to understand. Using conventional market narratives, a textbook reading of the combined U.S. dollar / oil shock of 2014 would have predicted a rise in real DM imports, which would have at least somewhat offset a decline in EM import demand (a reversal of the dynamics that were at play in 2012/2013). Lower oil prices represent a tax cut for net oil importing nations, and a higher dollar reduces the relative price (and thus increased the attractiveness) of goods imported into the U.S. Instead, however, real U.S. import growth fell in response to the dollar / oil shock, followed, with a lag, by weakness in euro area demand (Chart 2). Underestimating the importance of the oil & gas sector in the U.S. largely accounts for the failure of the textbook prediction: after having risen significantly during the expansion, real U.S. investment in mining exploration, shafts, and wells fell 63% from its peak, which caused an outright contraction in total real U.S. nonresidential fixed investment (Chart 3). The sharpness of the decline in the sector, coupled with the rise in the dollar, led to a broad-based slowdown in U.S. employment growth. Chart 2Lower Oil Prices And A Higher Dollar##br## Did Not Bolster DM Import Demand Lower Oil Prices And A Higher Dollar Did Not Bolster DM Import Demand Lower Oil Prices And A Higher Dollar Did Not Bolster DM Import Demand Chart 3A Collapse In U.S. Oil Productionr##br## Had A Significant Effect On Growth A Collapse In U.S. Oil Production Had A Significant Effect On Growth A Collapse In U.S. Oil Production Had A Significant Effect On Growth But Chart 4 highlights another important contributor to China's export weakness to the U.S. (and more generally) during the dollar/oil shock period: China's exports are not simply a play on consumer demand. The chart shows that U.S. capital goods imports from China have risen materially as a share of total goods imports, highlighting that the days of China exporting predominantly low value consumer goods are behind it. China's growing investment-oriented exports underscore why the sharp decline in oil prices failed to provide a net reflationary effect for the global economy from the dollar/oil shock, even if households and oil-consuming firms did in fact benefit from lower energy costs. Chart 4China's Exports Are Increasingly##br## Investment-Oriented China's Exports Are Increasingly Investment-Oriented China's Exports Are Increasingly Investment-Oriented Looking Forward Chart 5 highlights why China's export outlook over the coming year is unlikely to be buffeted from the sizeable commodity & currency market dislocations that began in 2014. Panel 1 illustrates that the global "oil bill" has fallen modestly below its long-term average from what had been the highest level since the late-1970s, implying that significant further downside for oil prices is likely limited. In fact, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service recently upgraded their oil price forecasts for 2018.1 In addition, the potential for a further sharp move higher in the U.S. dollar would also appear to have low odds, given that it has moved back to its long-term average versus major currencies and is at the high end of its range in broad trade-weighted terms (panel 2). Does this imply that China's export growth is set to stabilize at current levels, or even accelerate? At first blush, our export model would appear to support the latter conclusion, given that the model is currently predicting export growth on the order of 25%. But our model has consistently over-predicted Chinese export growth since mid-2011, and a breakdown of the causes of this gap help explain why a gradual deceleration in export growth is likely over the coming year. Using a method similar to DuPont analysis of Return on Equity, Chart 6 illustrates that China's export growth can be broken down into three component factors: Chart 5The 2015 Shock To China's Export Sector##br## Is Unlikely To Reoccur The 2015 Shock To China's Export Sector Is Unlikely To Reoccur The 2015 Shock To China's Export Sector Is Unlikely To Reoccur Chart 6Lower Global Import Intensity Is A Structural Anchor On China's Exports Lower Global Import Intensity Is A Structural Anchor On China's Exports Lower Global Import Intensity Is A Structural Anchor On China's Exports Global industrial production (IP) The import intensity of global IP, and Imports from China as a share of total global imports The chart shows that the gap between China's export growth and our model's prediction can largely be explained by the reversal of the decade-long rise in global import intensity, and more recently by a modest decline in China's share of global imports. Our measure of global import intensity is clearly impacted by fluctuations in global export prices (which are dominated by changes in commodity prices), but the end of rising global import intensity is also clear when imports are measured in real terms. A detailed examination of the causes of flat real global import intensity are beyond the scope of this report, but over the coming 6-12 months, we do not believe that either of the factors that have structurally depressed Chinese export growth over the past six years are likely to act as a major drag on China's export sector. Barring significant trade action from the Trump administration, real global import intensity in unlikely to change materially, and the recent decline in China's share of global imports appears to have been caused by prior strength in the RMB (Chart 7). The RMB has recently been strong against the dollar, but remains 8-9% below its 2015 peak in trade-weighted terms. As such, our analysis suggests that China's export outlook over the coming year will be largely determined by a single, cyclical factor: the trend in global industrial production, which should accelerate slightly over the coming months (Chart 8). While this would result in a moderation of Chinese export growth from current levels (as exports are currently growing faster than IP), the decline would be relatively modest in size and would not negatively impact Chinese domestic demand (panel 2). Chart 7The RMB-Driven Decline In China's Share ##br##Of Global Imports Is Over The RMB-Driven Decline In China's Share Of Global Imports Is Over The RMB-Driven Decline In China's Share Of Global Imports Is Over Chart 8A Modest Decline In Export Growth Is Likely,##br## But Nowhere Near Like 2015 A Modest Decline In Export Growth Is Likely, But Nowhere Near Like 2015 A Modest Decline In Export Growth Is Likely, But Nowhere Near Like 2015 Investment Conclusions We noted in our October 12 Weekly Report that the economic momentum of China's "mini-cycle" appears to have peaked earlier this year, and presented three possible scenarios for the coming year: 1) a re-acceleration of the economy and a continuation of the V-shaped rebound profile, 2) a benign, controlled deceleration and settling of growth into a stable growth range, and 3) an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy that threatens a return to the conditions that prevailed in early-2015 (or worse). The key takeaway for investors is that a modest decline in Chinese export growth to the current level of global IP growth is consistent with scenario 2, as it would be a far cry from the outright contraction of exports that occurred in 2015 and 2016. Importantly, a benign, controlled deceleration of Chinese economic growth should continue to support the relative performance of Chinese equities; Chart 9 shows that the MSCI China Free index is now in a relative uptrend vs. both emerging markets and the global benchmark, even after excluding this year's significant outperformance of the Chinese technology sector. As such, we continue to favor an overweight stance towards Chinese stocks relative to the EM benchmark, and within a "Greater China" equity universe.2 Chart 9China Is Outperforming, ##br##Even Excluding The Technology Sector China Is Outperforming, Even Excluding The Technology Sector China Is Outperforming, Even Excluding The Technology Sector Finally, a brief note on scheduling: We highlighted above that next week's report will be a joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy Service, which will provide a summary "postmortem" on the Party Congress and what it means for investors. Part II of our examination of the Chinese economy today vs. mid-2015 will follow on November 9, which will focus on China's monetary policy stance. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten", dated October 19, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 In last week's joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy Service (GPS), it should be noted that the investment conclusions section related to recommendations that have been made by the GPS team, rather than this publication. Specifically, China Investment Strategy's recommendation on Chinese equities continues to be an overweight stance on the MSCI China Free index vs the emerging markets benchmark, and was not adjusted to include only H-Shares as our GPS team has chosen to do. We apologize for any confusion that this may have caused. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights A major investment theme for the coming years will be the resynchronization of developed economy monetary policies. Expect substantial further convergence between U.S. T-bond yields and both German bund yields and Swedish bond yields. This yield convergence necessarily supports the currency crosses EUR/USD and SEK/USD. Underweight U.K. consumer services versus the FTSE100. Overweight German consumer services versus the DAX. The September 24 German election and October 1 proposed referendum on Catalan independence are not major catalysts for the financial markets. Feature A major investment theme for the coming years will be the resynchronization of developed economy monetary policies. As monetary policy resynchronizes, it will become clear that the extreme desynchronization of monetary policies over the past few years was the great anomaly (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). This anomaly reached its peak in 2014 when policies at the ECB and the Federal Reserve moved in diametrically opposite directions. The ECB signalled the start of its quantitative easing just as the Fed began to end its own. Chart of the WeekThe Desynchronization Of Monetary##br## Policy Was An Anomaly The Desynchronization Of Monetary Policy Was An Anomaly The Desynchronization Of Monetary Policy Was An Anomaly Chart I-2The Desynchronization Of Monetary##br## Policy Was An Anomaly The Desynchronization Of Monetary Policy Was An Anomaly The Desynchronization Of Monetary Policy Was An Anomaly Why Did Monetary Policy Desynchronize? The extreme desynchronization of monetary policy would not have happened if it was just about economics. On the basis of the hard economic data, the ECB could have emulated the unconventional policies of the Fed, BoJ and BoE years before it eventually did in 2015. If it had, ECB policy would have been much more synchronized with the other major central banks. However, unconventional monetary policy wasn't, and isn't, just about economics. The ECB faced, and still faces, much tougher political and technical hurdles than other central banks. The euro area does not have one government, it has 19. The ECB had to convince sceptical core euro area governments that zero and negative interest rate policy and bond buying were not just a bailout for the periphery, especially with the euro debt crisis so fresh in the mind. Likewise, the euro area does not have one sovereign bond, it has 19. To design and implement an asset purchase program in the euro area is much more complicated than in the U.S., Japan or the U.K. But by mid-2014 it had become clear that each wave of unconventional monetary easing - through its impact on exchange rates - had allowed other major economies to 'steal' some inflation from the euro area (Chart I-3). With the ECB still undershooting its inflation mandate, it was becoming a dereliction of duty for the ECB not to do what the Fed, BoJ and BoE had already done several years earlier. As the saying goes, it is better for a reputation to fail conventionally, than to succeed unconventionally. Chart I-3Currency Depreciations "Steal" Inflation From Other Economies Currency Depreciations "Steal" Inflation From Other Economies Currency Depreciations "Steal" Inflation From Other Economies Why Will Monetary Policy Resynchronize? Three years and several trillion euros later, the ECB can feel it has had a fair crack at unconventional easing (Chart I-4). At the same time, the central bank must contend with fresh political and technical hurdles. How many more German bunds can it realistically buy without irking Germany's policymakers? Chart I-4The ECB Has Had A Fair Crack At QE The ECB Has Had A Fair Crack At QE The ECB Has Had A Fair Crack At QE The ECB is also aware that ultra-loose monetary policy - by compressing banks' net interest margins - endangers banks' fragile profitability. This impairs the bank credit channel which is the mainstay of private sector credit intermediation in the euro area.1 Meanwhile, the euro area's configuration of solid economic growth, solid job growth and subdued inflation is common to most large developed economies (the exception is the U.K. which we explain below). Putting all of this together, the theme for the coming years has to be monetary policy resynchronization, one way or the other. One way is that the more hawkish central banks will become less hawkish, as subdued inflation limits the scope for monetary policy tightening. The other way is that the more dovish central banks will become less dovish as the benefits of ultra-accommodation diminish and the costs rise. Or, both ways will happen together. Nowhere are negative bond yields more absurd and more inappropriate than in Sweden (Chart I-5). In just three years the economy has grown 12% and house prices have surged 50%. Furthermore, unlike in other parts of Europe, the housing market in Sweden did not suffer a meaningful setback in either 2008 or 2011. Yet Sweden's negative interest rate policy means that it stills pays people to borrow and further bid up house prices. If anywhere is at risk of a bubble from ultra-accommodative monetary policy, Sweden must be it. For bond yield spreads and currencies - which are relative trades - it doesn't really matter how the resynchronization of monetary policies occurs. We expect substantial further convergence between U.S. T-bond yields and both German bund yields and Swedish bond yields. And this yield convergence necessarily supports the currency crosses EUR/USD and SEK/USD (Chart I-6). Chart 5A Negative Bond Yield ##br##In Sweden Is Absurd A Negative Bond Yield In Sweden Is Absurd A Negative Bond Yield In Sweden Is Absurd Chart I-6If The Swedish Bond Yield Shortfall ##br##Compresses, The Krona Will Rally If The Swedish Bond Yield Shortfall Compresses, The Krona Will Rally If The Swedish Bond Yield Shortfall Compresses, The Krona Will Rally The Myth Of The Beneficial Currency Devaluation Sharp depreciations in a currency result in an economy 'stealing' inflation from its major trading partners. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 suggest that absent the post Brexit vote slump in the pound, the gap between U.K. and euro area inflation would be almost 1% less than it is. Chart I-7The Weaker Pound Lifted ##br##U.K. Headline Inflation... The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... Chart I-8...And U.K. ##br##Core Inflation ...And U.K. Core Inflation ...And U.K. Core Inflation So the Brexit vote explains why the U.K. is one of the few major economies where inflation is running well north of 2%. Unfortunately for U.K. households, nominal wage inflation has not followed price inflation higher. Which means that the pound's weakness has choked households' real incomes. Against this, textbook economic theory says that a currency devaluation should make a country's exports more competitive and thereby boost the net export contribution to economic growth. But in the textbook the only thing that is supposed to change is the exchange rate. The textbook assumes that the country's trading framework with its partners remains unchanged. In the case of the U.K. leaving the EU, this assumption clearly does not apply, mitigating the concept of the 'beneficial currency devaluation'. A lot of the benefits of the textbook devaluation come because firms can trade in markets that were previously unprofitable to them. This process requires investment - for example, in marketing and distribution. If Brexit means that many of those markets are no longer available, or come with tariffs, then firms will hold off making the necessary investments - unless the currency devaluation is massive. But in this case, the corresponding surge in inflation and choke on households' real incomes would also be massive. We also hear the myth of the beneficial currency devaluation applied to the weaker members of the euro area. As in, why don't these countries just break free from the euro, and devalue their way to prosperity? The simple answer is that if they left the euro, they would also risk losing access to the largest single market in the world - defeating the whole purpose of the beneficial currency devaluation! A Tale Of Two Consumers Chart I-9A Good Pair Trade: Long German Consumer ##br##Services, Short U.K. Consumer Services A Good Pair Trade: Long German Consumer Services, Short U.K. Consumer Services A Good Pair Trade: Long German Consumer Services, Short U.K. Consumer Services For the time being, hawkish comments from the BoE have given the pound a boost. But U.K. consumer spending now faces one of two headwinds. If the BoE follows through with a rate hike, household borrowing is likely to fade as a driver of spending. Alternatively, if the BoE backs off from its threat, the pound will once again weaken, push up inflation and weigh on real incomes. So for the time being, stay underweight U.K. consumer services versus the FTSE100. In Germany, the opposite logic applies. Stay overweight German consumer services versus the DAX. Euro strength helps German consumers in as much as it reduces the prices of imported food and energy. But for German exporters, the strong euro hurts the translation of their multi-currency international profits back into local currency terms. A good pair trade is to be long German consumer services, short U.K. consumer services (Chart I-9). Finally, regarding two upcoming political events - the September 24 German election and the October 1 proposed referendum on Catalan independence, we do not see either as a major catalyst for the financial markets. In the case of the German election, it is because no likely outcome is especially malign (or benign). In the case of the Catalan referendum, it is because it will be hard to draw any meaningful conclusion from the result, given that Madrid has ruled the referendum illegal - and many 'unionists' are unlikely to participate. Please note that there is no Weekly Report scheduled for next week as I will be at our New York Conference. I hope to see some of you there. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In the euro area, small and medium sized companies tend to access credit through banks rather than through the bond market. Fractal Trading Model This week, we note an excessive underperformance of U.K. personal and household goods (dominated by BAT, Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser) versus U.K. food and beverages (dominated by Diageo and Associated British Foods). Go long U.K. personal and household goods versus U.K. food and beverages with a profit target / stop loss of 4.5%. In other trades, short nickel / long silver hit its 8% profit target, while short MSCI China / long MSCI EM hit its 2.5% stop loss. This leaves three open trades. 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-10 Long U.K. Personal and Household Goods / Short U.K. Food and Beverages Long U.K. Personal and Household Goods / Short U.K. Food and Beverages 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 Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights We estimate total Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) investment will rise from US$120 billion this year to about US$170 billion in 2020. The size of BRI investments is about 47 times smaller than China's annual gross fixed capital formation (GFCF). Therefore, a slump in domestic capital spending in China will fully offset the increase in demand for industrial goods and commodities as a result of BRI projects. Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Ghana will benefit the most among major frontier markets from BRI. Investors should consider buying these bourses in sell-off. On a positive note, BRI leads to improved global capital allocation, allows China to export its excess construction and heavy industry capacity, and boosts recipient countries' demand for Chinese exports. Feature China's 'Belt and Road' Initiative (BRI) is on an accelerating path (Chart I-1), with total investment expected to rise from US$120 billion to about US$170 billion over the next three years. Chart I-1Accelerating BRI Investment From China bca.ems_sr_2017_09_13_s1_c1 bca.ems_sr_2017_09_13_s1_c1 The BRI has been one of the central government's main priorities since late 2013. The primary objectives of the BRI are: To export China's excess capacity in heavy industries and construction to other countries - i.e., build infrastructure in other countries; To expand the country's international influence via a grand plan of funding investments into the 69 countries along the Belt and the Road (B&R) (Chart I-2); To build transportation and communication networks as well as energy supply to facilitate trade and provide China access to other regions, especially Europe and Africa; To facilitate the internationalization of the RMB; To speed up the development of China's poor (and sometimes restive) central and western regions, namely by turning them into economic hubs between coastal China and the BRI countries in the rest of Asia; To boost China's strategic position in central, south, and southeast Asia through security linkages arising from BRI cooperation, as well as from assets (like ports) that could provide military as well as commercial uses in the long run. From a cyclical investment perspective, the pertinent questions for investors are: How big is the current scale of BRI investment, and where is the funding coming from? Will rising BRI investment be able to offset the negative impact from a potential slowdown in Chinese capex spending? Which frontier markets will benefit most from Chinese BRI investment? Chart I-2The Belt And Road Program China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? China's BRI: Scale And Funding Scale China has been implementing its strategic BRI since 2013. To date it has invested in 69 B&R countries through two major approaches: infrastructure project contracts and outward direct investment (ODI). The first approach - investment through projects - is the main mechanism of BRI implementation. BRI projects center on infrastructure development in recipient countries, encompassing construction of transportation (railways, highways, subways, and bridges), energy (power plants and pipelines) and telecommunication infrastructure. The cumulative size of the signed contracts with B&R countries over the past three years is US$383 billion, of which US$182 billion of projects are already completed. However, the value of newly signed contracts in a year does not equal the actual project investment occurred in that year, as generally these contracts will take several years to be implemented and completed. Table I-1 shows our projection of Chinese BRI project investment over the years of 2017-2020, which will reach US$168 billion in 2020. This projection is based on two assumptions: an average three-year investing and implementation period for BRI projects from the date of signing the contract to the commercial operation date (COD) of the project, and an average annual growth rate of 10% for the total value of the annual newly signed contracts over the next three years. Table I-1Projection Of Chinese BRI Project Investment Over The Years 2017-2020 China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? The basis for the first assumption is that the majority of the completed BRI projects were by and large finished within three years, and most of the existing and future BRI projects are also expected to be completed within a three-year period.1 The second assumption of the 10% future growth rate is reasonable, given the 13.5% average annual growth rate for the past two years, but from a low base. These large-scale infrastructure projects were led mainly by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and often in the form of BOTs (Build-Operate Transfers), Design-Build-Operate (DBOs), BOOT (Build-Own-Operate-Transfers), BOO (Build-Own-Operate) and other types of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). After a Chinese SOE successfully wins a bid on an infrastructure project in a hosting country, the company will typically seek financing from a Chinese source to fund the project, and then execute construction of the project. After the completion of the project, depending on the terms pre-specified in the contract, the company will operate the project for a number of years, which will generate revenues as returns for the company. The second approach - investing into the recipient countries through ODI - is insignificant, with an amount of US$14.5 billion last year. This was only 12% of BRI project investment, and only 8.5% of China's total ODI. Chinese ODI has so far been mainly focused on tertiary industries, particularly in developed countries that can educate China in technology, management, innovation and branding. Besides, most of the Chinese ODI has been in the form of cross-border M&A purchases by Chinese firms, with only a small portion of the ODI targeted at green-field projects, which do not lead to an increase in demand for commodities and capital goods. Therefore, in this report we will only focus on the analysis of project investment as a proxy of Chinese BRI investment, as opposed to ODI. The focal point of this analysis is to gauge the demand outlook for commodities and capital goods originating from BRI. The Sources Of Chinese Funding The projected US$120 billion to US$170 billion BRI investment every year seems affordable for China. This is small in comparison to about US$3-3.5 trillion of new money origination, or about US$3 trillion of bank and shadow-bank credit (excluding borrowing by central and local governments) annually in the past two years. The financing sources for China's BRI investment include China's two policy banks (China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China), two newly established funding sources (Silk Road Fund and Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank), Chinese commercial banks, and other financial institutions/funds. Table I-2 shows our estimate of the breakdown of BRI funding in 2016. Table I-2BRI Funding Sources In 2016 China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? China Development Bank (CDB): As the country's largest development bank, the CDB has total assets of US$2.1 trillion, translating into more than US$350 billion of potential BRI projects over the next 10 years, which could well result in US$35 billion in funding annually from the CDB. The Export-Import Bank of China (EXIM): The EXIM holds an outstanding balance of over 1,000 BRI projects, and has also set up a special lending scheme worth US$19.5 billion over the next three years. This will increase EXIM's BRI lending from last year's US$5 billion to at least US$6.5 billion per year. Silk Road Fund (SRF): The Chinese government launched the SRF in late 2014 with initial funding of US$40 billion to directly support the BRI mission. This year, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged a funding boost to the SRF with an extra 100 billion yuan (US$15 billion). Therefore, SRF funding to BRI projects over the next three years will be higher than the US$6 billion recorded last year. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): The AIIB was established in October 2014 and started lending in January 2016. It only invested US$1.7 billion in loans for nine BRI projects last year. The BRI funding from the AIIB is set to accelerate as the number of member countries has significantly expanded from an original 57 to 80 currently. Chinese commercial banks: Chinese domestic commercial banks, the largest source of BRI funding, have been driving BRI investment momentum. Chinese commercial banks currently fund about 62% of BRI investment and the main financiers are Bank of China (BoC) and Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC). After lending about US$60 billion over the past two years, the BOC plans to provide US$40 billion this year. The ICBC has 412 BRI projects in its pipeline, involving a total investment of US$337 billion over the next 10 years, which will likely result in an annual US$34 billion in BRI investment. The China Construction Bank (CCB) also has over 180 BRI projects in its pipeline, worth a total investment of US$90 billion over the next five to 10 years. Only three commercial banks will likely fund US$80 billion of BRI projects over the next three years. A few more words about the currency used in BRI funding. The U.S. dollar and Chinese RMB will be the two main currencies employed in BRI funding. Chinese companies can get loans denominated either in RMBs or in USDs from domestic commercial banks/policy banks/special funds/multilateral international banks to buy machinery and equipment (ME) from China. For some PPP projects that involve non-Chinese companies or governments (i.e. those of recipient countries), the local presence can use either USD loans or their central bank's Chinese RMB reserves from the currency swap deal made with China's central bank. China has long looked to recycle its large current account surpluses by pursuing investments in hard assets (land, commodities, infrastructure, etc.) across the world, to mitigate its structural habit of building up large foreign exchange reserves that are mostly invested in low-interest-bearing American government securities. Risky but profitable BRI infrastructure projects are a continuation of this trend. China had so far signed bilateral currency swap agreements worth an aggregate of more than 1 trillion yuan (US$150 billion) with 22 countries or regions along the B&R. The establishment of cross-border RMB payment, clearing and settlement has been gaining momentum, and the use of RMB has been expanding gradually in global trade and investment, notwithstanding inevitable setbacks. Bottom Line: We estimate total BRI investment with Chinese financing will rise from US$120 billion this year to about US$170 billion in 2020, and Chinese financial institutions will be capable of funding it. Can BRI Offset A Slowdown In China's Capex? From a global investors' perspective, a pertinent question around the BRI program is whether the BRI-funded capital spending can offset the potential slowdown in China's domestic investment expenditure. This is essential to gauge the demand outlook for industrial commodities and capital goods worldwide. Our short answer is not likely. Table I-3 reveals that in 2016, gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) in China was estimated by the National Bureau of Statistics to be at RMB 32 trillion, or $4.8 trillion. Table I-3China's GFCF* Vs. China's BRI Investment Expenditures China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? Meantime, China-funded BRI investment expenditure amounted to US$102 billion in 2016. In a nutshell, last year GFCF in China was about 47 times larger than BRI investment expenditures. The question is how much of a drop in mainland GFCF would need to take place to offset the projected BRI investment. The latter will likely amount to US$139 billion in 2018, US$153 billion in 2019 and US$168 billion in 2020. Provided estimated sizes of Chinese GFCF in 2017 are RMB 33.5 trillion (US$4.9 trillion), it would take only 0.4% contraction in GFCF in 2018, 0.3% in 2019 and 2020 to completely offset the rise in BRI-related investment expenditure (Table 3). Chart I-3Record Low Credit Growth... bca.ems_sr_2017_09_13_s1_c3 bca.ems_sr_2017_09_13_s1_c3 We derive these results by comparing the expected absolute change in BRI capital spending expenditures with the size of China's GFCF. The expected increases in BRI in 2018, 2019 and 2020 are US$20 billion, US$14 billion and US$15 billion. Given the starting point of GFCF in 2017 was US$4.9 trillion, it will take only about 0.4% of decline in $4.9 trillion to offset the $20 billion rise in BRI. In the same way, we estimated that it would take only an annual 0.3% contraction in nominal GFCF in China to completely offset the rise in BRI capital spending in both 2019 and 2020. To be sure, we are not certain that the GFCF will contract in each of the next three years. Yet, odds of such shrinkage in one of these years are substantial. As always, investors face uncertainty, and they need to make assessments. Is an annual 0.4% decline in China's GFCF likely in 2018? In our opinion, it is quite likely, based on our money and credit growth, as illustrated in Chart I-3. Importantly, interest rates in China continue to drift higher. A higher cost of borrowing and regulatory tightening on banks and shadow banking will lead to a meaningful deterioration in China's credit origination. The latter will weigh on investment expenditures. The basis is that the overwhelming portion of GFCF is funded by credit to public and private debtors, and aggregate credit growth has already relapsed. Chart I-4 and Chart I-5 demonstrate that money and credit impulses lead several high-frequency economic variables that tend to correlate with capital expenditure cycles. Chart I-4Negative Money Credit Impulses Point To... ...Negative Money Credit Impulses Point To... ...Negative Money Credit Impulses Point To... Chart I-5...Slowing Capital Expenditure ...Slowing Capital Expenditure ...Slowing Capital Expenditure Therefore, we conclude that meaningful weakness in the GFCF is quite likely in 2018, and that it will spill out to 2019 if the government does not counteract it with major stimulus. By and large, odds are that a slump in domestic capital spending in China offset the rise in BRI-related capital expenditures. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service has written substantively on motives surrounding China's capital spending and how it is set to slow, and we will not cover these topics. Some reasons why investment spending is bound to slow include: considerable credit excesses/high indebtedness of companies; misallocation of capital and resultant weak cash flow position of companies; non-performing assets on banks' and other creditors' balance sheets and their weak liquidity position. To be sure, investors often ask whether or not material weakness in mainland growth will lead the authorities to stimulate. Odds are they will. Yet, before the slowdown becomes visible in economic numbers, financial markets will likely sell-off. In brief, policymakers are currently tightening and will be late to reverse their policies. Finally, should one compare the entire GFCF, or only part of it? There is a dearth of data to analyze various types of capital spending. In a nutshell, Chart I-6 reveals that installation accounts for roughly 70% of investment, while purchases of equipment account for the remaining 18%. Therefore, we guess the composition of BRI projects will be similar to structure of investment spending in China, and hence it makes sense to use overall GFCF as a comparative benchmark. In addition, the GFCF data is a better measure for Chinese capital spending over Chinese fixed asset investment (FAI) data, as the FAI number includes land values, which have risen significantly over the years and already account for about half of the FAI (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Chinese Fixed Investment Structure Chinese Fixed Investment Structure Chinese Fixed Investment Structure Chart I-7GFCF Is A Better Measure Than FAI GFCF Is A Better Measure Than FAI GFCF Is A Better Measure Than FAI Bottom Line: While it is hard to forecast and time exact dynamics over the next several years, odds are that the next 12-24 months will turn out to be a period of a slump in China's capital spending. This will more than offset the increase in demand for industrial goods and commodities as a result of BRI projects. Implication For Frontier Markets The BRI, which currently covers 69 countries, will keep expanding its coverage for the foreseeable future. Insofar as it is a way for China to create new markets for its exports, Beijing has no reason to exclude any country. In practice, however, certain countries will receive greater dedication, for the simple reason that their development fits into China's political, military and strategic interests as well as economic interests. As most of the investments are infrastructure-focused, aiming to improve transportation, energy and telecommunication connectivity as well as special economic zones, the recipient countries, especially underdeveloped frontier markets, will benefit considerably from China's BRI. Table I-4 shows that Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Ghana will benefit the most among major frontier markets, as the planned BRI investment in those countries amounts to a significant amount of their GDP. Chart I-8 also shows that, in terms of current account deficit coverage by the Chinese BRI funding, the three countries that stand to benefit most are also Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Ghana. Table I-1The B&R Countries That Benefit From ##br##China's BRI Investment (Ranged From High-To-Low) China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? Chart I-8Chinese BRI Funding's Impact On ##br##External Account Of B&R Countries China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? Of these, clearly Pakistan and Kazakhstan have the advantage of attracting China's strategic as well as economic interest: Kazakhstan offers China greater access into Central Asia and broader Eurasia; Pakistan is a large-population market that offers a means of accessing the Indian Ocean without the geopolitical complications of Southeast and East Asia. These states also neighbor China's restive Xinjiang, where Beijing hopes economic development can discourage separatist and terrorist activities. Pakistan Pakistan is a key prospect for China's exports in of itself, and in the long run offers a maritime waystation and an energy transit hub separate from China's other supply lines. For China, it is a critical alternative to Myanmar and the Malacca Strait. In April 2015, China announced a remarkable US$46.4 billion CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) investment plan in Pakistan, equal to 16.4% of Pakistani GDP. It is expected to be implemented over five years. In particular, the planned US$33.2 billion energy investment will increase Pakistan's existing power capacity by 70% from 2017 to 2023. On the whole, China's CPEC plan will be significantly positive to economic development in Pakistan in the long run, but in the near term it is still not enough to boost the nation's competitiveness (Chart I-9A, top panel). Chart I-9AOur Calls Have Been Correct Top 3 Frontier Markets Benefiting Most From Chinese BRI Investment Top 3 Frontier Markets Benefiting Most From Chinese BRI Investment Chart I-9BTop 3 Frontier Markets Benefiting Most ##br##From Chinese BRI Investment Our Calls Have Been Correct Our Calls Have Been Correct Also, as about 40% of the investment has already been invested over the previous two years, odds are that China's CPEC investment will go slower and smaller this year and over the next few years. BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy service's recent tactical bearish call on Pakistani stocks has been correct, with a 25% decline in the MSCI Pakistan Index in U.S. dollar terms since our recommendation in March (Chart I-9B, top panel).2 We remain tactically cautious for now. Kazakhstan Kazakhstan is a key transit corridor for Chinese goods to enter Europe and the Middle East. In June 2017, Chinese and Kazakh enterprises and financial institutions signed at least 24 deals worth more than US$8 billion. China's BRI investment in Kazakhstan facilitated the country's accelerated economic growth (Chart I-9A, middle panel). BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy service reiterates its positive view on Kazakhstan equities because of a recuperating economy, considerable fiscal stimulus and rising Chinese BRI investment (Chart I-9B, middle panel).3 Ghana Ghana is not strategic for China (it is a minor supplier of oil). Instead, it illustrates the fact that BRI is not always relevant to China's strategic or geopolitical interests. Sometimes it is simply about China's need to invest its surplus U.S. liquidity into hard assets around the world. Of course, Ghana itself will benefit considerably from the committed US$19 billion BRI investment, which was announced only a few months ago. This is a huge amount for the country, equaling 45% of Ghana's 2016 GDP. This massive fresh investment will boost Ghana's economic growth in both the near and long term (Chart I-9A, bottom panel). BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy service upgraded its stance on the Ghanaian equity market from negative to neutral in absolute terms at the end of July, and we also recommended overweighting the bourse relative to the broader MSCI EM universe (Chart I-9B, bottom panel).4 Our positive view on Ghana remains unchanged for now and we are looking to establish a long position in the absolute terms in this bourse amid a potential EM-wide sell-off. Other Macro Ramifications Industrial goods and commodities/materials are vulnerable. BRI will not change the fact that a potential relapse in capital spending in China will lead to diminishing growth in commodities demand. If there is a massive slowdown in property market like China experienced in 2015, which is very likely due to lingering excesses, Chinese commodity and industrial goods demand could even contract (Chart I-10). Notably, mainland's imports of base metals have been flat since 2010, and imports of capital goods shank in 2015 even though GDP and GFCF growth were positive (Chart I-11). The point is that there could be another cyclical contraction in Chinese imports of commodities and industrial goods, even if headline GDP and GFCF do not contract. Chart I-10Chinese Capital Goods Imports Could Contract Again bca.ems_sr_2017_09_13_s1_c10 bca.ems_sr_2017_09_13_s1_c10 Chart I-11Imports Of Metals Could Slow Further Imports Of Metals Could Slow Further Imports Of Metals Could Slow Further As China accounts for 50% of global demand of industrial metals and it imports about US$ 589 billion of industrial goods and materials annually, either decelerating growth or outright demand contraction will be negative news for global commodities markets and industrial goods producers. China's Exports Have A Brighter Outlook China's machinery and equipment (ME) exports account for 47% of total exports, and 9% of its GDP (Table I-5). The BRI investment will boost Chinese ME exports directly through large infrastructure projects. Table I-5Structure Of Chinese Exports (2016) China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown? Meantime, robust income growth in the recipient countries will boost their demand for household goods (Chart I-12). China has a very strong competitive advantage in white and consumer goods production, especially in low-price segments that are popular in developing economies. Therefore, not only is China exporting its excess construction and heavy industry capacity, but the BRI is also boosting recipient countries' demand for Chinese household and other goods exports. Adding up dozens of countries like Ghana can result in a meaningful augmentation in China's customer base. Notably, Chinese total exports have exhibited signs of improvement as Chinese ME exports and exports to the major B&R countries have contributed to a rising share of total Chinese exports since 2015 (Chart I-13). Chart I-12BRI Will Lift Chinese Exports Of ##br##Capital And Consumer Goods BRI Will Lift Chinese Exports Of Capital And Consumer Goods BRI Will Lift Chinese Exports Of Capital And Consumer Goods Chart I-13Signs Of Improvement In Chinese Exports ##br##Due To Rising BRI Investment Signs Of Improvement In Chinese Exports Due To Rising BRI Investment Signs Of Improvement In Chinese Exports Due To Rising BRI Investment BRI Leads To Improved Global Capital Allocation BRI is one of a very few global initiatives that improves the quality of global capital allocation. Therefore, it is bullish for global growth from a structural perspective. By shifting capital spending from a country that has already invested a lot in the past 20 years (China) to the ones that have been massively underinvested, BRI boosts the marginal productivity of capital. One billion dollars invested in the underinvested recipient countries will generate more benefits than the same amount invested in China. Risks To BRI Projects Notable deterioration in the health of Chinese banks may meaningfully curtail BRI funding, as Chinese non-policy banks will likely need to provide 60% of BRI projects' funding. Political stability/changes in destination countries: As most infrastructure projects have been authorized by the top government and need their cooperation, any changes in the recipient countries' governments or regimes may slow down or deter BRI projects. China already has a checkered past with developing countries where it has invested heavily. This is because of its employment of Chinese instead of local labor, its pursuit of flagship projects seen as benefiting elites rather than commoners, its allegedly corrupt ties with ruling parties, and perceived exploitation of natural resources to the neglect of the home nation. As China's involvement grows, local politics will be more difficult to manage, requiring China to suffer occasional losses due to political reversals or to defend its assets through aggressive economic sanctions, or even expeditionary force. For now, as there are no clear signs that any these risks are imminent, we remain positive on the further implementation of China's BRI program. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 China has long been known to use three-year periods - as distinct from its better known "five year plans" - for major domestic initiatives. In 2016, the National Development and Reform Commission re-emphasized three-year planning periods for "continuous, rolling" implementation. 2 Please see BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report "Pakistani Stocks: A Top Is At Hand", published March 13, 2017. Available at fms.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report "Kazakhstan: A Touch Less Dependent On Oil Prices", published March 28, 2017. Available at fms.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report "Ghana: Sailing On Chinese Winds", published July 31, 2017. Available at fms.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Based on long-term moving averages and the advance/decline line, the dollar selloff is still only a severe correction. These factors need to be monitored closely as they stand on the edge. To rebound, the dollar will need U.S. inflation to pick up, which will lift the U.S. OIS curve. Signs are accumulating that U.S. inflation will trough toward the end of 2017. Buying the dollar versus the yen is a much safer bet than shorting the euro. The CAD has more upside, especially on its crosses. Feature The U.S. dollar continues to be tested by investors. As paradoxical as it may sound, it is still too early to sound the death knell for the dollar bull market. However, it is not time either to aggressively bet on a rebound. For that to happen, U.S. inflation must regain its footing in a more convincing fashion. Why Isn't The Bull Market Dead? There are many facets to this question, but let's begin with technical considerations. First, the dollar's advance / decline line has not broken down (Chart I-1). A breakdown in this measure would be one of the key technical signals that the dollar has begun a new cyclical downtrend. In the mid-1990s, the dollar did experience a period of correction. During that time frame, the A/D line was also unable to break down, later highlighting that what was initially perceived as the beginning a new bear market was ultimately a prolonged period of consolidation. Chart I-1Still Not A Cyclical Bear Market Still Not A Cyclical Bear Market Still Not A Cyclical Bear Market Second, the dollar's trend has been best approximated by the four-year moving average of monthly prices. Since the Smithsonian Agreement of 1971, during bear markets, the dollar tends to find its ceiling around this indicator, and during bull markets, it tends to put a floor around this moving average (Chart I-2). Today, the dollar has yet to end a month below this measure. Third, positioning in the dollar is now depressed, as investors have purged their stale USD longs (Chart I-3). When one looks at net long speculative positions in EUR/USD - the most convenient and liquid instrument to bet on the dollar - investors are clearly enamored with the euro, which by definition illustrates their dislike of the greenback. Chart I-2No Trend Break For Now No Trend Break For Now No Trend Break For Now Chart I-3Dollar Downside Is Limited Dollar Downside Is Limited Dollar Downside Is Limited Technical indicators argue that we have experienced a painful correction in the USD, but valuation considerations suggest it will be difficult for these technical indicators to deteriorate enough to begin flagging a cyclical bear market. Our long-term fair value model, which incorporates productivity differentials, highlights that the dollar never hit the nosebleed levels associated with bull market tops in 1985 or in 2001 (Chart I-4). The stability in the trade balance and the current account - both have been stable at around 3% of GDP and 2.5% of GDP, respectively - are at odds with the sharp deterioration in the balance of payments that has occurred when the dollar has been genuinely expensive. Our intermediate-term valuation models point to an even more unequivocal conclusion. Based on this metric, the DXY is at its cheapest level since 2009, a discount that historically has been associated with dollar bottoms, at least temporary ones (Chart I-5). This gives us comfort that the A/D line is unlikely to break down for now, or that the dollar will end September significantly below its crucial four-year moving average. However, if these things happen, the dollar could experience significant downside. Chart I-4The Dollar Never Reached Nosebleed Valuations The Dollar Never Reached Nosebleed Valuations The Dollar Never Reached Nosebleed Valuations Chart I-5Big Discount To IRP Big Discount To IRP Big Discount To IRP Economic forces too do not point to a sharp move in the DXY below 91 - one that could drive the dollar down into the low 80s. After a period of deep underperformance, the U.S.'s economic surprises relative to the G10 have begun to stabilize, as have inflation surprises. More saliently, the incredible strength in the U.S. ISM manufacturing index, especially when compared to other PMIs around the world, points to a rebound in the USD, or at the very least, stabilization (Chart I-6). Finally, the market has now all but priced out additional hikes from the U.S. interest rate curve. There are only 30 basis points of hikes priced in over the next 24 months. Moreover, the probability of the fed funds rate remaining between 1% and 1.25% only falls below 50% in September 2018 (Table I-1). This seems to be a sanguine scenario. Chart I-6Cyclical Support ##br## For USD Cyclical Support For USD Cyclical Support For USD Table I-1Investors See U.S. Rates At Current ##br##Levels Until Late 2018 Conflicting Forces For The Dollar Conflicting Forces For The Dollar Bottom Line: The dollar's technicals are not yet indicative of the end of the cyclical bull market. However, they do need to be monitored closely. Additionally, the dollar is trading at a large discount to interest rate parity relationships, and the Federal Reserve is not expected to execute its next hike until late 2018. While these factors may not point to an imminent rebound in the USD, they do suggest that the down-wave in the dollar is very long in the tooth. Chasing the dollar lower is dangerous. Too Early To Bet The House On A Renewed Upleg Chart I-7The Global Deflation Anchor The Global Deflation Anchor The Global Deflation Anchor This observation on the probability of a Fed move brings us to the vital question of what could lift the U.S. interest rate curve higher, and thus the dollar. This would be the outlook for inflation. As Fed Governor Lael Brainard clearly argued this week, the Fed is not meeting its inflation mandate, warranting a slower pace of rate increases as global deflationary forces remain very potent. The dovish path implied by interest rate markets shows that investors already agree with this assessment. There is no denying that inflation has been globally and structurally pulled down by various forces. While the "Amazon effect" has grabbed headlines, Mark McClellan argues in The Bank Credit Analyst this month that the effect of e-commerce on inflation is no greater than that of Walmart in the 1990s - and probably amounts to a meagre 0.1-0.2% depressive impact on inflation.1 Instead, we peg the capacity buildup in EM and China - which has lifted the global capital stock massively since the turn of the millennia - as the main source of global deflation (Chart I-7). Now that global credit growth is lower than it was before 2008, it has become clearer that the global supply side of the economy has expanded faster than underlying demand, resulting in downward pressure on prices. Nonetheless, while there is a lid on inflation, this does not imply that cyclical determinants of inflation have been fully neutered. They simply have become weaker. Inflation can still ebb and flow in response to the business cycle, but the upside is not as strong as it once was. This limits how high nominal interest rate can go, which is why it is hard to envision a terminal rate much above 3% - a very low reading by post-war standards. Here, we continue to see a turning point coming later this year for inflation, one that would pull core PCE closer to the 2% mark wanted by the Fed in 2018. In the background, our composite capacity utilization indicator is now firmly in "no slack" territory, an environment in which inflation tends to perk up and where interest rate exhibit upside (Chart I-8). This is not enough to warrant fears of inflation, but healthy growth in this context should be a red flag for deflationists. This is exactly the set of circumstances we envision for the next 12 months, even if hurricane Harvey and its potential successors create noise in upcoming data. The U.S. economy has benefited from a strong easing in financial conditions since February 2016. The recent fall in real rates, which has been the key driver of the 60 basis-points fall in Treasury yields since December 2016, is now demonstrably reflationary. Lumber prices are once again at the top of their trading range since 2013, and gold prices have regained vigor. In this optic, the ratio of metal to bond prices - adjusted for their very different volatilities - has been a reliable leading indicator of U.S. growth (Chart I-9). Today, it is pointing to an acceleration of GDP growth relative to potential, the very definition of declining slack. Chart I-8Tight U.S. Capacity Is Inflationary Tight U.S. Capacity Is Inflationary Tight U.S. Capacity Is Inflationary Chart I-9Relfation Will Boost U.S. Growth Above Trend Relfation Will Boost U.S. Growth Above Trend Relfation Will Boost U.S. Growth Above Trend The labor market continues to display signs of resilience as well. True, the last employment report was paltry, but August has been marked by seasonal weaknesses for the past seven years. Moreover, August weaknesses have tended to be minimized in the wake of the notorious revisions typical of the U.S. Department of Labor. However, the strength in the labor market components of the NFIB small businesses survey highlights the potential for more job gains going forward. Where this indicator really shines though, is in its capacity to forecast household total wages and salaries (Chart I-10). Today, this gauge highlights that the income of middle class households will accelerate over the next six months. This matters because if the middle class - a category of U.S. households that gather the vast majority of their income from wages - experiences strong income growth, this will create robust support for consumption. With consumption accounting for 70% of U.S. GDP, a boost to this component would go a long way in lifting aggregate growth. Stronger growth in a tight economy is inflationary, and monetary dynamics confirm this risk. The U.S. velocity of money has picked up meaningfully, and now suggests that inflation will gather steam later this year (Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Labor Market Is Still Strong The Labor Market Is Still Strong The Labor Market Is Still Strong Chart I-11Monetary Dynamics Point To More Inflation Monetary Dynamics Point To More Inflation Monetary Dynamics Point To More Inflation We therefore expect that when this turnaround in inflation emerges, investors will re-assess their expectations for the path of U.S. monetary policy, and the dollar will finally be able to resume its upward trek toward new highs. But until inflation turns the corner, the dollar will continue to struggle to rally durably. Bottom Line: The U.S. economy is still on a firming path. With the amount of slack in the economy vanishing and with the velocity of money accelerating, this will lead to a pick-up in inflation late this year. The end of Q4 is likely to prove the moment when the dollar will finally be able to begin firming up. Investment Implications Shorting the Yen Is Still The Safest Bet Shorting the yen remains the best way to play a dollar rebound for now. The yen has not benefited much from the recent bout of risk aversion prompted by the renewed flare-up of in tensions in the Korean peninsula. It remains weak on its crosses like EUR/JPY, CAD/JPY or even AUD/JPY. USD/JPY seems incapable of staying below 108.5, and may even be forming a consolidation pattern reminiscent of the one experienced in 2013 (Chart I-12). In late 2013, this pattern was resolved by U.S. bond yields moving higher. This time is likely to be similar. The recent weakness in Japanese wages remains a key hurdle that the Bank of Japan does not seem able to shake off. Wage growth hit it slowest pace since 2015 and real wages are worryingly weak (Chart I-13). This is not the picture of an economy with any hint of inflation, even if the labor market is tight. Illustrating this point, contrarily to the euro area, Japanese inflation expectations have not kept pace with the U.S. in recent months (Chart I-14). This argues that the BoJ faces the greatest burden of any central bank. With the BoJ now packed with doves, we expect that interest rates and bond yields in Japan will remain capped for the foreseeable future. As a result, if U.S. bond yields can rise in the face of a strong U.S. economy, JGB yields will not follow higher. This will flatter USD/JPY. Chart I-12Consolidation Pattern In USD/JPY Consolidation Pattern In USD/JPY Consolidation Pattern In USD/JPY Chart I-13Falling Labor Income In Japan Falling Labor Income In Japan Falling Labor Income In Japan Chart I-14Japanese CPI Swaps Are Outliers Japanese CPI Swaps Are Outliers Japanese CPI Swaps Are Outliers A More Complex Picture For The Euro As investors have become more comfortable with the economic and political prospects of the euro area, the euro has become increasingly over-owned, but most importantly, has completely deviated from interest rate parity relationship (Chart I-15). At first glance, this would indicate the euro is greatly vulnerable. This reality, along with very long positioning of speculators in EUR/USD, highlights that it will be difficult for the euro to stay above 1.20 in the coming months. However, for the euro to move below 1.15, U.S. inflation has to pick up. Thus, for the remainder of the year, the EUR/USD is likely to remain range bound between these two numbers. Two factors make the picture less clear for EUR/USD than for USD/JPY. First, the European Central Bank is intent on beginning to taper its asset purchases this year, a move that will be announced in October. At yesterday's press conference, ECB President Mario Draghi was unequivocal about this, despite the slight curtailments to the central bank's inflation forecasts. Moreover, the seeming lack of concern vis-à-vis this year's 6% increase in the trade-weighted euro was perceived by investors as a green light to keep betting on a stronger EUR/USD. Second, as we argued five months ago, exchange rate dynamics are more a function of assets' expected returns than just interest rate differentials.2 As Chart I-16 illustrates, when a portfolio of eurozone stocks, bonds and cash outperforms a similar U.S. one, this leads to a durable rally in EUR/USD. Today, the relative performance of this European portfolio is toward the bottom of its historical distribution, and may even be already turning the corner. If this move has durability, inflows into the euro area could push EUR/USD back into the 1.3 to 1.4 range. Chart I-15Euro Is Expensive ##br##To IRP Euro Is Expensive To IRP Euro Is Expensive To IRP Chart I-16Outperforming Euro Area Assets##br### Could Support EUR/USD Outperforming Euro Area Assets Could Support EUR/USD Outperforming Euro Area Assets Could Support EUR/USD The Loonie Will Keep Flying The Bank of Canada delivered another rate hike this week. The BoC continues to focus on closing the Canadian output gap and the strong economy, ignoring weak wages and inflation. The BoC was rather sanguine regarding the slowdown in real estate activity in Toronto, Canada's largest city, and seemed comfortable with the CAD's recent strength, arguing it was a reflection of Canada's strength and not yet an impediment to it. The CAD interpreted this announcement bullishly. We agree. In a Special Report written last July, we argued that the BoC was among the best-placed central banks to tighten policy among the G10.3 Additionally, the CAD is cheap, trading at a 7% discount to PPP. It is also still below its fair value, implied by interest rate differentials. As such, we continue to overweight the Canadian dollar, being long the loonie against the euro and the Aussie. It also has upside against the USD, but could prove vulnerable to a pick-up in U.S. inflation. Thus, we remain committed to buying the CAD on its crosses. Bottom Line: The euro may be expensive relative to interest rate differentials, but the anticipation around the ECB's tapering continues to represent a support under EUR/USD. As a result, this pair is likely to remain range-bound, roughly between 1.2 and 1.15. USD/JPY has more upside as Japanese inflation expectations and wages are sagging, suggesting the BoJ is nowhere near the ECB in terms of moving away from an ultra-accommodative stance. The CAD will continue to experience upside for the remainder of the year; stay long the loonie on its crosses. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated August 3, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot", dated April 14, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy And Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report, "Who Hikes Next?", dated June 30, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 The dollar had a particularly eventful week. With Fed officials Brainard and Kashkari unleashing their dovish remarks, the greenback suffered as investors pushed down 10-year yields. While Brainard highlighted her concern over the "recent low readings of inflation", Kashkari took it further and said that the hikes may be "doing real harm" to the economy. Adding to the Fed's concerns, Stanley Fischer, a long-serving Fed official and an ardent supporter of policy normalization, announced his resignation on Wednesday. Mario Draghi's hawkish press conference added further downward pressure on the dollar, with the DXY making a new low of 91.41. It is unlikely that the dollar will be able to meaningfully rally until inflation re-emerges, a year-end event. Report Links: 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen - August 11, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 The euro reacted very positively to the ECB monetary policy speech. Draghi highlighted the uncertainty associated with the strong currency, but noted that the ECB doesn't expect it to have a large impact on inflation, which helped the euro hit a high of EUR/USD 1.2018. He nonetheless highlighted that achieving the ECB's price mandate will require "patience" and "persistence" and he expects inflation to hit its target by 2020. Additionally, the ECB lowered its inflation forecasts, while increasing its 2017 growth forecasts. In terms of QE, Draghi clarified that details will be revealed in the next meeting held on October 26, but that interest rates will remain accommodative for an extended period of time. Although President Draghi laid out some concerns about the strong euro, it seems momentum is unlikely to falter unless markets become more positive on the dollar or the pound. We expect this to occur by the end of this year, when inflation picks up again in the U.S. Report Links: 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been negative: Industrial production yearly growth declines substantially from June's 5.5% number, coming in at 4.7%. This data point also underperformed expectations. Housing starts contracted by 2.3% on a YoY basis, also underperforming expectations. Meanwhile, labor cash earnings also contracted by 0.3% on a yearly basis, underperforming expectations. As we highlighted a few weeks ago, multiple indicators are signaling a slowdown in the Japanese economy. The recent batch of negative data seems to confirm this view, which means that the dovish bias of the BoJ will only be further reinforced. Consequently the yen will be the mirror image of U.S. bonds. Given that rate expectations have collapsed to the point that the market is only anticipating 30 basis points in hikes in the U.S. over the next 2 years, risks point upwards for USD/JPY. Report Links: 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen - August 11, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in U.K. has been mixed: Markit manufacturing PMI increased from August to July, coming in at 56.9. This data point also outperformed expectations. Meanwhile, both construction and Markit services PMI underperformed expectations coming in at 51.2 and 53.2, respectively. Finally, nationwide house price year-on-year growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.1%. At the beginning of August, we warned of a repricing of rate expectations in the U.K. given that the pass through from the currency was set to dissipate, while the housing market and real disposable income were undergoing a major slowdown. So far, this view has proven correct, with the pound falling against the dollar and the euro. We expect that GBP/USD has further downside on a 12 month basis, as rate expectations in the U.S. have likely found a bottom. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Data out of Australia was not particularly strong: TD Securities Inflation dropped on an annual basis to 2.6% from 2.7%; Gross operating profits contracted at a 4.5% rate, below the expected 4% contraction; Current account balance came in at AUD -9.862 bn, below expectations, following a 59% decrease in the trade balance from the last quarter, and a 4% decrease in the net primary income; Most notably, GDP grew at the expected 1.8% annual rate, albeit faster than the previous growth rate of 1.7%. The RBA decided to leave rates unchanged, but with a slightly hawkish tone. While growth is generally in line with the Bank's forecasts, it was also highlighted that the appreciating exchange rate and low wages remain headwinds for inflation. A brighter housing market was noted as house price increases are slowing down, owing to macroprudential measures. While the Bank sees an improving labor market, we remain skeptical as the underemployment rate has not improved, which is limiting wage growth. Report Links: 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Surprisingly, in spite of the weakness of the U.S. dollar, the kiwi has been falling for the past month. This has been in part due to some weak data coming out of New Zealand: Building permits continued their decline, with a Month-on-Month decline in July of 0.7%. Both the ANZ Activity Outlook and the Business Confidence indicators declines in August relative to July. The New Zealand terms of trade Index underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.5%. Additionally July's number was revised down from 5.1% to 3.9%. The recent weakness in the NZD might be indicative of some weakness permeating from EM, given that the New Zealand economy is highly sensitive to the global economy. If an EM selloff materializes we expect significant downside for the NZD particularly against the yen. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Data has been quite strong out of the Canadian economy recently: The current account deficit was better than expected at CAD -16.32 bn, with the merchandise trade balance also improving; Manufacturing PMI came in at 51.7, beating the expected 51.3; GDP growth came in at an astonishing 4.5% annualized rate; Accordingly, the BoC raised the overnight rate to 1%. Markets were expecting hawkish remarks, but not a hike. The CAD rallied more than 1% against USD on the news, and outperformed all other G10 currencies. Current expectations for a December hike are at 68%, and we agree. The CAD will see further strength against all G10 currencies except USD by the end of the year. Report Links: 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Gross Domestic Product yearly growth came in at 0.3%, underperforming expectations and deaccelerating from a month ago. Headline inflation came in line with expectations at 0.5%, it also increase from the previous month reading of 0.3%. Real retails sales underperformed expectations, contracting by 0.7% on a YoY basis. However the SVME PMI outperformed and increased from the July reading, coming in at 61.2. After reaching 1.15 in early August, EUR/CHF has stabilized around to 1.135. Overall the Swiss economy is still too weak for the SNB to change their stance on currency intervention. Core Inflation will have to pick up to at least 1% for the SNB to consider a change in stance and let go of the implied floor in EUR/CHF. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Retails sales monthly growth came in at 0.4%, recovering from last month negative reading ad outperforming expectations. Manufacturing output growth also outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.5%. Finally registered unemployment came in at 2.7%, declining from last month reading and coming in line with expectations. USD/NOK has continued to go down as rate expectations for the U.S. have decreased and oil prices have increased thanks to the refining shut-downs in Texas due to hurricane Harvey. We expect this trend to reverse once rate expectations in the U.S. start to go up. However, we do expect more downside in EUR/NOK as this cross is much more sensitive to oil prices. Report Links: 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Swedish data was largely downbeat: Retail sales are growing at a 3.7% annual rate, in line with expectations; The Swedish trade balance went into a deficit in July of SEK -0.5 bn from a SEK 5.4 bn surplus in June; Consumer confidence decreased to 100.3 from 102.2 and below the expected 103; Manufacturing PMI also disappointed at 54.7, below the expected 60; Swedish IP is growing at a still high 5.3% annual pace, but less than the previous 8.9% rate; While this data was somewhat weak, Swedish inflation is at or above its target across all measures. The Riksbank left its repo rate unchanged at -0.5%. In its press release, the Bank highlighted high growth and inflation but stated that the rate will not be increased until the middle of 2018. It also increased inflation forecasts, with CPI and CPIF predicted at 2.9% and 2.1% by 2019. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades

Highlights Hurricane Harvey will prove a bigger market-mover than North Korea's latest missile test; The worst flood in Houston's history will improve U.S. policymaking and remove domestic risks; North Korea justifies hedging against violent incidents, but actors are constrained from full-scale war; Insights from our travels in Asia suggest that U.S.-China cooperation is still meaningful. China's reform reboot faces constraints; Abenomics is not done yet. Feature As we go to press, two crises are developing. The one that has rattled the markets - and that we focus on in this Weekly Report - is the North Korean missile launch. However, we think the more investment-relevant one is the slow-moving Hurricane Harvey, which is about to inundate Houston - a metropolitan area with nearly 7 million people - with more rain. We cannot predict the ultimate impact on the economy of the developing natural disaster, but we do know that Houston is experiencing the greatest flood in its history. The scale of human suffering is likely being massively underestimated at present. Comparisons with Hurricane Katrina are not without merit, but Houston has a population about five times that of New Orleans. Investors may rightly ask, so what? The stock market actually rallied at the height of Hurricane Katrina and one would struggle to pick its date on a chart of the S&P 500. The impact on the economy and markets is likely to be tepid in the near term once again. The significance of Hurricane Harvey is its likely impact on politics. First, there is now no chance that the debt ceiling will be breached. We discussed the low odds last week and we reiterate them here. Second, odds are that a government shutdown is unlikely as well. It is unfathomable to shut down the government during an emergency. Imagine if the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had to cease operations. Wall or no wall on the Mexican border, Republicans in Congress and the White House will fund the government. More than that, Americans suffering in a Red State that voted for President Trump could be the catalyst that Republicans need to put their intra-party differences aside and start working with vigor on legislation, including tax reform. We could even contemplate legislative action on a bipartisan infrastructure plan, although the ability of U.S. policymakers to put aside grief and focus back on partisan bickering never ceases to amaze. The bottom line for us is that in six months' time, when investors look back on late August 2017, it will be Hurricane Harvey that is cited as having been market-relevant in the long term, not North Korea's n-th missile launch. That said, North Korea remains relevant. It has launched an avowed ballistic missile over Japan for the first time (as opposed to a space launch vehicle, which it has done in 1998 and 2009). The launch originated near Pyongyang, a warning to the U.S. that any strikes against launch sites would be complex (involving civilians) and tantamount to an attack on the capital and a declaration of war. The United States and its allies will be forced to respond to this brinkmanship by trying harder to establish that the military option is indeed credible despite the well-known constraints (the decimation of Seoul). Therefore more market volatility will ensue in the coming months and year. We do not rule out major violent incidents, though full-scale war still seems highly unlikely due to hard constraints on the various actors. (Please see "Appendix" for our updated checklist on whether the U.S. will attack.) While we do not expect either Pyongyang or Hurricane Harvey to derail the bull market, we recognize that valuations are stretched, volatility is low, and the market may be looking for a reason to sell off significantly. In this report, we discuss insights on North Korea and other key issues gleaned from our recent travels abroad. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy went on the road this summer for five weeks. We visited the American Midwest, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, China, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. There we had the pleasure of speaking with clients across the asset management industry. Each region had its own set of specific questions and concerns, as well as insights. Over the next two weeks, we plan to share these with our entire client base. Going on the road is critical for investment strategists. It is an opportunity to stress-test and sharpen one's view through interaction with sophisticated investors. Meeting clients also ensures that you are asking the right questions. We are happy to report that our three main questions - how stimulative will U.S. tax reform be; is China willing to deleverage; and is Italy a potential source of global risk-off - are indeed on all of our clients' minds. This does not mean that everyone came to the same conclusions that we did, but at least we know that we are looking for the same answers. Sino-American Split Is Overstated Investors are no longer as quick to dismiss one of our central geopolitical theses: that the U.S. and China are on a path likely to end in the "Thucydides Trap."1 However, one of our clients was not so sure that U.S.-China relations are deteriorating as rapidly as they appear to be. He observed a pattern in bilateral trade that suggested to him that the two countries are working together, under the table, to keep relations from collapsing despite the unprecedented challenges posed by the post-2008 global political and economic environment. He began with the simple point that the U.S.'s rising trade protectionism against Chinese steel in recent years actually made it easier for President Xi to take aim at overcapacity problems in the steel sector in China. After U.S. steel imports from China collapsed, from 20% of total in 2008 to 3% in 2016, China was able to embark on a long-delayed purge of excess steel capacity, shutting down a reported 87mmt over the past year and a half (Chart 1). China moved up the steel product value chain partly as a result of U.S. actions.2 China also appears to have responded promptly to U.S. complaints about agricultural imports. In late 2016, amid a heated and protectionist presidential campaign, the U.S. government threatened to impose tariffs on China's grain exports and demanded that subsidies be removed so that U.S. companies could compete on a level playing field in China's domestic market. Corn prices were at a nine-year low; Beijing was giving rebates to domestic corn exporters and had amassed large corn inventories. Within a few months, in March 2017, China launched the agricultural side of its supply-side reforms. It removed the supports for corn, allowing prices to plummet and making way for lower Chinese supply and thus more U.S. imports (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. And China Attack Chinese Steel Capacity U.S. And China Attack Chinese Steel Capacity U.S. And China Attack Chinese Steel Capacity Chart 2China's Supply-Side Agriculture Reforms China's Supply-Side Agriculture Reforms China's Supply-Side Agriculture Reforms Most recently, the client emphasized, China launched one of its periodic crackdowns on intellectual property violations.3 Enforcement was observable in China's mainstream online services, which largely lost the ability to stream content for which they lacked the rights.4 As with steel, China has a self-interest in these reforms, especially as it generates its own intellectual property. But it cannot have detracted from China's urgency that the U.S. announced a formal investigation in early August to determine whether China's intellectual property violations deserve punitive actions.5 It is as if China anticipated the U.S.'s moves coming out of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue in July. In these and many other cases, a pattern seems to emerge: U.S. trade grievances boil up, U.S. authorities threaten punitive actions, China responds to the threat by vowing retaliation and pushing through supply-side reforms that are already in its interest. The process appears to be a win-win, however precarious. The client also suggested that the U.S. may be offering to become more constructive toward certain Chinese initiatives. For instance, China is pressing forward on the long-delayed launch of an oil futures contract on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange in the second half of 2017. This new benchmark would ostensibly rival Brent and West Texas Intermediate contracts and be settled in RMB instead of USD. To our client, China's moving forward with this scheme, immediately after top-level trade negotiations with the U.S., seemed to reveal the U.S.'s tacit support for RMB internationalization. Certainly the U.S. nodded at the IMF including the RMB in its special drawing rights basket.6 Presumably, then, the U.S. and China have not entirely lost the ability to deal with each other on sensitive issues in an atmosphere fraught with distrust. Moreover, both sides can attempt to roll with the punches. China can blame the difficulties of necessary internal reforms on U.S. protectionism, while U.S. protectionist impulses can be mitigated via China's internal reforms. This dynamic could become the silver lining in Sino-American relations in 2018, a year in which Xi will have the best opportunity to push reforms while Trump may be most eager to take protectionist actions ahead of the midterm election. A silver lining to a black cloud, of course. Bottom Line: Risks to Sino-American relations remain serious, but the two sides still retain some ability to manage tensions. The question is how much ability? Our own view has been that 2017 would largely be a year of Trump issuing "a shot across the bow" and then negotiating. Concrete, aggressive action would be more likely to occur in 2018. This remains our baseline case. But silent coordination of the kind described above could perhaps improve trade relations enough to satisfy Trump in 2018 and delay a Sino-U.S. confrontation. China has long dealt with protectionist threats from the U.S. by conceding various reforms and policy adjustments, especially by increasing U.S. imports. The U.S. has long accepted such a response. We doubt that this tactic will be enough in this day and age, but maybe so. North Korea Could Cause A Recession What about U.S.-China cooperation on North Korea? It appears as if coordination has improved in the face of a potential conflict. At the peak of tensions this summer, China has offered to implement sanctions, cutting off some trade and joint ventures, while the U.S. has given reassurances about U.S. military intentions in the event of a conflict.7 However, judging by conversations with clients on the mainland, a large gap still exists between U.S. and Chinese perceptions. In particular, Chinese clients pushed back against any implication that China is responsible for reining in North Korea's bad behavior. They highlighted China's emphasis on national autonomy, the idea that every country should be left alone to address its own problems in its own jurisdiction. Otherwise countries should resolve differences through diplomacy and dialogue, conducted as equals. The threat or use of force always makes things worse. The current North Korean situation is, from this perspective, America's fault. The North Koreans pursue nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles in order to deter a U.S. attack, having seen what happened to other nuclear aspirants like Iraq, Syria, and most recently Libya.8 In short, China sympathizes with its formal ally North Korea. It demands peaceful negotiations and denounces the threat of regime change. And it does not believe U.S. officials when they renounce regime change as an option, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has recently done. "No one will believe that," one of our clients said, and least of all North Korea. (Quite reasonably, we would add.) This argument reinforces our view that China will not impose crippling sanctions on the North, even if it tries to pressure Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. Since the North cannot be expected to give up its nuclear weapons, the negotiations themselves will be limited from the outset. The U.S. essentially has to accept the status quo, possibly even the perpetual threat of a North Korean nuclear strike. This, in turn, increases the probability that the Trump administration will be disappointed with the outcome. Which is precisely why we expect the U.S. not only to bulk up its military alliance in the region but also to impose more "secondary sanctions" and trade tariffs on China. Sino-American tensions will get harder and harder to manage. While we can foresee skirmishes and violent incidents, we think the probability of a full-scale Second Korean War is low. Diplomacy is not exhausted, the U.S. alliance with regional powers remains intact, and, most importantly, North Korea has not committed an act of war (or acted as if it is about to, which would prompt U.S. preemption). Regarding the big picture, some of our clients are not so sanguine. One of them pointed out recent academic research arguing that armed conflict, as a cause of death in the human population, has declined. The number of violent deaths per 100,000 people has fallen from historic levels in the hundreds down to an average of 60 in the twentieth century, which includes two world wars, and down to the single digits in the post-WWII era (Chart 3). The client asks: Is this drop in war deaths sustainable? The implication is that the level of deaths has nowhere to go but up. Chart 3Human Deaths By War Have Collapsed In Post-WWII Era Insights From The Road - Asia Insights From The Road - Asia The client coupled this thought with another bearish theory. It is widely known that recessions are normally preceded by large financial or economic imbalances. Today many investors are encouraged by the apparent lack of any such imbalance. They read this as saying, "let the good times roll." Our client viewed it another way, suggesting that the imbalance that will cause the next major recession will be non-financial and non-economic, e.g. ecological, epidemiological, geopolitical, etc. Chart 4Global Conflicts Increasing In Frequency Global Conflicts Increasing In Frequency Global Conflicts Increasing In Frequency The client was not specifically hinting at a North Korean conflagration, though probably not ruling it out either. He was mostly concerned with the historic drop in deaths by conflict and how it might be reversed in the near future. Unfortunately this bleak suggestion that war might make a secular comeback is not incompatible with our view that geopolitical multipolarity goes hand in hand with a higher incidence of internationalized conflicts (Chart 4), which could be exacerbated by a decline in global trade. On the other hand, the fall in deaths is a product of a range of political, economic, social and scientific advances, and may not be reversed through geopolitical tensions alone. Bottom Line: The U.S. and China remain far apart in their perceptions of who is to blame for North Korea and what is to be done. China will not take responsibility for "solving" the problem as the U.S. demands. This reinforces our view that North Korean tensions have not yet peaked and remain market-relevant. We ultimately believe that a peaceful solution will prevail, but getting from here (tensions) to there (a negotiated settlement) entails further risks. China Will Try To Reform, But Won't Touch The Property Bubble "They've got to do something about the corporate leverage." This was the conclusion of a client who agreed with our view that President Xi Jinping will likely accelerate his reform agenda after the nineteenth National Party Congress this fall, and that deleveraging is the key indicator (Chart 5). Some clients in China - specifically banks - confirmed that they were under pressure from tightening financial regulation and as a result were both slowing the pace of lending and becoming more scrutinizing of borrowers' creditworthiness. Borrowing rates have ticked up (Chart 6). Chart 5High Time For Some Belt-Tightening High Time For Some Belt-Tightening High Time For Some Belt-Tightening Chart 6Chinese Cost Of Capital Ticks Up Chinese Cost Of Capital Ticks Up Chinese Cost Of Capital Ticks Up Clients also suggested that Chinese leaders would soon re-emphasize the country's transition away from GDP targets as a measure of successful governance and economic stewardship. When the Xi administration came to power, it sought to de-emphasize GDP targets and introduced new and alternative targets - such as urban and rural income per capita, labor productivity, corruption, air pollution - into its assessments of economic progress. But the administration was forced to return to GDP targets amid growth fears in 2015, prompting Premier Li Keqiang to promise "at least" 6.5% growth for the next five years. Now the attempt to elevate qualitative measures of governance looks set to resume. Xi held two meetings of the Central Leading Group for Deepening Overall Reform this summer, in which he noticeably prioritized "green growth" rather than plain old growth, and pushed for replicating and applying more broadly the pilot reforms that have been implemented since his reform agenda was first laid out in 2013. In mid-July, at the National Financial Work Conference, Xi called for local officials to be held accountable for local government debt - even beyond their term in office. And in late July, Yang Weimin, a key economic policymaker who reports to Xi, said, "we won't allow the leverage ratio to rise for the sake of maintaining growth."9 The implication is that GDP growth will be allowed to fall as the government attempts to make progress on difficult reform initiatives. Chart 7Bonds More Important In China Bonds More Important In China Bonds More Important In China Several clients also expressed confidence that China would resume economic "opening up" before long. It is well known that, over the past year, Beijing has sought to attract FDI by promising to implement a nationwide "negative list" and removing certain sub-sectors from that list, in a bid to counter recent weak FDI inflows and ongoing capital outflow pressure. Beijing has also taken steps to deepen its financial sector, such as by expanding and regularizing its bond markets (Chart 7) in preparation for opening the Hong Kong-Shanghai "bond connect," which will allow foreign investors to buy Chinese bonds and, we think, generate strong demand. To add to this list, clients stressed that China is beginning to think about what happens after it lifts the capital controls put in place last year to halt outflows. A number of institutions are interested in expanding their overseas portfolios when they get the "all clear." We would expect the re-opening to come after the central government completes a round of reforming, recapitalizing, and restructuring banks and SOEs, which could push the timing well into 2018 or 2019. But clients are clearly chomping at the bit - which may suggest that they anticipate capital controls to be lifted sooner rather than later. One important reform item that we were told not to expect is the imposition of a nationwide property tax. Chinese authorities delayed the implementation of the tax in 2016 due to the desire to reflate the property market. Presumably they will return to this initiative now that the economy has recovered: it makes long-term sense to give local governments a more stable source of revenue and to suck some air out of the property bubble gradually so that it does not burst (Chart 8). However, clients are skeptical about any reforms that could harshly suppress real estate prices due to the heavy concentration of household wealth in the property sector (Chart 9). Chart 8Provinces To Be Weaned Off Of Land Sales? Provinces To Be Weaned Off Of Land Sales? Provinces To Be Weaned Off Of Land Sales? Chart 9Chinese Wealth Stored In Housing Insights From The Road - Asia Insights From The Road - Asia If the property bubble should be popped, people's life savings would vanish into thin air and there would be chaos in the streets. A client in Hong Kong remarked that the Chinese public will pretty much accept anything as long as property prices continue to rise. Since everyone agrees that social stability is the critical aim of the ruling party, it stands to reason that reforms will not be allowed to threaten the property sector, at least not directly. If the property sector prevents serious attempts at deleveraging, then the environmental agenda will become all the more significant as the focus of the Xi administration in its second five-year term. The administration began by increasing central government spending for environmental regulation more than for any other category of spending (Table 1). And Xi's statements in July, previewing the National Party Congress, emphasized fighting pollution as one of three chief focal points (the others were controlling systemic risks and fighting poverty). Table 1Fiscal Priorities Of Recent Chinese Presidents Insights From The Road - Asia Insights From The Road - Asia In recent months, central inspectors have fanned out across the country to conduct local pollution inspections ahead of end-of-year deadlines. These have fueled market speculation about deep curbs coming to industrial overcapacity, causing the prices of certain commodities that China produces, like aluminum, to surge (Chart 10). These commodity prices have likely already seen the biggest moves - given China's sharp slowdown in 2014 and reflation in 2015-16 - but they are still sensitive to the policy mix in China, i.e. the relative amounts of capacity cuts and deleveraging that take place. Chart 10Supply-Side Reform Has Boosted Metals Supply-Side Reform Has Boosted Metals Supply-Side Reform Has Boosted Metals Bottom Line: Clients across the Asia-Pacific region were focused on the question of Chinese structural reforms. We got the sense that there was much skepticism over whether they would indeed be growth-constraining. But when pushed, clients focused on real estate prices as the one threshold policymakers would not dare to cross in China. What About Japan? A Visit With Mr. K One of our most esteemed clients is a seasoned Japanese global investor who shall go by the moniker of "Mr. K" in the following dialogue (and for future reference). Mr. K opened the dialogue with us by asking us for our view of Japan. Mr. K: What is your view on my country, on Japan? GPS: We tend to think that the current reflationary policy will continue. The Tokyo metropolitan elections did not sound the death knell for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (Chart 11). The BoJ has become more, not less, dovish, and is not likely to follow other central banks in tightening policy anytime soon. Abe retains control of both houses of the Diet and can increase government spending to boost the economy. And the LDP will continue reflation even if Abe falls. Mr. K: This may be true, reflation will continue. However, the Japanese economy is reaching a plateau after five years of Abenomics. The recent strong GDP numbers were not well-received because consumers feel the stagnation (Chart 12). Global demand, and Chinese demand, have provided a positive backdrop for Japanese manufacturers, but the domestic outlook is not wildly optimistic. Chart 11Abe No Longer In Free-Fall Insights From The Road - Asia Insights From The Road - Asia Chart 12Japanese Feel Stagnant Despite Strong Growth Japanese Feel Stagnant Despite Strong Growth Japanese Feel Stagnant Despite Strong Growth With economic policy, the key phrase is "TINA," There Is No Alternative. There is no alternative to Abe at the moment. If you look back at the Democratic Party of Japan's support in 2011 under Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, it was a real contender. Today, it is far from rivaling the LDP (Chart 13). The voting population is, apparently, comfortable. It is true that if Abe leaves, it will not make much of a difference, as long as the LDP remains in power. The younger generations do not seem troubled by the current state of affairs. They are well-trained to endure economic stagnation. There is a sense that those who stand out feel uncomfortable. College graduates looking for jobs are very conservative. While with Generation X there was always the expectation that tomorrow would be a brighter day, Generation Millennial has come not only to accept stagnation, but even to like the stability of flat growth. GPS: Isn't this kind of stagnation a good thing? Isn't it a case of Japan being in a "Goldilocks" phase? Mr. K: Stability and stagnation can be good for markets. First, the macro environment is decent. Corporations have large cash balances, external demand is strong, wage demand is subdued, and the exchange rate is weak. However, risk-taking is not prized, whether in the education system or the media. Public discourse tends to discourage high-risk investments. And risk-takers have not been properly rewarded over the past two decades in Japan (Chart 14), so confidence and risk-appetite are weak. Also, deflation is hard to defeat. The "100 Yen Shop" (dollar store) retail model is a good example. The goods are all cheap, but as long as you can bring more people in, you can make a profit. This is almost all deflationary. Moreover, the Japanese have nothing to spend on! They no longer need new cars, or big computers; they just need mobile phones, maybe a Nintendo Switch, etc. Second, as to the financial markets, greater deregulation is necessary to attract non-Japanese capital flows. Maybe then valuations will normalize (Chart 15). It is essential to see if leading companies continue to gain global competitiveness, in anything from Internet services to gaming. Watch valuations and watch cash flow. Chart 13Opposition Still Can't Touch Ruling LDP Opposition Still Can’t Touch Ruling LDP Opposition Still Can’t Touch Ruling LDP Chart 14Risk-Takers Punished In Japan Risk-Takers Punished In Japan Risk-Takers Punished In Japan Chart 15Japanese Valuations Still Low Japanese Valuations Still Low Japanese Valuations Still Low The key firms are not necessarily the keiretsu, but secondary or new manufacturers that are driving growth. Small caps are more leveraged to foreign exchange, whereas neither the Japanese domestic economy nor the value of the yen matter much to large multinationals anymore. To capitalize on the internal economy you want to be long small caps. Or better yet, long semi-large caps: those companies equivalent to the U.S. companies that make the difference between the S&P 500 and the S&P 600. These are some of the best plays in Japan because they are domestic-oriented and sensitive to the weaker yen. This will provide a tailwind for stocks elsewhere. Local property markets also offer a very good return over the risk-free rate. GPS: What do you make of our view that Abe will push reflationary policy ahead of his efforts to revise the constitution? Given that he needs a strong economy to pass the popular referendum? Mr. K: It is harder to increase fiscal spending in Japan than one might think. However, the North Korean threat is not going anywhere. And the media love "tensions." GPS: So it seems like you are positive about the markets in Japan, but are not yet sold on Abenomics? Mr. K: I suppose the lesson is, if it isn't too cold, stay on the ski slopes. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 For this term, please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, as well as Allison's new book, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017). 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture," dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Geopolitical Pressure Points: Knowns, Unknowns And A Hedge," dated August 17, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "China cracks down on distribution of illegal publications," Xinhua, July 25, 2017, available at news.xinhuanet.com. China also highlighted the BRICS countries' joint efforts at enforcing intellectual property as it prepared to host the BRICS conference in Xiamen, Fujian in September. Please see Ministry of Commerce, "Ministry Of Commerce Holds Press Conference on 2017 BRICS Trade Ministers' Meeting," August 4, 2017, available at english.mofcom.gov.cn. 5 Please see the Office of the United States Trade Representative, "USTR Announces Initiation of Section 301 Investigation of China," August 2017, available at ustr.gov. 6 Other examples of U.S. cooperation with Chinese initiatives include the U.S. sending a small delegation to take part in the One Belt One Road (OBOR) conference in May. 7 In particular, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dunsford visited China, met with the Central Military Commission, and vowed to improve military-to-military relations. 8 Or a country like Ukraine, which agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal as soon as it became independent in 1994, only to see its territory carved up by global powers 20 years later (13 years after it emptied its missile silos). 9 Please see Sidney Leng, "China shifts gear from growth to debt cuts in race against rising tide of red ink," South China Morning Post, July 27, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. Appendix Table 2Will The U.S. Attack North Korea? Insights From The Road - Asia Insights From The Road - Asia Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The global economic recovery has been driven by demand in China, the U.S. and Europe, while domestic demand in EM ex-China has not recovered much. Going forward, the key to EM financial markets performance will be Chinese imports and commodities prices. Our negative outlook for China's capital spending and imports will be wrong if the money velocity or the money multiplier or productivity growth rise materially. If any one of these were to occur, relying on money growth to forecast economic growth will prove futile. That said, assumptions about a substantial rise in either money velocity, the money multiplier or productivity would be highly speculative and unreasonable. With respect to capital flows, EM currencies have been supported by portfolio flows, not FDI inflows. Hence, any reduction or reversal in these portfolio flows is a major risk to EM exchange rates. Feature Chart I-1EM Share Prices Are ##br##Facing A Technical Hurdle EM Share Prices Are Facing A Technical Hurdle EM Share Prices Are Facing A Technical Hurdle In this week's report we elaborate on the following interrelated questions: Where do EM economies stand in terms of their respective business cycles? What are the key drivers and risks to our view? EM share prices in U.S. dollar terms are facing another technical hurdle (Chart I-1). Even though EM risk assets have been trading well, we still find their risk-reward profile unattractive, and below we elaborate why. The EM Business Cycle EM economic data have differed greatly over the course of the current rally, and various economic parameters presently exhibit very different phases of the business cycle in developing economies. For example, Asian export growth has rolled over having expanded at a double-digit pace early this year (Chart I-2). In general, EM exports have posted a broad-based recovery: the recovery in Chinese, U.S. and European imports has helped Asian exports, while higher commodities prices have boosted export revenues of commodities producers. On the flip side, domestic demand in EM ex-China has been rather mediocre. In fact, there has been very little domestic demand recovery, as evidenced by retail sales and auto sales (Chart I-3). Importantly, bank loan growth has not recovered at all (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Based on the above, we can summarize the above divergences as follows: the global economic recovery has been driven by demand in China, the U.S. and Europe, while domestic demand in EM ex-China has not recovered much. Chart I-2Asian Export Growth ##br##Has Rolled Over Asian Export Growth Has Rolled Over Asian Export Growth Has Rolled Over Chart I-3EM ex-China: Domestic ##br##Demand Has Not Yet Recovered EM ex-China: Domestic Demand Has Not Yet Recovered EM ex-China: Domestic Demand Has Not Yet Recovered In turn, China's imports surge has been due to the revival in new money/credit origination that has been in play since the middle of 2015. China's commercial banks have originated about RMB 43 trillion of new money/credit in the past two years. This has greatly helped many developing countries selling to China, boosted commodities prices, creating fertile ground for capital flows to EM financial markets. Going forward, the pertinent question for the EM business cycle is which of the following two scenarios will likely play out: (1) China's imports relapse materially soon, weighing on commodities and other EMs and capping the recovery in their domestic demand; or (2) Chinese import growth holds and the recovery in EM ex-China domestic demand gains momentum. The first scenario entails a bearish outcome for EM share prices, while the second would imply a continuation of the EM rally. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team envisages the first scenario. The basis of our argument is that the deceleration that has already occurred in Chinese money growth combined with ongoing monetary tightening are about to cause a considerable slowdown in China's real economy and imports (Chart I-4). What about the other two pillars of global imports - the U.S. and Europe? U.S. imports have in the past year outpaced final sales to domestic purchasers (Chart I-5). As can be seen in this chart, imports are more volatile than domestic demand and this discrepancy is reflective of inventory cycles. After outpacing final domestic demand for the past seven months, odds are U.S. imports growth will moderate in the next 12 months. That said, we do not expect a contraction in U.S. imports. Even if European imports remain robust, a material slowdown in China and some moderation in U.S. imports will be sufficient to produce a slump in EM aggregate exports. The rationale is twofold: First, for many developing countries, China as a destination for shipments is larger than or as large as the U.S. and Europe combined. Chart I-4China: Money Growth And Business Cycle China: Money Growth And Business Cycle China: Money Growth And Business Cycle Chart I-5U.S. Import Growth to Moderate U.S. Import Growth to Moderate U.S. Import Growth to Moderate Second, mainland demand for raw materials is critical for their prices. In turn, the trend in commodities prices often defines EM financial markets dynamics. This is why we focus so much on China's credit/money cycle, which in turn drives China's capital spending and an overwhelming majority of its imports. Notably, the reason why Chinese imports are much more sensitive to credit compared to other EM and DM economies is because the mainland's imports consist of 42% of commodities and raw materials and 55% of capital goods. Hence, 97% of imports is for investment spending, with the latter financed and driven by money/credit. Bottom Line: The global economic recovery has been driven by demand in China, the U.S. and Europe, while domestic demand in EM ex-China has not recovered much. Going forward, the key to EM financial markets performance will be Chinese imports and commodities prices. The Key Pillar Of Our View The key area where we differ from the bullish consensus on EM/China is our expectation that Chinese growth will slow before year-end due to a combination of ongoing policy tightening and lingering credit excesses. Regardless of which broad money measure we use - official M2, money calculated using commercial banks' liabilities (we refer to it as deposit-money or M3 hereafter) or banks' assets (we refer to this as credit-money) - the current message is the same: broad money growth has fallen to historic lows (Chart I-6). An imperative question is: what does the recent gap between broad money (our calculation of M3) and private (corporate and household) credit growth, as evidenced by the top panel of Chart I-7A, mean for investors? Chart I-6China: Various Versions Of Broad Money China: Various Versions Of Broad Money China: Various Versions Of Broad Money Chart I-7Comparing Broad Money And Credit Growth Comparing Broad Money And Credit Growth Comparing Broad Money And Credit Growth From the perspective of the outlook for growth, it is the aggregate of private and public credit that matters. When we substitute private credit with the aggregate of private and public credit, there does not appear to be much decoupling (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Readers should note that the historical time series for aggregate private and public credit is from BIS and the data for 2017 are our estimates based on general government fiscal deficit and total social financing. If past correlations between money, credit and economic growth and their respective time lags hold, the cyclical parts of the Chinese economy should slow down before year-end (Chart I-8). This differs from the consensus view on the street that a slowdown is not in the cards until well into next year (or later). China's currently flat yield curve also supports our view on imminent growth deceleration (Chart I-9). In fact, Chinese money market rates and onshore corporate bond yields have begun drifting higher following two to three months of consolidation. Chart I-8China: A Slowdown Before Year-End? China: A Slowdown Before Year-End? China: A Slowdown Before Year-End? Chart I-9China: Yield Curve And PMI China: Yield Curve And PMI China: Yield Curve And PMI Finally, we believe the depth of the impending slowdown will be material because ongoing liquidity tightening is occurring amid lingering credit excesses/credit bubble. While policymakers do not plan to push the economy into a vicious downturn, they may be open to the idea of attempting mild short-term deleveraging to contain risks in the long run. Furthermore, the Chinese authorities - like in any other country - may not have perfect foresight about the magnitude of a potential slowdown. Hence, their reversal of tightening policies is likely to be late, resulting in a rough spot in growth. Bottom Line: The key difference between our stance and the bullish view on EM is on China's growth trajectory and commodities prices. Risks To Our View Given that the main pillar of our view is that China's credit and money growth is driving mainland capital spending and imports, our recommended investment strategy will be wrong if the already transpiring slowdown in money growth does not translate into investment spending deceleration. This could happen because of the following: Strong nominal growth can coincide with slower money growth only if the velocity of money accelerates. In short, our view will be wrong if China's nominal output growth holds up or quickens, despite the slowdown in broad money growth that has already occurred. This could happen if the velocity of money suddenly shoots up - i.e., the same amount of money simply turns faster facilitating faster expansion of nominal output. There is no way to forecast changes in money velocity in any country in any period with any precision. As a rule, we (and the vast majority of other market participants) simply assume money velocity will be constant over our forecast horizons. Money velocity is calculated as nominal GDP divided by broad money supply. From a historical perspective, Chart I-10 demonstrates that China's money velocity has actually drifted lower in the past 10 years or so. Therefore, a material rise in China's money velocity would be an exception from the trend of past decade. Consequently, before assuming a rising money velocity, one needs to prove why it will escalate going forward. This does not mean it is impossible or could not happen, but it is reasonable to challenge the nature and timing of it. Our view will be wrong if money growth accelerates sharply from current levels without more liquidity (banks' excess reserves) provisioning by the People's Bank of China (PBoC). In such a scenario, broad money growth acceleration amid low levels of banks' excess reserves would signify a spike in the money multiplier. However, the money multiplier for China - measured as broad money divided by commercial banks' excess reserves at the central bank - is already at the second highest of the past ten years (Chart I-11, top panel). In level terms, there is currently about RMB 212 trillion of broad money - measured by commercial banks' liabilities/deposits (our measure of M3) versus RMB 2 trillion of commercial banks' excess reserves at the end of June. Chart I-10China: Velocity Of Money ##br##Has Been Drifting Lower China: Velocity Of Money Has Been Drifting Lower China: Velocity Of Money Has Been Drifting Lower Chart I-11China: Money Multiplier ##br##Is Already Elevated China: Money Multiplier Is Already Elevated China: Money Multiplier Is Already Elevated We assume the money multiplier will be flat to down in China over the next 12-18 months. Banks have already become overextended with respect to the money multiplier, and are operating on thin liquidity/excess reserves (Chart I-11, bottom panel). With interest rates rising and regulatory tightening forcing banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets onto their balance sheets, it is reasonable to assume a flat-to-down money multiplier. Finally, another risk to our view stems from productivity. If productivity growth is set to accelerate considerably in China, it will boost real output growth despite the slump in money/credit. Chart I-12China: Structural Slowdown ##br##In Productivity Growth China: Structural Slowdown In Productivity Growth China: Structural Slowdown In Productivity Growth It is hard to measure productivity ex-post, let alone to forecast it. This is especially true for developing economies. This is why we assume that productivity growth in China will be stable in the medium term but will decelerate in the long run if structural reforms are not implemented and the economy's reliance on abundant money/credit is not reduced. Simply put, when money/credit are plentiful, people and companies make a lot of money without working hard and innovating. This is why money/credit deluges and asset bubbles often lead to a considerable productivity slowdown in any country. Provided that China's economy has been primarily fueled by copious amounts of money and credit since early 2009, it is reasonable to assume that productivity growth has slowed (Chart I-12). Without structural reforms, the quality of capital allocation will not improve. Therefore, productivity growth is bound to slow rather than accelerate. We will discuss the structural outlook for China including productivity and economic rebalancing toward the service sector in a special report to be published in the coming weeks. Bottom Line: Our negative outlook for China's capital spending and imports will be wrong if the money velocity rises considerably or the money multiplier shoots up or productivity growth accelerates materially. If any one of these were to occur, relying on money growth to forecast economic growth will prove futile. That said, assumptions about a substantial rise in either money velocity, the money multiplier or productivity from current levels would be highly speculative and unreasonable. Risk Off And Fund Flows Into EM Last week we downgraded Korean stocks due to expectations that geopolitical tensions are set to rise in the near term. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service does not expect war on the Korean peninsula as long-standing constraints to conflict are still in place, starting with Pyongyang's ability to cause massive civilian casualties north of Seoul via an artillery barrage. As such, the ultimate resolution to the conflict will be a peaceful one. However, getting from here (volatility) to there (negotiated resolution) requires more tensions. The U.S. has to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move China and North Korea towards a negotiated resolution.1 And that process could take more time, which means more volatility in the markets.2 The risk-off dynamics in EM due to tensions in the Korean Peninsula is a near-term risk and might become a trigger for a rollover in EM risk assets via reversal of portfolio flows. One of the narratives supporting the EM rally has been the changing composition of foreign capital flows into EM. This narrative argues3 that international flows to EM have been dominated by foreign direct investment (FDI) rather than portfolio inflows. This presages that EM risk assets are much less exposed to portfolio outflows than before. However, this is factually wrong. The composition of international capital flows into EM has been dominated by portfolio flows rather than FDI. In fact, FDI inflows have not yet recovered (Chart I-13). For the calculation of this aggregate we exclude not only China, Korea and Taiwan - which have large current account surpluses and do not require FDI inflows - but also Brazil. We exclude Brazil because its FDI and portfolio flows data have been distorted due to disadvantageous tax treatment of portfolio flows relative to FDIs. Chart I-14 illustrates that FDIs inflows have been robust and net portfolio inflows have been negative in the past 18 months. The latter does not pass our smell test because Brazil's financial markets have rallied tremendously since early 2016. This appears simply non-credible and confirms lingering speculation that a lot of foreign capital inflows have been registered in Brazil as FDI inflows to get preferential tax treatment - and were subsequently invested in financial markets, specifically in domestic bonds, not the real economy. Chart I-13EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan And Brazil: ##br##FDI Inflows Have Not Recovered EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan And Brazil: FDI Inflows Have Not Recovered EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan And Brazil: FDI Inflows Have Not Recovered Chart I-14Brazil: The Puzzle of FDI ##br##Inflows And Portfolio Flows Brazil: The Puzzle of FDI Inflows And Portfolio Flows Brazil: The Puzzle of FDI Inflows And Portfolio Flows Chart I-15Brazil: Strong FDI Inflows ##br##And Collapsing Capital Spending Brazil: Strong FDI Inflows And Collapsing Capital Spending Brazil: Strong FDI Inflows And Collapsing Capital Spending Consistently, capital spending has not recovered at all, despite the preceding collapse (Chart I-15). All in all, excluding Brazilian data, there has been little recovery in EM FDI inflows (Chart 16A and Chart I-16B). Chart I-16AFDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries FDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries FDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries Chart I-16BFDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries FDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries FDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries Bottom Line: With respect to capital flows, EM currencies have been supported by portfolio flows, not FDI inflows. Hence, any reduction or reversal in these portfolio flows is a major risk to EM exchange rates. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?," August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see, "Globalisation in retreat: capital flows decline since crisis", August 21, 2017, available at https://www.ft.com/content/ade8ada8-83f6-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights China's tightened control on capital account transactions has played a key role in slowing down capital outflows, particularly outward FDIs. Meanwhile, investors' panic over the RMB has also abated substantially, likely due to a combination of greater policy transparency and improved growth conditions. The PBoC's capital account control measures will not be permanent. Cross-border capital flows are by nature volatile and highly pro-cyclical, while China's capital account control measures are imposed as a counter-cyclical mechanism. The stabilization in China's official reserves is accompanied by a notable setback in the RMB's internationalization process. The internationalization of the RMB will resume, but it is impossible to challenge the role of the dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency in the foreseeable future. Feature Chart 1The Decline In Chinese Official Reserves##br## Has Halted The Decline In Chinese Official Reserves Has Halted The Decline In Chinese Official Reserves Has Halted Amid recent soft growth numbers, an important positive development is that official foreign reserves in China have been increasing for six consecutive months, which is being perceived as a sign of the country's re-gained macro stability (Chart 1). A closer look at China's foreign reserves and balance-of-payment statistics suggests capital outflows have slowed considerably. Confidence in the RMB appears to have improved, but expectations of further RMB depreciation have not completely reversed. This means capital outflows may still accelerate, especially if the dollar bull market resumes.1 The RMB internationalization process has also suffered a notable setback in recent quarters due to investors' weakened confidence in the currency. The RMB will continue to gain broader adoption beyond China's borders over time, but the process will be gradual and hesitant, and it will not challenge the mighty dominance of the U.S. dollar anytime soon. Capital Flows: What Has Changed? Chinese official reserves have stabilized around US$3 trillion since early this year, bottoming from a prolonged decline from a peak of over US$4 trillion in mid-2014. The broad dollar weakness in recent months has boosted the value of Chinese official holdings of non-dollar assets, which has helped stabilize the level of overall reserves. Nonetheless, the country's balance-of-payment data shows major changes in the patterns of cross-border capital flows, yielding some important information. Chart 2Inward Portfolio Investment Has "Normalized" Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows And The RMB Internationalization Process Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows And The RMB Internationalization Process In terms of capital inflows, the messages are mixed (Chart 2). On one hand, portfolio inflows have rebounded sharply since the second quarter of 2016 after a deep decline in the previous three consecutive quarters. Foreign investors aggressively pulled out of Chinese markets, particularly bonds, between the third quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, spooked by the People's Bank of China's surprise moves to devalue the RMB in August 2015 and in January 2016. It appears that foreign investors have become more comfortable with the RMB's "new normal" in recent quarters. Foreign purchases of Chinese onshore bonds have largely returned to normal, but stock purchases have remained subdued compared with previous years. The dramatic boom-bust in the Chinese domestic stock market in 2015 also dampened foreign investors' appetite towards this volatile asset class. It remains to be seen whether the newly established "bond connect" program and the MSCI's recent decision to include A shares in its indexes will be able attract more foreign portfolio investors. On the other hand, foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows have continued to decline. Inbound FDI dropped to a mere US$21 billion in the last quarter, near the levels at the height of the global financial crisis (Chart 3). FDIs are largely strategic decisions and are less influenced by near-term exchange rate fluctuations. Therefore, the sharp decline in FDI is a worrying sign that foreign investors' confidence in the Chinese business environment has weakened significantly, which is consistent with numerous surveys that show a gradual drop in China's ranking in global company's investment plans (Chart 4). For the Chinese authorities, how to improve the country's business environment and re-gain investors' confidence should be taken much more seriously. Chart 3FDI Has Fallen Sharply FDI Has Fallen Sharply FDI Has Fallen Sharply Chart 4China Is Losing Lure Among Global Firms China Is Losing Lure Among Global Firms China Is Losing Lure Among Global Firms On capital outflows, all channels have slowed of late, which is the key reason behind the stabilizing official reserves. Outbound FDI has fallen sharply since the fourth quarter of 2016 (Chart 5). Corporate China's overseas investments averaged almost US$60 billion for six consecutive quarters between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2016, and has dropped to less than US$20 billion in the past two quarters. Repayment of overseas liabilities by the corporate sector, another major reason for capital outflows in previous years, has also slowed substantially (middle panel, Chart 5). Corporate China's deleveraging of dollar debt quickened sharply in 2015, as the RMB began to fall against the dollar. It has eased considerably of late, either due to re-gained stability of the exchange rate or as the deleveraging process has become advanced. The balance-of-payment statistics shows that total outstanding foreign loans and trade credit currently stand at US$620 billion, down from a peak of over US$1 trillion in the second quarter of 2014. Rampant "hot money" outflows in previous quarters have reversed recently (bottom panel, Chart 5). In fact, inbound "currency and deposits," which we label as "hot money," as it is most liquid and historically has been highly volatile, have reached a new record high. Taken together, the Chinese regulators' tightened rein on capital account transactions have clearly played a key role in slowing down capital outflows, particularly outward FDIs. Meanwhile, investors' panic over the RMB has also abated substantially, likely due to a combination of greater policy transparency and improved growth conditions. In essence, cross-border capital flows are by nature volatile and highly pro-cyclical, while China's capital account control measures are imposed as a counter-cyclical mechanism to regulate capital flows. In this vein, the PBoC's capital account control measures will not be permanent - they will be eased as capital outflows ease. It is important to note that China still runs a current account surplus, which means the country, public and private sectors combined, is still accumulating net foreign assets. Chart 6 shows that China's official reserves have declined substantially from their 2014 peak, but the country's total foreign assets have continued to climb - an indication that the private sector has been taking a greater share in the country's total foreign claims. For years, the PBoC's key challenge was to persuade the private sector to hold more assets in foreign currencies, and the trend has suddenly changed in recent years. It is wrong, however, to assume that the change is permanent. Chart 5Capital Outflows Have Eased Significantly Capital Outflows Have Eased Significantly Capital Outflows Have Eased Significantly Chart 6Private Sector Is Taking A Greater Share ##br##Of China's Foreign Claims Private Sector Is Taking A Greater Share Of China's Foreign Claims Private Sector Is Taking A Greater Share Of China's Foreign Claims The RMB Internationalization Scorecard Chart 7Setback In The RMB Internationalization Process Setback In The Rmb Internationalization Process Setback In The Rmb Internationalization Process The stabilization in China's official reserves is accompanied by a notable setback in the RMB's internationalization process. Measured by two key functions of money, the role of the RMB as an international currency has declined. As a medium of exchange, the RMB's role in cross-border settlement has dropped sharply (top panel, Chart 7). Currently the RMB accounts for about 15% of China's foreign trade settlement, down from over 30% at the peak of early 2016. The RMB's share as an international payments currency dropped to 1.98% in July, down from 2.45% in January 2016, according to SWIFT. The share of the RMB as a trade settlement currency has also stabilized in recent months, as the RMB exchange rate has stabilized. As a store of value, the RMB's role has likely also dropped, particularly among private investors, as evidenced by the sharp decline in RMB deposits in Hong Kong (bottom panel, Chart 7). Among official reserve managers, however, the role of the RMB may have begun to increase. The European Central Bank converted the equivalent of €500 million of its foreign reserves into RMBs in the first half of 2017. Since March 2017, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has begun to include holdings of RMB in its currency composition of official foreign exchange reserves (COFER). The IMF identified US$88.5 billion of RMB-denominated official foreign reserve assets held by reserve managers in the first quarter of 2017, about 1% of total allocated reserve holdings (Table 1). From a big-picture perspective, the internationalization of the RMB will continue, even though the process will be hesitant and halting, with temporary setbacks. China is the largest trade partner of a growing number of countries with tightly-linked supply chains. This generates natural demand for RMB settlement in bilateral trade. In fact, the correlation between the RMB and the currencies of some of China's Asian neighbors has increased significantly in recent years, which is effectively creating a "RMB currency bloc" (Chart 8). Meanwhile, the Chinese government's ongoing "one-belt one-road" initiative involves financing for infrastructure in some less-developed countries, which will further boost demand for the RMB in these regions. All of this will inevitably broaden the reach of the RMB beyond China's borders. Table 1Composition Of Global Reserve Assets Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows And The RMB Internationalization Process Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows And The RMB Internationalization Process Chart 8The RMB Currency Bloc The RMB Currency Bloc The RMB Currency Bloc Nonetheless, it is impossible for the RMB to challenge the role of the dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency in the foreseeable future. The dollar's dominant status is not only supported by America's strong and open economy, but also by its deep, liquid and highly efficient financial markets, which are simply impossible for China to replicate anytime soon. The dramatic volatility in China's financial markets, regulators' shaky handling of the stock market boom-bust and the RMB's volatility in recent years are all indicative of a primitive financial infrastructure. China's legal and administrative frameworks will likely take even longer to converge to western standards. In short, the role of the RMB as an international currency will likely remain marginal for a long time. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: What Could Go Wrong?" dated August 3, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations