Policy

Dear Client, In lieu of next week’s report, I will be hosting a webcast on Wednesday, January 9th at 10 AM EST, when I will be discussing the economic and financial market outlook for 2019 and answering your questions. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The lack of major financial and economic imbalances in the U.S., as well as the Fed’s ability to moderate the pace of rate hikes, reduce the risk of a vicious cycle where tighter financial conditions lead to slower economic growth and even tighter financial conditions. The scope for central banks to cut rates is more limited outside the United States. Imbalances are also greater abroad. Nevertheless, the news is not all bleak, with the recent rebound in China’s credit impulse being a case in point. We turned more bullish on risk assets following December’s post-FOMC equity sell-off. A moderately overweight position in global equities over a 12-month horizon is currently justified. While we continue to favor the U.S. over other bourses in dollar terms, our conviction level in this regional bias has decreased. Treasury yields are likely to rise in an environment where U.S. growth is strong enough to enable the Fed to continue raising rates. Outside Japan, global government bond yields will also increase in 2019. We are removing our long June-2019 Fed funds futures contract hedge, and we are now solely outright short the December-2020 contract. We are also taking profits on our March-2019 EEM ETF put for a gain of 104%. Feature Merry Crisis And A Happy New Fear Santa arrived early this year. The plunge in stocks allowed investors to buy some of the world’s premier companies at a mouthwatering 20%-to-30% discount to what they would have paid just a few months earlier. What a gift! Needless to say, most investors would not regard last month’s stock market performance in such a favorable light. But why not? One answer is that investors must mark their portfolios to market. Thus, even if the decline in equity prices raised future returns, it still implied a decline in present net worth. Yet, this cannot be the whole explanation, because if all investors expected stocks to bounce back quickly, they would not have sold in the first place. Clearly, many investors must have come to the conclusion that the stock market would not only go down but stay down. However, this presents a puzzle. The economic environment did not change that much in the weeks leading up to the October sell-off. Growth has slowed more recently (Chart 1), with this morning’s disappointing ISM manufacturing report being the latest example, but this appears to have been mainly a response to the souring market climate rather than the cause of it. Chart 1Tighter Financial Conditions Have Led To Slower Growth Reverse Causality? This raises an intriguing possibility: What if the drop in stock prices and jump in credit spreads that began in late September hurt expectations of economic growth by enough to justify a further discount in risk asset valuations? Such a “Financial Conditions Index (FCI) doom loop” is not just a theoretical construct. The last two U.S. recessions were both the products of burst asset bubbles — first the dotcom bubble and then the housing bubble. Could such a self-fulfilling vicious cycle be erupting again? If so, any rally in stocks or credit should be sold into, just as was the case in both 2001 and 2007. U.S. Fairly Resilient To A Doom Loop Fortunately, there are two reasons to think that such an outcome will not reoccur, at least not in the United States. First, as Box 1 explains, an FCI doom loop is more likely to unfold when economic growth becomes very sensitive to changes in financial conditions. This normally happens when economic and financial imbalances are elevated. That does not appear to be the case today. Unlike in the lead-up to the last two recessions, the U.S. private sector is a net saver whose income outstrips spending by 2.1% of GDP (Chart 2). Cyclical spending – the sum of residential investment, business capex, and expenditures on consumer durable goods – is also far below prior business-cycle peaks as a share of GDP (Chart 3). Chart 2The U.S. Private Sector Is A Net Saver Chart 3U.S. Economy: Cyclical Spending Is Still Restrained Despite recent releveraging in some categories, U.S. household debt has continued to decline in relation to the size of the economy. The ratio of personal debt-to-disposable income is now 34 percentage points below pre-crisis levels (Chart 4). Chart 4Household Leverage Is Below Its Peak U.S. corporate debt has moved in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, while the ratio of U.S. corporate debt-to-GDP has climbed to a record high, it is still quite low by global standards (Chart 5). Perhaps more importantly, corporate debt is generally held by non-leveraged institutions. If corporate defaults were to rise unexpectedly, the losses to lenders would not pose the same systemic risk to the financial sector as mortgage defaults did during the Global Financial Crisis. Chart 5U.S. Corporate Debt Is High, But It Is Higher Elsewhere The Fed’s Reaction Function It is not surprising that the stock market sell-off accelerated in early October following Fed Chairman, and failed golfer, Jay Powell’s comment that interest rates were “far from neutral.” We think that worries that the Fed will tighten too quickly are misplaced. Yes, monetary policy operates with “long and variable lags.” However, financial conditions, which lead growth, can be observed in real time (Chart 6). Chart 6Global Financial Conditions Have Tightened Most of the tightening in financial conditions since late September has been due to falling equity prices. Our baseline scenario envisions a gain of roughly 10% in the S&P 500 in 2019. A rebound in stocks of this magnitude will reverse most of the recent FCI tightening, thereby allowing the Fed to raise rates three times this year. But if equities continue to sag, the Fed will scale back further monetary tightening or even cut rates. The mere possibility of such a policy response reduces the odds of an FCI doom loop. A Mixed Bag Outside The U.S. The economic outlook is murkier outside the United States. Economic and financial imbalances are greater in the EM space and parts of Europe. Non-U.S. central banks also have less scope to respond to adverse shocks, either because of fears that looser monetary policy will spark capital outflows (as is the case in many emerging markets) or because of the presence of the zero-bound constraint on interest rates (as is the case in the euro area and Japan). Nevertheless, the situation is not that bad. EM assets have been fairly resilient over the past few months, at least in comparison to their developed economy counterparts (Chart 7). China’s credit impulse has actually perked up, an indication that while credit growth is falling, it is doing so at a slower pace. Chart 8 shows that the Chinese credit impulse is highly correlated with global industrial commodity prices. We still expect global growth to slow in the first half of 2019, but at this point, much of the slowdown has been discounted in asset markets. With that in mind, we are raising the stop on our short AUD/JPY trade to 10% and instituting a profit target of 15%. Chart 7EM Assets Have Been Outperforming Recently   Chart 8The Increase In China's Credit Impulse Bodes Well For Industrial Commodity Prices The Perils Of Discrete Decision-Making One of the annoyances of being an investment strategist is that you often feel compelled to take discrete views on where the markets are heading. Are you bullish, bearish, or neutral? Actually, it is usually just bullish or bearish because most people regard neutral views as lacking in conviction and insight. This incentive structure is counterproductive. Not only does it cause analysts to turn a blind eye to incoming data that may challenge their thesis, it disregards how professional investors actually operate. Successful investors scale into positions as the market gets cheaper and scale out as it becomes more expensive. Trying to time the bottom (or the top) with exact precision is futile. With that in mind, we are going to tweak the way we make recommendations going forward in order to improve transparency, accountability, and accuracy. Rather than simply stating whether we are bullish, bearish, or neutral, we will assign the main asset classes a subjective score between zero and one hundred, with 0-to-40 being bearish, 40-to-60 being neutral, and 60-to-100 being bullish. We will adjust the score in every publication. To add analytic rigor to this framework, we will also compare our subjective model score with that of our MacroQuant model. Where Things Now Stand We downgraded global equities last June, but moved back to overweight following December’s post-FOMC meeting sell-off, as valuations reached that rather blurry line at which a modest equity overweight was warranted. Our subjective score for global equities currently stands at 65%, above the model’s estimate of 50%. Our moderately bullish view reflects our expectation that global growth will stabilize by mid-year and monetary policy will remain accommodative, even if the Fed raises rates by more than what the markets are currently discounting. Tempering our enthusiasm is the recognition that the business cycle is getting long in the tooth – especially in the U.S. – and that global equity valuations, while far cheaper than they were a few months ago, are still significantly less favorable than they were near past market bottoms (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Equity Valuations Have Improved Regionally, we continue to favor U.S. stocks over other developed markets, and DM over EM more broadly. However, our conviction level on this view is not high, and we are prepared to revise it if it looks like global growth is accelerating, an outcome that would limit any further dollar strength (our subjective dollar score currently stands at 70%, below the model’s estimate of 92%). Reflecting our expectation of decent global equity returns in 2019 and our waning conviction to be underweight EM, we are taking profits on in our March-2019 EEM ETF put for a gain of 104%.  Please note that our view on EM is more optimistic than that of Arthur Budaghyan, BCA’s chief emerging markets strategist, who continues to see considerable downside risks to EM assets. For now, Treasury yields are likely to rise in an environment where U.S. growth is strong enough to enable the Fed to continue raising rates. We assign the 10-year yield a score of 30%, which is close to our model estimate of 32%. Accordingly, we are removing our long June-2019 Fed funds futures contract hedge, and we are now solely outright short the December-2020 contract. Core European bond yields will increase, reflecting diminished excess capacity in the euro area and the end of ECB net asset purchases. U.K. yields should also grind higher, as the odds of a soft Brexit (or no Brexit) improve. Only in Japan will yields remain contained, thanks to the BoJ’s ongoing yield curve control regime. We do not expect spread product to have a banner year, but the current yield pick-up should be sufficient to ensure that risky credit outperforms cash. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com     Box 1 The Analytics Of Doom Loops When will a tightening in financial conditions stemming from lower equity prices and higher borrowing costs lead to a vicious circle of slower economic growth and even tighter financial conditions? The answer depends on how sensitive economic growth is to financial conditions in relation to how sensitive financial conditions are to growth. Figure 1 shows two equilibrium schedules, one for the economy (EE) and one for asset markets (AA). Both schedules slope downward. The EE schedule is downward-sloping because easier financial conditions boost growth. If growth is too strong given the prevailing level of financial conditions, economic activity will slow (Panel A). The AA schedule is downward-sloping because equity prices tend to fall and credit spreads rise when growth slows. If equity prices are too high and credit spreads are too narrow for a certain level of growth, then financial conditions will tighten (Panel B). Suppose economic growth is not very sensitive to changes in financial conditions, perhaps because imbalances in the economy are limited (Panel C). Then changes in financial conditions will be fleeting: A decline in equity prices or a widening in credit spreads will not hurt growth very much, allowing the stock market and credit market to quickly normalize. In contrast, suppose that economic growth is very sensitive to financial conditions, so much so that the EE schedule is flatter than the AA schedule. In this case, the economy will be vulnerable to self-reinforcing booms and busts (Panel D). In particular, a small random jump from U to UI will send the economy careening towards a doom loop of ever-weaker growth and tighter financial conditions.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to a litany of worries regarding the outlook. The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. There are some tentative signs that the two U.S. weak spots, housing and capital spending, are bottoming out. However, our global leading economic indicators continue to herald a soft first half of 2019 outside of the U.S. The dollar thus has more upside in the near term. The political risks facing investors have not diminished either. In particular, we expect turbulence related to the U.S./China trade war to extend well beyond the 3-month “truce” period. The returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities historically have not been particularly attractive on average when the U.S. yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies back to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. The upgrade to stocks in the developed markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now, but be prepared to upgrade sometime in 2019. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil prices have overshot to the downside. Supply is adjusting and, given robust energy demand in 2019, we still expect prices to rise to $82. Feature Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to concerns regarding the U.S./China trade war, corporate leverage, global growth, rising U.S. interest rates and the shift toward quantitative tightening. Some equity indexes, such as the Russell 2000, reached bear market territory, having lost more than 20%. Losses have been even worse outside the U.S. Earnings revisions have plunged into the “net downgrade” zone. Implied volatility has spiked and corporate bond spreads are surging (Chart I-1). The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Chart I-1A Flight To Quality We laid out our economic view in detail in the BCA Outlook 2019 report, published in late November. Not enough has changed on the global economic front in the three weeks since then that would justify such a violent shift in investor sentiment. That said, our favorite global leading economic indicators continue to erode (Chart I-2). The only ray of hope is that the diffusion index constructed from our Global Leading Economic Indicator appears to have bottomed. Nonetheless, the actual LEI will keep falling until the diffusion index shifts into positive territory.   Chart I-2Global Leading Indicators Still Weak For China, a key source of investor angst, the latest retail sales and industrial production reports reinforced that economic momentum continues to recede. We will not be convinced that growth is bottoming until we see an upturn in our credit impulse indicator (Chart I-3). Its continued decline in November suggests that the outlook for emerging market assets and commodity prices is poor for at least the next quarter. Global industrial output appears headed for a mild contraction. The manufacturing troubles are centered in the emerging Asian economies, but Europe and Japan are also feeling the negative effects. Chart I-3China: No Bottom Yet In the U.S., November’s bounce in housing starts and permits is a hopeful sign that the soft patch in this sector is ending. However, it is not clear how the devastating wildfires on the west coast have affected the housing data (Chart I-4). The downdraft in capital goods orders may also be drawing to a close, based on the latest reading from the Fed’s survey of capital spending intentions. The U.S. leading economic indicator dipped slightly in November, but remains consistent with above-trend real GDP growth in the months ahead. Chart I-4U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs The bottom line is that our outlook for growth has not been significantly altered. We see little risk of a U.S. recession in 2019. The global economy continues to weaken, but we expect enough policy stimulus out of China to stabilize growth in that economy in the second half of the year. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that, while the risks appeared elevated, we would consider shifting back to overweight in stocks if they cheapened sufficiently. Valuation has indeed improved in recent weeks and sentiment has turned more cautious. Global growth will likely continue to decelerate in the first half of 2019, but markets have largely discounted this outcome. In other words, the shift toward pessimism in financial markets appears overdone. The fact that the Fed has signaled a move away from regular quarter-point rate hikes adds to our confidence in playing what will likely be the last upleg in risk assets in this cycle. Fed: Rate Hikes No Longer On Autopilot The Fed lifted rates by a quarter point in December and signaled that any additional tightening will be data-dependent. The FOMC also trimmed the expected peak in the funds rate and its estimate of the long-run, or neutral, level. Policymakers were likely swayed by some disappointing U.S. economic data, the pullback in core PCE inflation, and the sharp tightening in financial conditions (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Financial Conditions Have Tightened Monetary conditions are not tight by historical yardsticks, such as the level of real interest rates. The problem is that investors fear that the neutral level of the fed funds rate, the so-called R-star, remains very depressed. If true, it could mean that the Fed is already outright restrictive, which would signal that the monetary backdrop has turned hostile for risk assets. The OIS curve signals that the consensus believes that the Fed is pretty much done the tightening cycle (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! We believe that R-star is higher than the current policy setting and is rising, as the growth headwinds related to the Great Financial Crisis fade with the passage of time. The problem is that nobody knows the level of the neutral rate. Thus, we need to watch for signs that the fed funds rate has surpassed that level, such as an inverted yield curve. The 10-year/3-month T-bill spread is still in positive territory, but barely so. Meanwhile, our R-star indicator is also flashing yellow as it sits on the zero line (Chart I-7). It is a composite of monetary indicators that in the past have been useful in signaling that monetary policy had become outright restrictive, leading to slower growth and trouble for risk assets. The lead time of this indicator relative to economic activity and risk asset prices has been quite variable historically, but a breakdown below zero would send a powerful bearish signal for risk assets if confirmed by an inverted yield curve. Chart I-7Worrying Signs Of Tight Money The Implications Of Four Fed Scenarios It is not surprising that investors are struggling with a number of different possible scenarios on how the R-star/Fed policy nexus will play out. We can perhaps boil down discussion of the Fed and the implications for financial markets to a matrix of four main outcomes, based on combinations related to the level of R-Star (high or low) and the pace of Fed rate hikes in 2019 (pause or continue increasing rates by 25 basis points per quarter). Policy Mistake #1: R-star is still very low, but policymakers do not realize this and the FOMC continues to tighten into restrictive territory in 2019. By definition, the economy begins to suffer in this scenario, inflation and inflation expectations decline and long-bond yields are flat-to-lower. The yield curve inverts. However, current real rates are still so low that the fed funds rate cannot be very far above R-Star, which means it would represent only a small policy mistake. As long as the Fed recognizes the economic slowdown early enough and truncates the rate hike cycle, then there is a good chance that a recession would be avoided. Investors would initially fear a recession, however, which means that risk assets would be hit hard in absolute terms and relative to bonds and cash until recession fears fade. The direction of the dollar is perhaps trickiest part because there are so many potential cross currents. To keep things simple we will assume that global growth follows our base-case view and remains lackluster in the first half of 2019, followed by a modest re-acceleration. We believe the dollar would likely rally a little as the Fed continues tightening, but then would fall back as the FOMC is forced to turn dovish in the face of a U.S. growth scare. Policy Mistake #2: R-Star is high and rising but the Fed fails to hike rates fast enough to keep up. The economy accelerates in this scenario because monetary policy remains stimulative through 2019, at a time when the 2018 fiscal stimulus will still be providing a demand tailwind. Core PCE inflation moves above 2% and long-term inflation expectations shift up, signaling to investors that the Fed has fallen behind the inflation curve. Risk assets rip for a while and the yield curve bear-steepens as the 10-year Treasury yield moves gradually higher at first. Belatedly, the FOMC realizes it has underestimated the neutral rate and signals a hawkish policy shift. A 50-basis point rate hike at one FOMC meeting causes risk assets to buckle on the back of surging Treasury yields. The yield curve begins to bear-flatten. Eventually the curve inverts and the economy enters recession. The dollar weakens at first because higher inflation lowers U.S. real interest rates relative to the rest of the world. Global growth prospects would initially get a boost from the acceleration in U.S. growth, which is also dollar-bearish. However, in the end the dollar would likely rise as global financial markets turn risk-off. Fed Gets It Right (1): R-star is high and rising. The Fed continues to tighten in line with the increase in the neutral rate. Treasurys sell off hard and the yield curve shifts higher, but remains fairly flat (parallel shift). The curve could mildly invert temporarily, but market worries about a recession eventually recede as economic momentum remains robust, allowing the curve to subsequently trade in the 0-50 basis point range. As discussed below, risk assets tend to outperform Treasurys and cash when the yield curve is in this range, but not by much. The Treasury market would suffer significant losses. This is the most dollar-bullish of the four scenarios, given our global growth view (tepid) and the fact that the market is not even priced for a full quarter-point rate hike in 2019. Fed Gets It Right (2): R-Star is actually still quite low, but the Fed correctly sees recent economic data disappointments and the tightening in financial conditions as signs that policy is close to neutral. The Fed pauses the rate hike cycle, followed by a slower and more data-dependent pace of tightening. The yield curve stays fairly flat and flirts with inversion as investors try to figure out if the Fed has overdone it. Risk assets are volatile and deliver little return over cash. Treasurys rally a bit as the chance of any further rate hikes is priced out of the market, but the rally is limited unless the economy falls into recession (which is not part of this scenario because we are assuming the Fed “gets it right”). The dollar fluctuates, but delivers no real trend since U.S. yield differentials versus the rest of the world do not change much. As we go to press, financial markets are moving in a way that is consistent the Policy Mistake #1; the consensus appears to believe that the Fed has already lifted the fed funds rate too far, causing financial conditions to tighten. But if U.S. real GDP growth remains above-trend as we expect, then the market view could eventually transition to a belief in Mistake #2; the Fed falls behind the inflation curve. The curve would re-steepen and risk assets could have one last hurrah before the Fed gets hawkish again and the 2020 recession arrives. The transition from Mistake #1 to Mistake #2 is essentially our base-case outlook. Nonetheless, obviously the risks around this central scenario are high, especially given how late it is in the U.S. economic and policy cycle. Asset Returns And The Yield Curve Our 2018 late-cycle investing theme focussed on historical asset return and policy dynamics after the U.S. unemployment rate fell below the full-employment level in past cycles. We found that risk assets tend to run into trouble once the U.S. S&P 500 operating margin peaks. As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, our margin proxies are still not heralding that a peak is at hand. Given the recent investor obsession with the U.S. yield curve, this month we look at historical asset returns at different levels of the 10-year/3-month T-bill yield curve slope: Phase I, when the slope is above 50 basis points; Phase II, when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points; and Phase III, when the curve is inverted (Table I-1). The data are presented as (not annualized) monthly average returns. It may be surprising that risk asset returns are for the most part positive even in when the curve is inverted. However, keep in mind that we are focussing on the curve, not on recession periods. The curve can be inverted for a long time before the subsequent recession occurs. Risk asset returns often remain positive during this period. The broad conclusions are as follows: Unsurprisingly, risk assets perform their best, in absolute terms and relative to government bonds and cash, in Phase I when the yield curve is steep. Returns tend to deteriorate as the curve flattens. This includes equities, corporate bonds and commodities. Small caps underperform large caps when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points, but the reverse is true when the curve is flatter or steeper than that range. The ratio of cyclical stocks to defensives has not revealed a consistent pattern with respect to the yield curve, although this may reflect the short historical period available. Value stocks shine versus growth when the curve is inverted. Hedge fund and private equity returns have not varied greatly across the three yield curve environments. Structured product, such as CMBS and ABS, have enjoyed their best performance when the curve is inverted. Timberland and Farmland have also rewarded investors during Phase III. We suspected that asset returns when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range would vary importantly with the direction of the curve. In Table I-I we split Phase II into two parts: when the curve is steepening after being inverted, and when the curve is flattening after being steep. In other words, when the consensus is either transitioning from quite bullish to very bearish, or vice-versa. Risk assets such as equities (U.S. and Global) and U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds indeed perform much better in absolute terms when the curve is flat but is steepening rather than flattening. The same is true for U.S. structured product. In terms of excess returns relative to government issues, both U.S. IG and HY corporates have tended to underperform when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range. Surprisingly, the underperformance is worse when the curve is steepening than when it is flattening. This appears to reflect an anomalous period in early 2006 when the curve was flattening but corporate bonds enjoyed strong excess returns. Emerging market equities show very strong returns in all three curve phases. This reflects the inclusion of the pre-2000 period in the mean calculations, a time when EM equities were much less correlated with U.S. financial conditions. EM equity returns have been significantly lower on average since 2000 when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range (and especially when the curve is flattening) The bottom line is that risk assets can still reward investors with positive returns during periods when the yield curve is flat. However, it is a dangerous time, especially when the global economy is up to its eyeballs in debt. This month’s Special Report beginning on page 17 argues that, although regulation has made the global financial system more resilient to shocks compared to the pre-Lehman years, the number of potentially destabilizing shocks has increased. Moreover, the trade war and Brexit risks make the investment backdrop all the more precarious. No Quick End To The Trade War The honeymoon following the trade ceasefire between the U.S. and China, agreed at the G20 summit in early December, did not last long. The arrest of the chief financial officer of Chinese telecom maker Huawei and continuing hawkish tweets from the U.S. president dampened hopes that a trade agreement can be negotiated by March. Even news that China intended to cut tariffs on U.S. auto imports did not help much. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that negotiations will prove to be protracted and testy. It will take a lot more than some token market-opening action on the part of China to placate the U.S. Our geopolitical team emphasizes that “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance.1 For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart I-8). While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Chart I-8R&D Expenditure By Country U.S. demands will also be hard for China to swallow. Most importantly, the U.S. is requesting that China rein in its hacking and spying, shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors, adjust its “Made in China” targets to allow for more foreign competition, and lower foreign investment equity restrictions. These stumbling blocks will make it difficult to strike a deal on trade. We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China will not arrive in the 90-day timeframe of the ceasefire. Thus, global risk assets will be subject to swings in sentiment regarding the likelihood of a trade deal well beyond March. Meanwhile, as previously discussed, Chinese policy stimulus has not yet become aggressive enough to spark animal spirits in the private sector. The Chinese authorities are proceeding cautiously so as to avoid adding significantly to private- and public-sector’s debt mountain. This month’s Special Report also discusses the risks that the surge in debt over the past decade poses for the global financial system, including escalating risk in China’s shadow banking system. Brexit Pain Continues Politics surrounding the torturous Brexit process will also remain a source of volatility for global markets in 2019. Prime Minister May survived a leadership challenge, but this is hardly confidence-inspiring. The question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The votes appear to be in place for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to essentially pay for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election (which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power), or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the failure of the Tories to endorse May’s proposed agreement means that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear; the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart I-9). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. The bottom line is that, while a soft Brexit is the most likely outcome, the path from here to the end result will be punishing. We do not recommend Brexit-related bets on the pound, despite the fact that it is cheap. Chart I-9A Shift Toward Bremain 2019: A Tale Of Two Halves For EM, Commodities And The Dollar One of our key themes in the BCA Outlook 2019 is that the growth divergence between China and the U.S. will persist at least for the first half of 2019. The result will be weak EM asset prices and currencies, little upside for base metals and a strong U.S. dollar. We expect the Chinese authorities will do enough to stabilize growth by mid-year, providing the impetus for a playable bounce in EM and commodity prices in the second half of 2019, coinciding with a peak in the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, the dollar still has some upside potential in broad trade-weighted terms in the first half of 2019. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to show a greater need for policy tightening in the U.S. than in the rest of the major countries. The dollar has usually strengthened when this has been the case historically. In particular, the ECB’s Central Bank Monitor has slipped back into “easy money required” territory, reflecting moderating economic momentum and still-depressed consumer price inflation (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar The ECB announced the well-anticipated end of its asset purchase program in December. The central bank will now focus on forward guidance as its main policy tool outside of setting short-term interest rates. Lending via targeted LTROs will also be considered under certain circumstances. Policymakers retained the latest forward guidance after the December MPC meeting, that rates are on hold “through the summer of 2019”. The latest reading from our ECB Monitor suggests that the central bank could be on hold for longer than that. We expect Eurozone growth to improve somewhat through the year, but we still believe that interest rate differentials will move further in favor of the dollar relative to the euro and the other major currencies. Periods of slow global growth also tend to favor the greenback. The bottom line is that, while a correction is possible in the very near term, investors with at least a six-month horizon should remain long the dollar. Investment Conclusions: Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. The risks facing investors have not diminished either, especially given the precarious nature of late-cycle investing and the uncertainty regarding the neutral level of the fed funds rate. Historically, the returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities have not been particularly attractive on average when the yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, we believe that the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Despite our more positive view on equities, we remain cautious on credit. Spreads have widened recently to more attractive levels, but we remain concerned about the high leverage of U.S. corporates, whose debt/assets ratio is on average higher now than in 2009. Signs of strain are already showing in the junk bond market, with new issuance having largely dried up since early December. If this continues, borrowers may struggle to refinance maturing debt in early 2019.  Credit is an asset class that is likely to perform particularly poorly in the next recession. Our upgrade to stocks in the advanced markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil markets are still in the process of re-adjusting to an extraordinary policy reversal by the Trump Administration on its Iranian oil-export sanctions in November, as last-minute waivers were granted to Iran’s largest oil importers. We believe that oil prices have overshot to the downside. Following OPEC 2.0’s decision to cut 1.2mm b/d of production to re-balance markets in the first half of the year, we continue to expect prices to recover on the back of solid global energy demand. Canada also mandated energy firms to trim production. Our energy experts expect oil prices to reach $82/bbl in 2019. We also like gold as long as the fed funds rate remains below its neutral level. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 21, 2018 Next Report: January 31, 2019 II. (Part II) The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis This is the second of a two-part Special Report on the structural changes that have occurred as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. We look at three issues: asset correlation, the safety of the financial system, and the level of global debt. First, correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. Some believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has shifted permanently higher for two main reasons: (1) trading factors such as the increased use of exchange-traded funds and algorithms; and (2) the risk-on/risk-off environment in which trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. We have sympathy for the second explanation. The equity risk premium (ERP) was forced higher on a sustained basis by the financial crisis, driven by fears that the advanced economies had entered a ‘secular stagnation’. Elevated correlation among risk assets was a result of a higher-than-normal ERP. The ERP should decline as fears of secular stagnation fade, leading to a lower average level of risk asset correlation than has been the case over the last decade. Second, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. But is the financial system really any safer today? Undoubtedly, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. The propensity for contagion among banks has diminished and there has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities. The bad news is that the level of global debt has increased at an alarming pace. The third part of this report highlights that elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system. Choking debt levels boost the vulnerability to negative shocks. The number and probability of potential shocks appear to have increased since 2007, including extreme weather events, sovereign debt crises, large-scale migration, populism, water crises and cyber & data attacks. The lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide any fiscal relief in the event of a negative shock. Moreover, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend more in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. The Great Recession and Financial Crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policy and financial markets for years to come. Rather than reviewing the roots of the crisis, the first of our two-part series examined the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. We covered the changing structure of the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. We highlighted that the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. We made the case that the prolonged inflation undershoot is sowing the seeds of an overshoot in the coming years, in part related to central bank policymakers that are doomed to fight the last war. Finally, we argued that the forces behind the structural and cyclical bull market in bonds reached an inflection point in 2016/2017. In Part II, we examine the theory that the financial crisis has permanently lifted market correlations among risk assets. Next, we look at whether regulatory changes implemented as a result of the financial crisis have made the global financial system safer. Finally, we highlight the implications of the continued rise in global leverage over the past decade in the context of BCA’s Debt Supercycle theme. The bottom line is that the global financial system still faces substantial risks, despite a more highly regulated banking system. (1) Are Risk Asset Correlations Permanently Higher? Correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. For example, risk assets became more highly correlated, suggesting little differentiation within or across asset classes. Chart II-1 presents a proxy for U.S. equity market correlations, using a sample of current S&P 100 companies. The average correlation was depressed in the 1990s and 2000s relative to the 1980s. It spiked in 2007 and fluctuated at extremely high levels for several years, before moving erratically lower. It has jumped recently and is roughly in the middle of the post-1980s range. Chart II-1Two Factors Driving Correlation Correlations will undoubtedly ebb and flow in the coming years and will spike again in the next recession. But a key question is whether correlations will oscillate around a higher average level than in the 1990s and 2000s. The consensus seems to believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has indeed shifted higher on a structural basis for two main reasons: Market Structure Changes: Many investors point to trading factors such as the increased use of index products (exchange-traded funds for example), and high-frequency/algorithmic trading as likely culprits. Macro “theme” investing has reportedly become more popular and is often implemented through algorithms. The result is an increase in stock market volatility and a tendency for risk-asset prices to move up and down based on momentum because they are all being traded as a group. These factors would likely be evident today even if the financial crisis never happened, but the popularity of algorithm trading may have been encouraged by the fact that the macro backdrop was so uncertain for years after Lehman collapsed. Risk On/Off Trading Environment: Trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Even after the recession ended, the headwinds to growth were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged largely on the success or failure of unorthodox monetary policies. The general feeling was that either the policies would “work”, the output gap would gradually close and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail and risk assets would be dragged down by a return to recession. Thus, markets traded on an extreme “risk-on/risk-off” basis, as sentiment swung wildly with each new piece of economic and earnings data. While the market structure thesis has merit on the surface, the impact should only be short term in nature. It is difficult to see how a change in the intra-day microstructure of the market could have such a fundamental, wide-ranging and permanent impact on market prices. Previous research suggests that any impact on market correlation beyond the very short term is likely to be small. For the sake of brevity, we won’t present the evidence here, but instead refer readers to two BCA Special Reports.2 The risk on/off trading environment thesis is a more plausible explanation. However, we find it more useful to think about it in terms of the equity risk premium (ERP). A higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which, in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. A lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious are an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Shifts in the ERP are sometimes structural in nature, but there is also a strong cyclical element in that persistent equity declines historically have had the effect of temporarily raising the ERP and correlations. A simple model based on the ERP and volatility explains a lot of the historical variation in equity correlation, including the elevated levels observed in the years after 2007 (Chart II-2).3 The shift lower in correlations after 2012 reflects both a lower equity risk premium and a dramatic decline in downside volatility. Chart II-2Simple Model Explains Correlation It is tempting to believe that the lingering shell-shock related to the financial crisis means that the underlying equity risk premium has shifted permanently higher. The ERP is still elevated by historical standards, but this is more reflective of extraordinarily low bond yields than an elevated forward earnings yield. Investors evidently believe that the U.S. and other developed economies are stuck in a “secular stagnation”, which will require low interest rates for many years just to keep economic growth near its trend pace. In other words, the equilibrium interest rate, or R-star, is still very low. The ERP and correlations among risk assets will undoubtedly spike again in the next recession. Nonetheless, in the absence of recession, we expect fears regarding secular stagnation to fade further. If the advanced economies hold up as short-term interest rates and bond yields rise, then concerns that R-star is extremely low will dissipate and expectations regarding equilibrium bond yields will shift higher. The ERP will move lower as bond yields, rather than the earnings yield, do most of the adjustment. The underlying correlations among risk asset prices should correspondingly recede. This includes correlations among a wide variety of risk assets, such as corporate bonds and commodities. While this describes our base case outlook, there is a non-trivial risk that the next recession arrives soon and is deep. This would underscore the view that R-star is indeed very low and the economy needs constant monetary stimulus just to keep it out of recession (i.e. the secular stagnation thesis). The ERP and correlations would stay elevated on average in that scenario. What About The Stock/Bond Correlation? Chart II-3 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and the early-2000s. Bond yields tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined when the stock market has swooned. Chart II-3Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Inflation expectations can help explain the shift in stock/bond correlation. Expectations became unmoored after 1970, which meant that inflationary shocks became the primary driver of bond yields. Strong growth became associated with rising inflation and inflation expectations, and the view that central banks had fallen behind the curve. Bond yields surged as markets discounted aggressive tightening designed to choke off inflation. And, given that inflation lags the cycle and had a lot of persistence, central banks were not in a position to ease policy at the first hint of a growth slowdown. This was obviously a poor backdrop for stocks. When inflation expectations became well anchored again around the late 1990s, investors no longer feared that central banks would have to aggressively stomp on growth whenever actual inflation edged higher. Central banks also had more latitude to react quickly by cutting rates at the first sign of slower economic growth. Fluctuations in growth became the primary driver of bond yields, allowing stock prices to rise and fall along with yields. The correlation has therefore been positive most of the time since 2003. Bottom Line: A negative correlation between stocks and bond yields reared its ugly head in the last quarter of 2018. The equity correction reflected several factors, but the previous surge in bond yields and hawkish Fed comments appeared to spook markets. Investors became nervous that the fed funds rate had already entered restrictive territory, at a time when the global economy was cooling off. We expect more of these episodes as the Fed normalizes short-term interest rates over the next couple of years. Nonetheless, we see no evidence that inflation expectations have become unmoored. This implies that the stock-bond correlation will generally be positive most of the time over the medium term. In addition, the average level of correlation among risk assets has probably not been permanently raised, although spikes during recessions or growth scares will inevitably occur. (2) Is The Global Financial System Really Safer Today? The roots of the great financial crisis and recession involved a global banking and shadow banking system that encouraged leverage and risk-taking in ways that were hard for investors and regulators to assess. Complex and opaque financial instruments helped to hide risk, at a time when regulators were “asleep at the switch”. In many countries, credit grew at a much faster pace than GDP and capital buffers were dangerously low. Banking sector compensation skewed the system toward short-term gains over long-term sustainable returns. Lax lending standards and a heavy reliance on short-term wholesale markets to fund trading and lending activity contributed to cascading defaults and a complete seizure in parts of the money and fixed income markets. A vital question is whether the financial system is any less vulnerable today to contagion and seizure. The short answer is that the financial system is better prepared for a shock, but the problem is that the number of potential sources of instability have increased since 2007. Since the financial crisis, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. Reforms have come under four key headings: Capital: Regulators raised the minimum capital requirement for banks, added a buffer requirement, and implemented a surcharge on systemically important banks. Liquidity: Regulators implemented a Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and a Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) in order to ensure that banks have sufficient short-term funds to avoid liquidity shortages and bank runs.4 Risk Management: Banks are being forced to develop systems to better monitor risk, and are subject to periodic stress tests. Resolution Planning: Banks have also been asked to detail options for resolution that, hopefully, should reduce systemic risk should a major financial institution become insolvent. Global systemically-important banks, in particular, will require sufficient loss-absorbing capacity. A major study by the Bank for International Settlements,5 along with other recent studies, found that systemic risk in the global financial system has diminished markedly as a result of the new regulations. On the whole, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. Lending standards have tightened almost across the board relative to pre-crisis levels, particularly for residential mortgages. Additional capital and liquid assets provide a much wider buffer today against adverse shocks, allowing most banks to pass recent stress tests (Chart II-4). Financial institutions have generally re-positioned toward retail and commercial banking and wealth management, and away from more complex and capital-intensive activities (Chart II-5). The median share of trading assets in total assets for individual G-SIBs has declined from around 20% to 12% over 2009-16. Moreover, the propensity for contagion among banks has diminished. The BIS notes that assessing all the complex interactions in the global financial system is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, a positive sign is that banks are focusing more on their home markets since the crisis, and that direct connections between banks through lending and derivatives exposures have declined. The BIS highlights that aggregate foreign bank claims have declined by 16% since the crisis, driven particularly by banks from the advanced economies most affected by the crisis, especially from some European countries (Chart II-6). It is also positive that European banks have made some headway in diminishing over-capacity, although problems still exist in Italy. Finally, and importantly, there has been a distinct shift toward more stable sources of funding, such as deposits, away from fickle wholesale markets (Charts II-7 and II-8). Chart II-6Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently)   Outside of banking, many other regulatory changes have been implemented to make the system safer. One important example is that rules were adjusted to reduce the risk of runs on money market funds. What About Shadow Banking? Of course, more could be done to further indemnify the financial system. Concentration in the global banking system has not diminished, and it appears that the problem of “too big to fail” has not been solved. And then there is the shadow banking sector, which played a major role in the financial crisis by providing banks a way of moving risk to off-balance sheet entities and securities, and thereby hiding the inherent risks. Shadow banking is defined as credit provision that occurs outside of the banking system, but involves the key features of bank lending including leverage, and liquidity and maturity transformation. Complex structured credit securities, such as Collateralized Debt Obligations, allowed this type of transformation to mushroom in ways that were difficult for regulators and investors to understand. A recent study by the Group of Thirty6 concluded that securitization has dropped to a small fraction of its pre-crisis level, and that growing non-bank credit intermediation since the Great Recession has primarily been in forms that do not appear to raise financial stability concerns. Much of the credit creation has been in non-financial corporate bonds, which is a more stable and less risky form of credit extension than bank lending. Other types of lending have increased, such as corporate credit to pension funds and insurance companies, but this does not involve maturity transformation, according to the Group of Thirty. There has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities such as collateralized debt obligations, asset-backed commercial paper, and structured investment vehicles since 2007 (Chart II-9). While the situation must be monitored, the Group of Thirty study concludes that the financial system in the advanced economies appears to be less vulnerable to bouts of self-reinforcing forced selling, such as occurred during the 2008 crisis. Chart II-9Less Private-Sector Securitization One exception is the U.S. leveraged loan market, which has swelled to $1.13 trillion and about half has been pooled into Collateralized Loan Obligations. As with U.S. high-yield bonds, the situation is fine as long as profitability remains favorable. But in the next recession, lax lending standards today will contribute to painful losses in leveraged loans. The Bad News That’s the good news. The bad news is that, while the financial system might have become less complex and opaque, the level of debt has increased at an alarming rate in both the private and public sectors in many countries. Elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system, especially as global bond yields return to more normal levels by historical standards. We discuss other pressure points such as Emerging Markets and China in the next section, although the latter deserves a few comments before we leave the subject of shadow banking. The Group of Thirty notes that 30% of Chinese credit is provided by a broad array of poorly regulated shadow banking entities and activities, including trust funds, wealth management products, and “entrusted loans.” Links between these entities and banks are unclear, and sometimes involve informal commitments to provide credit or liquidity support. The study takes some comfort that most of Chinese debt takes place between Chinese domestic state-owned banks and state-owned companies or local government financing vehicles. Foreign investors have limited involvement, thus reducing potential direct contagion outside of China in the event of a financial event. Still, the potential for contagion internationally via global sentiment and/or the economic fallout is high. The other bad news is that, while regulators in the advanced economies have managed to improve the ability of financial institutions to weather shocks, potential risks to the financial system have increased in number and in probability of occurrence. The Global Risk Institute (GRI) recently published a detailed comparison of potential shocks today relative to 2007.7 The report sees twice the number of risks versus 2007 that are identified as “current” (i.e. could occur at any time) and of “high impact”. The most pressing risks today include extreme weather events, asset bubbles, sovereign debt crises, large-scale involuntary migration, water crises and cyber & data attacks. Any of these could trigger a broad financial crisis if the shock is sufficiently intense, despite improved regulation. The GRI study also eventuates how the risks will evolve over the next 11 years. Readers should see the study for details, but it is interesting that the experts foresee cyber dependency rising to the top of the risk pile by 2030. The increase is driven by the importance of data ownership, the increasing role of algorithms and control systems, and the $1.2 trillion projected cost of cyber, data and infrastructure attacks. Our computer systems are not prepared for the advances of technology, such as quantum computing. Climate change moves to the number two risk spot in its base-case outlook. Space limitations precluded a discussion of the rise of populism in this report, but the GRI sees the political tensions related to income inequality as the number three threat to the global financial system by 2030. Bottom Line: Regulators have managed to substantially reduce the amount of hidden risk and the potential for contagion between financial institutions and across countries since 2007. Banks have a larger buffer against stocks. Unfortunately, the number and probability of potential shocks to the financial system appear to have increased since 2007. (3) Implications Of The Global Debt Overhang The End of the Debt Supercycle is a key BCA theme influencing our macro view of the economic and market outlook for the coming years. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness of monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit up-cycle. However, since the 2007-09 meltdown, even zero (or negative) policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed economies, except in a few cases. The end of the Debt Supercycle has severely impaired the key transmission channel between changes in monetary policy and economic activity. The combination of high debt burdens and economic uncertainty has curbed borrowers’ appetite for credit while increased regulatory pressures and those same uncertainties have made lenders less willing to extend loans. This has severely eroded the effectiveness of lower interest in boosting credit demand and supply, forcing central banks to rely increasingly on manipulating asset prices and exchange rates. On a positive note, the plunge in interest rates has lowered debt servicing costs to historically low levels. Yet, it is the level, rather than the cost, of debt that seems to have been an impediment to the credit cycle, contributing to a lethargic economic expansion. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) publishes an excellent dataset of credit trends across a broad swath of developing and emerging economies. Some broad conclusions come from an examination of the data (Charts II-10 and II-11):8 Chart II-10Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Chart II-11EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started Private debt growth has only recently accelerated for the advanced economies as a whole. There are only a handful of developed economies where private debt-to-GDP ratios have moved up meaningfully in the past few years. These are countries that avoided a real estate/banking bust and where property prices have continued to rise (e.g. Canada and Australia). The high level of real estate prices and household debt currently is a major source of concern to the authorities in those few countries. Even where some significant consumer deleveraging has occurred (e.g. the U.S., Spain and Ireland), debt-to-income ratios remain very high by historical standards. In many cases, a stabilization or decline in private debt burdens has been offset by a continued rise in public debt, keeping overall leverage close to peak levels. This is a key legacy of the financial crisis; many governments were forced to offset the loss of demand from private sector deleveraging by running larger and persistent budget deficits. Weak private demand accounts for close to 50% of the rise in public debt on average according to the IMF. Global debt of all types (public and private) has soared from 207% of GDP in 2007 to 246% today. The Debt Supercycle did not end everywhere at the same time. It peaked in Japan more than 20 years ago and has not yet reached a decisive bottom. The 2007-09 meltdown marked the turning point for the U.S. and Europe, but it has not even started in the emerging world. The financial crisis accelerated the accumulation of debt in the latter as investors shifted capital away from the struggling advanced economies to (seemingly less risky) emerging markets. Both EM private- and public-sector debt ratios have continued to move up at an alarming pace. The lesson from Japan is that deleveraging cycles following the bursting of a major credit bubble can last a very long time indeed. One key area where there has been significant deleveraging is the U.S. household sector (Chart II-12). The ratio of household debt to income has fallen below its long-term trend, suggesting that the deleveraging process is well advanced. However, one could argue that the ratio will undershoot the trend for an extended period in a mirror image of the previous overshoot. Or, it may be that the trend has changed; it could now be flat or even down. Chart II-12U.S. Household Deleveraging... What is clear is that U.S. attitudes toward saving and spending have changed dramatically since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart II-13). Like the Great Depression of the 1930s that turned more than one generation off of debt, the 2008/09 crisis appears to have been a watershed event that marked a structural shift in U.S. consumer attitudes toward credit-financed spending. The Debt Supercycle is over for this sector. Chart II-13...As Attitudes To Debt Change Developing Countries: Debt And Economic Fundamentals BCA’s long-held caution on emerging economies and markets is rooted in concern about deteriorating fundamentals. Trade wars and a tightening Fed are negative for EM assets, but the main headwinds facing this asset class are structural. Excessive debt is a ticking time bomb for many of these countries. EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports (Chart II-14). Moreover, the declining long-term growth potential for emerging economies as a group makes it more difficult for them to service the debt. The structural downtrend in EM labor force and productivity growth underscores that trend GDP growth has collapsed over the past three decades (Chart II-14, bottom panel). Chart II-14EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... The 2019 Key Views9 report from our Emerging Markets Strategy team highlights that excessive capital inflows over the past decade have contributed to over-investment and mal-investment. Much of the borrowing was used to fund unprofitable projects, as highlighted by the plunge in productivity growth, profit margins and return on assets in the EM space relative to pre-Lehman levels (Chart II-15) Decelerating global growth in 2018 has exposed these poor fundamentals. Chart II-15...Along With Deteriorating Profitability As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, emerging financial markets may enjoy a rally in the second half of 2019 on the back of Chinese policy stimulus. However, this will only represent a ‘sugar high’. The debt overhang in emerging market economies is unlikely to end benignly because a painful period of corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms are required in order to boost productivity and thereby improve these countries’ ability to service their debt mountains. China’s Debt Problem Space limitations preclude a full discussion of the complex debt situation in China and the risks it poses for the global financial system. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart II-16). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart II-17). Chinese banks are currently being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. Chart II-16China's Overinvestment... Chart II-17Has Undermined The Return On Assets The previous section highlighted that much of the debt has been created in the opaque shadow banking system, where vast amounts of hidden risk have likely accumulated. Whether or not the central government is willing and/or able to cover a wave of defaults and recapitalize the banking system in the event of a negative shock is hotly debated, both within and outside of BCA. But even if a financial crisis can be avoided, bringing an end to the unsustainable credit boom will undoubtedly have significant consequences for the Chinese economy and the emerging economies that trade with it. Interest Costs To Rise Globally, many are concerned about rising interest costs as interest rates normalize over the coming years. In Appendix Charts II-19 to II-21, we provide interest-cost simulations for selected government, corporate and household sectors under three interest-rate scenarios. The good news is that the starting point for interest rates is still low, and that it takes years for the stock of outstanding debt to adjust to higher market rates. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, interest burdens will increase but will generally remain low by historical standards. It would take a surge of 300 basis points across the yield curve to really ‘move the needle’ in terms of interest expense. This does not imply that the global debt situation is sustainable or that a financial crisis can be easily avoided. The next economic downturn will probably not be the direct result of rising interest costs. Nonetheless, elevated government, household and/or corporate leverage has several important long-term negative implications: Limits To Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Government indebtedness will limit the use of counter-cyclical fiscal policy during the next economic downturn. Chart II-18 highlights that structural budget deficits and government debt levels are higher today compared to previous years that preceded recessions. The risk is especially high for emerging economies and some advanced economies (such as Italy) where investors will be unwilling to lend at a reasonable rate due to default fears. Even in countries where the market still appears willing to lend to the government at a low interest rate, political constraints may limit the room to maneuver as voters and fiscally-conservative politicians revolt against a surge in budget deficits. This will almost certainly be the case in the U.S., where the 2018 tax cuts mean that the federal budget deficit is likely to be around 6% of GDP in the coming years even in the absence of recession. A recession would push it close to a whopping 10%. Even in countries where fiscal stimulus is possible, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend and take on more debt. Growth Headwinds: The debt situation condemns the global economy to a slower pace of trend growth in part because of weaker capital spending. From one perspective this is a good thing, because spending financed by the excessive use of credit is unsustainable. Still, deleveraging has much further to go at the global level, which means that spending will have to be constrained relative to income growth. The IMF estimates that deleveraging in the private sector for the advanced economies is only a third of historical precedents at this point in the cycle. The IMF also found that debt overhangs have historically been associated with lower GDP growth even in the absence of a financial crisis. Sooner or later, overleveraged sectors have to retrench. Vulnerability To Negative Shocks: If adjustment is postponed, debt reaches levels that make the economy highly vulnerable to negative shocks as defaults rise and lenders demand a higher return or withdraw funding altogether. IMF work shows that economic downturns are more costly in terms of lost GDP when it is driven or accompanied by a financial crisis. This is particularly the case for emerging markets. Bottom Line: Although credit growth has been subdued in most major advanced economies, there has been little deleveraging overall and debt-to-GDP is still rising at the global level. Elevated debt levels are far from benign, even if it appears to be easily financed at the moment. It acts as dead weight on economic activity and makes the world economy vulnerable to negative shocks. It steals growth from the future and, in the event of such a shock, the lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide fiscal relief. The end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst APPENDIX Chart II-19Corporate Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-20Government Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-21U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our tactical upgrade of equities to overweight this month goes against most of our proprietary indicators. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators for the U.S., Japan and Europe are all heading lower. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors are clearly moving funds away from the equity market at the moment. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a ‘sell’ signal. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, supporting the view that caution is still warranted. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio has dropped into negative territory. The earnings surprises index has also declined, although it remains above 60%. Finally, our Composite Technical Equity Indicator has broken below the zero line and its 9-month exponential moving average, sending a negative technical signal. On the positive side, our Monetary Indicator has hooked up, although it is still in negative territory for equities. From a contrary perspective, the fact that equity sentiment has turned bearish is positive for stocks. In fact, this is the main reason why we upgraded stocks this month. While it is late in the U.S. economic expansion and the Fed is tightening, sentiment regarding U.S. and global growth has become overly pessimistic. Thus, we are playing a late-cycle bounce in stocks. For bonds, the term premium moved further into negative territory in December, which is unsustainable from a long-term perspective. Long-term inflation expectations are also too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% target over the medium term. These facts suggest that bond yields have not peaked for the cycle, although at the moment they have not yet worked off oversold conditions according to our technical indicator. The U.S. dollar is overbought and very expensive on a PPP basis. Nonetheless, we believe it will become more expensive in the first half of 2019, before its structural downtrend resumes in broad trade-weighted terms. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators   Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator   Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields   Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP   Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator   Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals   Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators   Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop   Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot   Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions   Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   1      For more details, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda," dated December 12, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The Bane Of Investors’ Existence: Why Is Correlation High And When Will It Fall?" dated January 4, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Also see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report "The Passive Menace," dated September 13, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 3       We use only below average returns in the calculation of volatility (downside volatility) because we are more concerned with the risk of equity market declines for the purposes of this model. 4       The LCR requires a large bank to hold enough high-quality liquid assets to cover the net cash outflows the bank would expect to occur over a 30-day stress scenario. The NSFR complements the LCR by requiring an amount of stable funding that is tailored to the liquidity risk of a bank’s assets and liabilities, based on a one-year time horizon. 5       Structural Changes in Banking After the Crisis. CGFS Papers No.60. Bank for International Settlements, January 2018. 6       Shadow Banking and Capital Markets Risks and Opportunities. Group of Thirty. Washington, D.C., November 2016. 7       Back to the Future: 2007 to 2030. Are New Financial Risks Foreshadowing a Systemic Risk Event? Global Risk Institute. 8       For more details on public and private debt trends, please see BCA Special Report "The End Of The Debt Supercycle: An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 9       Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "2019 Key Views: Will The EM Lost Decade End With A Bang Or A Whimper?" dated December 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Special Report

Dear Client, We are sending you our last issue of the year, which contains a lighter fare than usual, highlighting 10 charts we find important. The first three charts tackle questions of Chinese growth, global activity and the outlook for the Federal Reserve. The other seven relate directly to the currency market. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 4th, 2019. The Foreign Exchange Strategy team would like to thank you for your continued readership and wish you and yours a joyful holiday season as well as a healthy, happy and prosperous 2019.   Warm Regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Feature 1) Chinese Growth Outlook Since the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, Beijing has been focused on controlling debt growth. The Chinese leadership is worried that too much debt will lead to the dreaded middle-income trap, whereby a country’s development stalls once it achieves middle-income status. Because of Beijing’s laser focus on debt, Chinese growth, especially in the industrial sector, has slowed. Yet in the second half of 2018, Chinese policymakers have grown concerned by the deepening malaise in the domestic economy. Consequently, they have loosened policy, accelerating the issuance of local government bonds, letting the repo rate fall to 2.7% and cutting the reserve requirement ratio to 14.5%. Despite these measures, credit growth has continued to slow, hitting 16-year lows, and crucially, the shadow banking system is still contracting (Chart 1, left panel). While the supply of credit remains tepid, declining demand for credit is more concerning. China’s marginal propensity to save, as approximated by the gap between the growth of M2 and M1 money supply, is still rising. Historically, a rising marginal propensity to save leads to slowing industrial activity and slowing import growth (Chart 1, right panel). This implies that China will continue to weigh on global trade and global industrial activity. Thus, to turn growth around, Chinese policymakers will need to ease policy further. Chart 1AChinese Growth Will Slow Further (I) Chart 1BChinese Growth Will Slow Further (II) 2) Global Growth And Inflation Outlook Already, the outlook for Chinese growth points to additional downside to global growth – something EM carry trades financed in yen are already sniffing out (Chart 2, left panel). The deterioration in the performance of those carry trades further amplifies the negative impulse emanating from China. If high-yielding EM currencies depreciate versus funding currencies like the yen, money is leaving those economies. Hence, EM liquidity conditions are tightening and financial conditions are deteriorating, reinforcing the leading property of EM carry trades vis-à-vis global industrial activity. Chart 2ASlowing Global Growth And Inflation (I) Chart 2BSlowing Global Growth And Inflation (II) Moreover, as telegraphed by the relative performance of EM bonds to EM equities, global inflation is set to peak soon, and then decelerate (Chart 2, right panel). This is a natural consequence of the deflationary impact of slowing Chinese growth and tightening EM liquidity conditions – the two most crucial factors lying behind the softness in global growth. Thus, financial markets are likely to remain volatile, at least until global policymakers have changed their tune enough to reverse global growth and inflation dynamics. 3) The Fed Is On Track To Hike More Than The Market Believes In its latest set of forecasts, the Federal Reserve may have been forced to adjust how much it will hike interest rates over the coming years. Nonetheless, by the end of 2020, the FOMC still anticipates having to increase interest rates by more than the -8 basis points currently priced into the futures curve. We are inclined to side with the Fed. U.S. growth may be slowing, but it will remain above trend in 2019. Additionally, the U.S. economy is most likely already at full employment, thus inflationary pressures are building. For the Fed, the labor market remains the fulcrum of potential inflation. As the left panel of Chart 3 shows, both the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker and BLS average hourly earnings are growing at an accelerating pace, giving the Fed ammo to hike rates further. Moreover, the highly interest-sensitive housing sector has been a great source of concern for U.S. growth. However, now that this year’s surge in mortgage rates is being digested, mortgage applications are once again rebounding (Chart 3, right panel). This suggests that real estate activity will stabilize. Hence, even if the Fed pauses, it will still surprise markets to the upside over the coming 24 months. Chart 3AGood Reasons To Keep Hiking In 2019 Chart 3BGood Reasons To Keep Hiking In 2019 4) The Dollar Can Rally Even If U.S. Growth Falls Off A Cliff In our assessment, U.S. growth will slow next year, but will nonetheless remain above trend. However, if we are wrong and U.S. growth weakens much more, the dollar is unlikely to crater. As Chart 4 illustrates, periods of broad growth weakness – as measured by our U.S. economic diffusion index – often generate a strong – not weak – dollar. U.S. growth weakness often happens as global growth deteriorates. Since the U.S. economy exhibits a low beta to global industrial activity – the segment of the economy that contributes most to the variance in GDP growth – it follows that if a shock is global, the U.S. is likely to perform better than the rest of the world, leading to a strong dollar. Today, the downside risk is that the U.S. catches the cold that has hit the global economy. Hence, if U.S. growth has significantly more downside, it would suggest that economies outside the U.S. would suffer even more. The dollar should perform well in this environment. Chart 4The Dollar Doesn't Really Care If U.S. Growth Slows 5) The Dollar Versus Global Growth And Global Inflation The most important question to forecast the path of the dollar is where we stand in the global growth and inflation cycle. As Chart 5 shows, the dollar tends to perform most poorly early in the business cycle, when global growth is picking up but inflation remains muted (bottom-right quadrant), and late in the cycle when global growth has begun to weaken but inflation remains perky (top-left quadrant). The best time to hold the greenback is during global downturns, when both global growth and inflation are decelerating (bottom-left quadrant). With global industrial activity on a downtrend and inflation set to roll over soon, we are entering the bottom-left quadrant. As a result, the greenback should continue to rally on a trade-weighted basis, gaining most against the commodity currency complex. The yen may be the one currency bucking this trend, as in recent years it has become even more counter-cyclical than the dollar. 6) The Dollar Is A Momentum Currency One of the defining characteristics of the greenback is that from an investment-style perspective, it is a momentum currency. As the left panel of Chart 6 illustrates, among G-10 currencies, momentum continuation strategies work best for the USD. This is because of feedback loops present in the global economy. Chart 6BMomentum Still Flashing A Greenlight For The Greenback (II) Of the major economies, the U.S. is the least sensitive to global trade and global investment – a consequence of the low share of exports and manufacturing in GDP and employment. As a result, when global growth deteriorates, the U.S. economy experiences less of a slowdown and American rates of return decline less. Thus, money comes back into the U.S., lifting the dollar in the process. However, since there is USD 14-trillion in dollar-denominated foreign-currency debt, a rising dollar increases the cost of capital for these borrowers. The ensuing tightening in financial conditions hurts global growth, further enhancing the greenback’s appeal. The relationship goes in reverse once global growth improves. These powerful feedback loops explain why when the dollar strengthens, it remains stronger for longer than anyone anticipated, and vice versa when it weakens. Today, the momentum signal for the dollar remains positive (Chart 6, right panel). Along with slowing global growth, momentum was one of the key factors behind the dollar’s strength this year. If, as we expect, global inflation also weakens in the first half of 2019, the dollar will likely experience a beautiful first six months of the year. 7) Keep An Eye On Sino-U.S. Rate Differentials When one-year interest rate differentials between the U.S. and China widen, the DXY tends to strengthen (Chart 7, left panel). This is a reflection of global growth dynamics. U.S rates tend to rise relative to China when Chinese growth is decelerating. Since a slowing Chinese economy implies less intake of machinery and raw materials, a weaker China hurts Europe, Japan, EM and commodity producers a lot more than it affects the U.S. This lifts the dollar in the process. Moreover, so long as Chinese one-year interest rates keep falling versus the U.S., it also signals that any reflationary efforts by China have not yet had any impact on growth. Chart 7AU.S.-China Rate Differentials Point To A Stronger Dollar (I) Chart 7BU.S.-China Rate Differentials Point To A Stronger Dollar (II) This same rate differential between the U.S. and China also drives fluctuations in USD/CNY (Chart 7, right panel). Since falling relative Chinese rates are a symptom of a weaker Chinese economy, this relationship makes sense. Moreover, in recent years, more than against the dollar, Chinese policymakers have targeted the value of the CNY on a trade-weighted basis. Mechanically, if slowing Chinese growth flatters the trade-weighted dollar, it also forces USD/CNY up. This can further reinforce the strength in the broad trade-weighted dollar as a falling CNY is deflationary for the global economy. Because Chinese growth remains weak, we expect U.S. rates to continue to move higher vis-à-vis Chinese ones, lifting both the DXY and USD/CNY in the process. 8) EUR/USD: More Downside And A Complex Bottoming Process Ahead EUR/USD will suffer if global growth weakens and the dollar strengthens. On one hand, the European economy is much more sensitive to the Chinese and global industrial cycle than U.S. activity is. Our outlook for global growth therefore implies that the European Central Bank will find it difficult to raise rates in the fall of 2019, while the Fed is likely to surprise markets on the hawkish side. On the other hand, the simplest vehicle to bet on a strengthening dollar is to sell EUR/USD. Our fair-value model for EUR/USD currently pegs its equilibrium at 1.11 (Chart 8, left panel). However, EUR/USD never ends its downdrafts at its fair value – a consequence of its negative correlation with the dollar, a momentum currency that easily over- and under-shoots fair value. Thus, we expect the euro to find stability closer to 1.08. Chart 8AEUR/USD Will Bottom Later Next Year (I) Chart 8BEUR/USD Will Bottom Later Next Year (II) Moreover, inflationary dynamics do not suggest that EUR/USD is yet ripe for the taking. Since 2008, the gap between euro area and U.S. core CPI has been a reliable leading indicator for EUR/USD (Chart 8, right panel). In fact, this chart suggests that EUR/USD is more likely to bottom towards the second half of 2019; so as long as European inflation remains tepid, it will be hard for this currency to suddenly rebound and recoup the losses it has experienced this year. A complex bottom is more likely than a V-shaped one. 9) EUR/JPY: All About Bond Yields Even more so than USD/JPY, EUR/JPY remains beholden to trends in global bond yields (Chart 9). BCA’s view is that on a cyclical horizon of nine to 12 months, bond yields have upside. However, with global growth and inflation likely to decelerate further in the first half of 2019, safe haven assets could remain well bid over that timeframe. This implies the time to buy EUR/JPY is not now, and that a better buying opportunity will emerge once global growth stabilizes. Thus, we remain short EUR/JPY for the time being, a view we have held since the beginning of 2018. Chart 9Risks To Global Growth Equals EUR/JPY Downside 10) EUR/GBP Is At Risk At the current juncture, EUR/GBP is a binary bet: Either a hard Brexit comes to fruition, in which case U.K. real rates plummet and British inflation rises above 5%, creating a deeply pound-bearish environment. Alternatively, a soft Brexit (or even no Brexit) materializes, in which cases British real rates have upside, the Bank of England has a freer hand to combat inflationary pressures, and the pound can rally. With EUR/GBP currently trading toward the top of its historical distribution, we believe it is an attractive shorting opportunity (Chart 10). Marko Papic, BCA’s chief geopolitical strategist, assigns a less than 10% probability of a hard Brexit. As such, the pound is more likely to exist in a soft/no-Brexit world in 12 months than otherwise. This means the pound should be-revalued. Chart 10Sell EUR/GBP We prefer playing the pound’s strength against the euro rather than the dollar, as we expect the dollar to rally further in the first half of 2019, so cable would be swimming against the tide. Moreover, when the dollar strengthens, historically EUR/GBP weakens, as the GBP has a lower beta to the dollar than the euro does. Hence, our dollar view is also consistent with a lower EUR/GBP. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Dear Clients, This is the final publication for the year. The Emerging Markets Strategy team wishes you a very happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year! Best regards, Arthur Budaghyan Highlights The recent EM outperformance is a mid-bear market stabilization, and is at its late stage. Market signals and economic data are consistent with a further slowdown in global growth emanating from China/EM. We reiterate that global trade is heading for a period of contraction and investors should position accordingly. EM will sell off even as U.S. bond yields drop further. Feature Global investors have been increasing their absolute exposure to EM equities over the past two months, despite the ongoing drop in DM share prices.1 The common narrative is that a potential pause by the Fed next year, the trade truce between the U.S. and China and the latter’s ongoing stimulus measures are together sufficient to propel EM risk assets higher on a tactical and even cyclical horizon. In contrast, we believe the recent EM outperformance is a mid-bear market stabilization, and is at a late stage. We have written at length that neither the Fed nor the trade wars were the main culprit behind the EM selloff early this year. The key reason behind the EM and commodities selloff was the slowdown in Chinese/EM economies and global trade. China’s policy stimulus has so far been insufficient to reverse the economy’s growth slump. As such, the odds are that China/EM growth and global trade will continue to disappoint, and the EM selloff and underperformance will resume sooner than later. Market Signals EM risk assets are sensitive to China’s growth and global trade. Market signals remains downbeat on both. In particular: Global cyclicals continue to send a bleak message about the global business cycle. Global machinery, chemicals, freight and logistics as well as semiconductor stocks have been underperforming the global equity index in a falling market (Chart I-1). This is consistent with an ongoing slowdown in global growth. Chart I-1AGlobal Cyclicals Are Underperforming In A Falling Market Chart I-1BGlobal Cyclicals Are Underperforming In A Falling Market   EM relative equity performance versus DM has historically been tightly correlated with global materials’ share prices versus the overall global stock benchmark (Chart I-2, top panel). Remarkably, the recent EM outperformance has not been corroborated by outperformance of global materials (Chart I-2, bottom panel). This is additional evidence that suggests investors should fade this EM rebound/outperformance. Chart I-2EM Vs. DM Is Akin To Global Materials Vs. Benchmark Index EM risk assets are very sensitive to both global trade and commodities prices. The majority of forward-looking indicators on global trade remain dismal (please refer to the section below for a more detailed discussion on this topic). Interestingly, the current trajectory of global equities – including the run-up in share prices before January 2018’s peak, the top formation itself, and the subsequent decline – impeccably track the same trajectory that occurred between 1998 and 2000 in terms of both oscillations and magnitude (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Are Global Equities In A Bear Market? The top in 2000 was followed by a devasting, three-year bear market. We are not arguing this global equity selloff will last that long nor be that large. What we are saying is that this turbulence will last another several months, and that there is still considerable potential for further drawdowns. Finally, the silver-gold ratio is breaking below its previous lows, including its early 2016 low (Chart I-4). Such a breakdown could be a precursor of a deflationary shock stemming from the Chinese economy. Chart I-4Beware Of Breakdown In The Silver-Gold Ratio Global Trade: A Contraction Ahead? This section elaborates on the fundamental rationale behind the selloff – the deepening global business cycle downturn stemming primarily from China/EM economies: There are several indications that the global slowdown is already hurting American manufacturing. In the U.S., the CASS Freight Shipment Index, which measures North American freight volumes and is published by the Saint Louis Federal Reserve is foretelling an impending slump in the manufacturing sector (Chart I-5, top panel). Chart I-5U.S. Growth Is Slowing Consistently, the growth rates of both total intermodal carloads and railroad carloads excluding petroleum and coal have rolled over decisively (Chart I-5, middle and bottom panels). As U.S. manufacturing slows, U.S. Treasury yields will drop further. In China, the slowdown is occurring not only in the industrial parts of the economy but also in household spending (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Chinese Consumer Is In A Soft Spot In the case of the industrial segments, falling new and backlog orders are heralding further deterioration in nominal manufacturing output growth (Chart I-7). Accordingly, the construction and installation component of fixed asset investment is already very weak, while equipment and instrument purchases are contracting. Chart I-7Chinese Manufacturing: Deepening Slump The key channel in which China impacts the rest of the world is through its imports. In turn, the latter are driven by the nation’s credit and fiscal spending impulse (Chart I-8, top panel). That explains the linkage between the Chinese credit and fiscal impulse and EM corporate profits (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-8The Linkages Between Chinese Credit & Fiscal Spending, Imports And EM Profits Crucially, the import sub-component of mainland manufacturing PMI has plunged well below the 50 boom-bust line and signals further downside in EM equities and industrial metals prices (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Chinese Imports Versus EM Stocks And Industrial Metals This is consistent with contracting Chinese imports from various countries (Chart I-10). This is how China’s negative growth shock is promulgating throughout the rest of the world. Chart I-10German And Japanese Shipments To China To Contract Finally, the growth rate of Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese and Singaporean aggregate exports is approaching zero, which is typically a bad omen for EM share prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Asian Exports And EM Stocks What’s more, Taiwanese shipments of electronic products parts are begining to contract, which hearalds a bleak outlook for both the global trade cycle and EM technology sector profits (Chart I-12). Consistently, semiconductor prices have continued to fall precipitously. Chart I-12Prepare For More Weakness in Global Trade Bottom Line: We reiterate that global trade is heading for a period of contraction due to the deepening growth slump in China/EM. Chinese Stimulus and U.S. Growth: Lost In Translation? We endeavor to tackle two critical questions: (1) Why has policy stimulus in China failed to stabilize growth? We have written about this extensively in previous reports and will review our key points briefly. First, regulatory tightening on banks and non-bank financial institutions is overwhelming the benefits of lower interbank rates. New regulations are constraining banks’ and financial intermediaries’ ability to expand their balance sheets as aggressively as before. Slowing credit growth has so far offset robust fiscal spending – please refer to Chart I-8. Second, in a system saddled with extreme leverage, non-performing loans and very weak capacity to service debt, the impact of lower interest rates on credit origination is likely to be minimal. This diminishes the efficacy of monetary policy easing on credit growth. China’s credit excesses are enormous, and deleveraging is probably in the very early innings (Chart I-13, top panel). Notably, company and household credit are still expanding at a 10% pace from a year ago (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-13Has China Started Deleveraging? Not Really Third, the authorities are facing a formidable dilemma between opting for lower interest rates and/or maintaining a stable exchange rate. We have been highlighting the tight correlation between the CNY/USD exchange rate and interest rates. The recent stabilization in the CNY/USD may have been due to the latest rise in Chinese interbank rates (Chart I-14). Chart I-14China's Monetary Policy Dilemma Yet, the real economy in China and its numerous indebted entities require lower (and probably zero) interest rates for a couple of years, as occurred in Japan, the U.S. and the euro area in the years following the peaks in their respective credit bubbles. All in all, it is not clear if the authorities can reduce interest rates without eliciting currency depreciation. For now, the jury is still out. Fourth, net liquidity injections into the banking system by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) have been minimal in recent years (Chart I-15, top panel). In fact, commercial banks’ excess reserves at the PBoC have been flattish over the past three years (Chart I-15, bottom panel). While the media and many commentators have been focused on the reserve requirement ratio reductions that have infused a lot of excess reserves into the banking system, there have also been many expired lending facilities from the PBoC to banks. The net result has been flattish liquidity trend in the banking system. Chart I-15Chinese Banking System's Excess Reserves Are Flattish While there is no limit on a central bank’s ability to provide more excess reserves to the banking system, spare liquidity could push interbank rates lower and possibly trigger currency depreciation. Finally, monetary and fiscal policies work with varying time lags. Critically, the aggregate credit and fiscal impulse remains in a downtrend, pointing to less imports and hence a downbeat outlook for EM corporate earnings (please refer to Chart I-8). (2) Why has global trade decelerated amid robust U.S. demand? U.S. import growth has been very robust, yet global trade has slowed (Chart I-16).  Chart I-16Robust U.S. Imports Have Not Precluded Global Manufacturing Slowdown The reason behind this is very simple: U.S. and EU annual merchandize goods imports amount to $2.5 trillion and $2.2 trillion, respectively – dwarfed by EM (including China) imports of $6 trillion (Chart I-17). Chart I-17EM Imports Are Larger Than Combined U.S. And EU Imports This value of EM imports excludes China’s imports for processing and re-exporting as well as all the imports of Mexico and central Europe, which also include a lot of inputs that are processed and re-exported. In spite of these adjustments, EM imports are still considerably larger than U.S. and EU imports combined. Hence, robust U.S. final demand is in and of itself insufficient to both offset and support global trade growth when EM/China demand falters. This is especially pertinent to commodities and industrial goods, where China/EM are large consumers. Chart Patterns: Reading Market Tea Leaves There is no magical formula that can guarantee making money in financial markets. Economic data are lagging, markets can change direction abruptly, and indicators can break down or give false signals from time to time. Besides, financial markets do not move in straight lines, and differentiating the noise from the signal is not a simple exercise. The odds of making money or outperforming are higher when investors are correct in their big- picture judgements – i.e., when their thematic views on the global economic and investment landscapes are accurate.  Markets can be very noisy and volatile in the short term, yet there are several critical chart patterns that we are taking comfort with as they are consistent with our macro themes. The latter are the following: Sagging China/EM growth, a deepening global trade slump, lower commodities prices and a stronger U.S. dollar/weaker EM currencies.     Our Risk-On versus Safe-Haven Currency Ratio2 has relapsed since early this year after failing to break above its previous top (Chart I-18). In and of itself, this is already a bearish chart formation. Besides, it seems this market indicator is forming a potential head-and-shoulders pattern. Chart I-18A Bear Market In Risk-On Versus Safe-Haven Currencies Ratio Any relapse from current levels will validate the head-and-shoulders profile. As a result, the odds of a major plunge will rise, which would be consistent with our themes and outlook. EM share prices in dollar terms have also struggled to break above their 2007 highs in the past 10 years, despite the bull market in the S&P 500 during this period (Chart I-19). Remarkably, the EM stock index is presently sitting on several of its long-term moving averages. They make a formidable technical support. Box 1 elaborates why we use these long-term moving averages in our regular reports. Chart I-19EM Equities Are Facing An Air Pocket If these technical supports give in, EM equities will hit an air pocket – with the next technical support lying 25% below the current level. It is no surprise that an intense battle between bulls and bears is currently being waged. Provided EM corporate profits are set to contract in the first half of 2019, as per our analysis above, we believe these technical supports will be violated and that a major plunge in share prices is very likely. Finally, share prices of global energy and mining companies rolled over early this year at their long-term moving averages (Chart 20, top and middle panels). These long-term moving averages acted as a support in bull markets; now they have become a resistance. Hence, it makes sense to argue that energy and mining stocks remain in a secular bear market, and the 2016-‘17 advance was a bear market rally. If so, further downside in their share prices could be substantial. Meantime, global semiconductor share prices rolled over at their 2000 peak earlier this year (Chart I-20, bottom panel). This is a bad technical sign and might signify that a non-trivial slowdown in global growth may last for quite some time. Chart I-20Global And Mining Stocks Remain In A Secular Bear Market Typically, in the periods when resources and technology stocks sell off, EM equities and other risk assets perform badly. It appears we are currently in such a phase, and it will not be short-lived. Investment Strategy China/EM growth conditions continue to worsen. Tactically and cyclically, risks to EM stocks, currencies, credit and high-yielding local bonds are skewed to the downside. We continue to recommend playing EM on the short side. Playing a market on the long side when fundamentals are deteriorating and valuations are not cheap is akin to collecting pennies in front of a steamroller. The recent outperformance of EM equities and credit versus DM is unsustainable. Continue to underweight EM. For dedicated EM equity portfolios, our overweights are Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Russia, central Europe, Korea and Thailand, while our underweights are Indonesia, the Philippines, Peru and South Africa. We are considering to upgrade India from underweight to neutral. Our preferred short currency basket versus the U.S. dollar consists of the ZAR, the IDR, the CLP, the COP and the KRW. Box 1 - Our Long-Term Moving Average Framework “All through time, people have basically acted and re-acted the same way in the market as the result of: Greed, Fear, Ignorance & Hope. That is why numeric formations and patterns recur on a constant basis.” - Jesse Livermore, in Reminiscences of a Stock Operator The basis for examining price patterns with their 200-, 400-, 800-, 1600- and 3200-day moving averages (MA) – corresponding to nine months, 18 months, 3-, 6-, 12 and 24-year moving averages – is as follows: The 200-day MA is a very widely known and well-used measure. We have observed that when the 200-day MA breaks in a bull market, the next support could occur at the 400- or 800-day MA levels – i.e., the multiples of the 200-day MA. Following the same logic, we examined even longer-term moving averages such as 6-, 12- and 24-year MAs. Interestingly, we discovered that the 3- and 6-year MAs worked very well during the S&P 500 bull run of the 1950s and 1960s (Chart I-21, top panel). Besides, during the bull market of the 1980s-‘90s, the S&P 500 selloffs also found support at the 3- and 6-year MAs (Chart 21, bottom panel). Chart I-21The S&P 500 And Long-Term Moving Averages Meanwhile, the bear market bottoms in 1982 and 2002-‘03 in the U.S. equity market occurred at a very long-term (12-year) MA (Chart I-21, bottom panel). Similarly, in the fixed-income universe, throughout the more than 35-year- strong U.S. bond bull market, the rise in bond yields often topped out when 10-year Treasury yields reached their 6-year MA (Chart I-22). Chart I-22U.S. Bond Yields And Long-Term Moving Averages These observations have led us to infer that structural trends cannot be considered completely broken as and when markets cross their 200-day MA. Large selloffs (or cyclical bear markets) within structural bull markets can push prices to their very long-term moving averages such as 3- or 6-year MAs. The opposite holds true for tactical and cyclical rallies within bear markets. Besides, we have also observed that when a financial market in a selloff finds support at a particular long-term MA, it usually resumes its rally and often advances to new highs. On the contrary, when a market rallies but fails to break above its long-term MA (resistance), it often experiences a breakdown. We often apply this long-term moving average framework to analyze trends in various financial markets, and contrast and evaluate these with our fundamental economic themes. As to the question of why these numbers work, the quote above from Reminiscences of a Stock Operator could be the answer.   Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 BoA December survey 2 Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns (including carry). Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights So What? Our best and worst calls of 2018 cast light on our methodology and 2019 forecasts. Why? Our clients took us to task for violating our own methodology on the Iranian oil sanctions. Sticking to our guns would have paid off with long Russian equities versus EM. We correctly called China’s domestic policy, the U.S.-China trade war, Europe, the U.S. midterms, and relative winners in emerging markets. Feature It has been a tradition for BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since our launch in 2012, to highlight our best and worst forecasts of the year.1 This will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 9, when we return to our regular publication schedule. We wish all of our clients a great Holiday Season. And especially all the very best in 2019: lots of happiness, health, and hefty returns. Good luck and good hunting. The Worst Calls Of 2018 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we always begin the report card with our zingers. Our overall performance in 2018 was … one of our best. The successes below will testify to this. However, we made three notable errors. A Schizophrenic Russia View Our worst call of the year was to panic and close our long Russian equities relative to emerging markets trade in the face of headline geopolitical risks. In early March, we posited that Russia was a “buy” relative to the broad EM equity index due to a combination of cheap valuations, strong macro fundamentals, orthodox policy, and an end to large-scale geopolitical adventurism. This call ultimately proved to be correct (Chart 1). Chart 1Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End What went wrong? The main risk to our view, that the U.S. Congress would pursue an anti-Russia agenda regardless of any Russian sympathies in the Trump White House, materialized in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a Novichok nerve agent in the United Kingdom. As fate would have it, the incident occurred just before our bullish report went to clients! The ensuing international uproar and sanctions caused a selloff. Our bullish thesis did not rest exclusively on geopolitics, but a thaw in West-Russia relations did form the main pillar of the view. Our Russia Geopolitical Risk Index, which had served us well in the past, was pricing as low of a level of geopolitical risk as one could hope for in the post-Crimea environment (Chart 2). Naturally the measure jumped into action following the Skripal incident. Chart 2Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal The timing of our call was therefore off, but we should have stuck with the overall view. The U.S. imposed preliminary sanctions that lacked teeth. While Washington accepted the U.K.’s assessment that Moscow was behind the poisoning, the weakness of the sanctions also signaled that the U.S. did not consider the incident worthy of a tougher position. There are now two parallel sanction processes under way. The first round of sanctions announced in August gave Russia 90 days to comply and adopt “remedial measures” regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. On November 9, the U.S. State Department noted that Russia had not complied with the deadline. The U.S. is now expected to impose a second round of sanctions that will include at least three of six punitive actions: Opposition to development aid and assistance by international financial institutions (think the IMF and the World Bank); Downgrading diplomatic relations; Additional restrictions on exports to Russia (high-tech exports have already been barred by the first round of sanctions); Restrictions on imports from Russia; A ban on landing rights in the U.S. for Russian state-owned airlines; Prohibiting U.S. banks from purchasing Russian government debt. While the White House was expected to have such sanctions ready to go on the November 9 deadline, it has dragged its feet for almost two months now. This suggests that President Trump continues to hold out for improved relations with President Putin. A visit by President Putin to Washington remains possible in Q1 2019. As such, we would expect the White House to adopt some mix of the first five items on the above list, hardly a crushing response from Moscow’s perspective. The U.S. Congress, however, has a parallel process in the form of the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018 (DASKAA). Introduced in August by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk, the legislation would put restrictions on Americans buying Russian sovereign debt and curb investments in Russian energy projects. The bill also includes secondary sanctions on investing in the Russian oil sector, which would potentially ensnare European energy companies collaborating with Russia in the energy sector. There was some expectation that Congress would take up the bill ahead of the midterm election, but nothing came of it. Even with the latest incident – the seizing of two Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait – we have yet to see action. While we expect the U.S. to do something eventually, the White House approach is likely to be tepid while the congressional approach may be too draconian to pass into law. And with Democrats about to take over the House, and likely demand even tougher sanctions against Russia, the ultimate legislation may be too bold for President Trump to sign into legislation. The point is that Russia has acted antagonistically towards the West in 2018, but in small enough increments that the response has been tepid. Given the paucity of Russian financial and trade links with the U.S., Washington’s sanctions would only bite if they included the dreaded “secondary sanction” implications for third party sovereigns and firms – particularly European, which do have a lot of business in Russia. This is highly unlikely without major Russian aggression. We cannot completely ignore the potential for such aggression in 2019, especially with President Putin’s popularity in the doldrums (Chart 3) and a contentious Ukrainian election due for March 31. However, we outlined the constraints against Russia in 2014, amidst the Ukrainian crisis, and we do not think that these constraints have been reduced (they may have only grown since then). Chart 3Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Regardless of the big picture for 2019, we could have faded the risks in 2018 and stuck to the fundamentals. Russia is up 17.2% against EM year-to-date. The lesson here, therefore, is to find re-entry points into a well-founded view despite market volatility. Chart 1 shows that Russian equities climbed the proverbial “wall of worry” relative to EM in 2018. Doubting Jair Bolsonaro Our list of mistakes keeps us in the EM universe where we underestimated Jair Bolsonaro’s chances of winning the presidency in Brazil. The answer to the question we posed in the title of our September report – “Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything?” – was a definitive “yes.” Since the publication of that report, BRL/USD is up 2.9% and Brazilian equities are up 18.5% relative to EM (Chart 4). Chart 4Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already To our credit, the question of Bolsonaro’s electoral chances elicited passionate and pointed internal debate. But our clients did not see the internal struggle, just the incorrect external output! A bad call is a bad call, no matter how it is assembled on the intellectual assembly line. That said, we still think that our report is valuable. It sets out the constraints facing Bolsonaro in 2019. He has to convince the left-leaning median voter that meaningful pension reform is needed; bully a fractured Congress into painful structural reforms; and overcome an unforgiving macro context of tepid Chinese stimulus and a strong USD. If the Bolsonaro administration wastes the good will of the investment community over the next six months, we expect the market’s punishment to be swift and painful. In fact, Chart 4 notes that the initial Bolsonaro rally has already lost most of its shine. Brazilian assets are still up since the election, but the gentle slope could become a steep fall if Bolsonaro stumbles. The market is priced for political perfection. To be clear, we are not bearish on Bolsonaro. We believe that, relative to EM, he will be a positive for Brazil. However, the market is currently betting that he will win by two touchdowns, whereas we think he will squeak by with a last-second field goal. The difference between the two forecasts is compelling and we have expressed it by being long MXN/BRL.2 Not Sticking To Our Method In The Case Of Iran Throughout late-2017 and 2018 we pointed out that President Trump’s successful application of “maximum pressure” against North Korea could become a market-relevant risk if he were emboldened to try the same strategy against Iran. For much of the year, this view was prescient. As investors realized the seriousness of President Trump’s strategy, a geopolitical risk premium began to seep into oil prices, as illustrated in Chart 5 by the red bar. Every time we spoke to clients or published reports on this topic, we highlighted just how dangerous a “maximum pressure” strategy would be in the case of Iran. We stressed that Iran could wreak havoc across Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and even drive up oil prices to the point of causing a “geopolitical recession in 2019.” In other words, we stressed the extraordinary constraints that President Trump would face. To their credit many of our clients called us out on the inconsistency: our market call was über bullish oil prices, while our methodology emphasized constraints over preferences. We were constantly fielding questions such as: Why would President Trump face down such overwhelming constraints? We did not have a very good answer to this question other than that he was ideologically committed to overturning the Iranian nuclear deal. In essence, we doubted President Trump’s own ideological flexibility and realism. That was a mistake and we tip our hat to the White House for recognizing the complex constraints arrayed against it. President Trump realized by October how dangerous those constraints were and began floating the idea of sanction waivers, causing the geopolitical risk premium to drain from the market (Chart 6). To our credit, we highlighted sanction waivers as a key risk to our view and thus took profit on our bullish energy call early. Chart 6Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices That said, our clients have taken the argument further, pointing out that if we were wrong on Trump’s ideological flexibility with Iran, we may be making the same mistake when it comes to China. However, there is a critical difference. Americans are more concerned about conflict with North Korea than with Iran (Chart 7), while China is the major concern about trade (Chart 8). Second, railing against the Iran deal did not get President Trump elected, whereas his protectionist rhetoric – specifically regarding China – did (Chart 9). Getting anything less than the mother-of-all-deals with Beijing will draw down Trump’s political capital ahead of 2020 and open him to accusations of being “weak” and “surrendering to China.” These are accusations that the country’s other set of protectionists – the Democrats – will wantonly employ against him in the next general election. Chart 9Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Ultimately, if we have to be wrong, we are at least satisfied that our method stood firm in the face of our own fallibility. We are doubly glad to see our clients using our own method against our views. This is precisely what we wanted to accomplish when we began BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy in March 2012: to revolutionize finance by raising the sophistication with which it approaches geopolitics. That was a lofty goal, but we do not pretend to hold the monopoly on our constraint-based methodology. In the end, our market calls did not suffer due to our error. We closed our long EM energy-producer equities / EM equities for a gain of 4.67% and our long Brent / short S&P 500 for a gain of 6.01%. However, our latter call, shorting the S&P 500 in September, was based on several reasons, including concerns regarding FAANG stocks, overstretched valuations, and an escalation of the trade war. Had we paired our S&P 500 short with a better long, we would have added far more value to our clients. It is that lost opportunity that has kept us up at night throughout this quarter. We essentially timed the S&P 500 correction, but paired it with a wayward long. The Best Calls Of 2018 BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy had a strong year. We are not going to list all of our calls here, but only those most relevant to our clients. Our best 2018 forecast originally appeared in 2017, when in April of that year we predicted that “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018.” Our reasoning was bang on: U.S. fiscal policy would turn strongly stimulative (the tax cuts would pass and Trump would be a big spender) and thus cause the Fed to turn hawkish and the USD to rally, tightening global monetary policy; Trump’s trade war would re-emerge in 2018; China would reboot its structural reform efforts by focusing on containing leverage, thus tightening global “fiscal” policy. In the same report we also predicted that Italian elections in 2018 would reignite Euro Area breakup risks, but that Italian policymakers would ultimately be found to be bluffing, as has been our long-running assertion. Throughout 2018, our team largely maintained and curated the forecasts expressed in that early 2017 report. We start the list of the best calls with the one call that was by far the most important for global assets in 2018: economic policy in China. The Chinese Would Over-Tighten, Then Under-Stimulate Getting Chinese policy right required us, first, to predict that policy would bring negative economic surprises this year, and second, once policy began to ease, to convince clients and colleagues that “this time would be different” and the stimulus would not be very stimulating. In other words, this time, China would not panic and reach for the credit lever of the post-2008 years (Chart 10), but would maintain its relatively tight economic, financial, environmental, and macro-prudential oversight, while easing only on the margin. Chart 10No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 This is precisely what occurred. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy’s “China Play Index,” which is designed to capture any reflation out of Beijing, collapsed in 2018 and has hardly ticked up since the policy easing announced in July (Chart 11). Chart 11Weak Reflation Signal From China Our view was based on an understanding of Chinese politics that we can confidently say has been unique: From March 2017, we highlighted the importance of the 2017 October Party Congress, arguing that President Xi Jinping would consolidate his power and redouble his attempts to “reform” the economy by reining in dangerous imbalances. We explicitly characterized the containment of leverage as the most market-relevant reform to focus on. We stringently ignored the ideological debate about the nature of reform in China, focusing instead on the major policy changes afoot. We identified very early on how the rising odds of a U.S.-China conflict would embolden Chinese leadership to double-down on painful structural reforms. Will China maintain this disciplined approach in 2019? That is yet to be seen. But we are arming ourselves and clients with critical ways to identify when and whether Beijing’s policy easing transforms into a full-blown “stimulus overshoot”: First, we need to see a clear upturn in shadow financing to believe that the Xi administration has given up on preventing excess debt. Assuming that such a shift occurs, and that overall credit improves, it will enable us to turn bullish on global growth and global risk assets on a cyclical, i.e., not merely tactical, horizon (Chart 12). Chart 12A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift Second, our qualitative checklist will need to see a lot more “checks” in order to change our mind. Short of an extraordinary surge in bank and shadow bank credit, there needs to be a splurge in central and especially local government spending (Table 1). The mid-year spike in local governments’ new bond issuance in 2018 was fleeting and fell far short of the surge that initiated the large-scale stimulus of 2015. Frontloading these bonds in 2019 will depend on timing and magnitude. Table 1A Credit Splurge, Or Government Spending Splurge, Is Necessary For Stimulus To Overshoot Third, we would need to see President Xi Jinping make a shift in rhetoric away from the “Three Battles” of financial risk, pollution, and poverty. Having identified systemic financial risk as the first of the three ills, Xi needs to make a dramatic reversal of this three-year action plan if he is to clear the way for another credit blowout. Trade War Would Reignite In 2018 It paid off to stick with our trade war alarmism in 2018. We correctly forecast that the U.S. and China would collide over trade and that their initial trade agreement – on May 20 – was insubstantial and would not last. In the event it lasted three days. Our one setback on the trade front was to doubt the two sides would agree to a trade truce at the G20. However, by assigning a subjective 40% probability, we correctly noted the fair odds of a truce. We also insisted that any truce would be temporary, which ended up being the case. We may yet be vindicated if the March 1 deadline produces no sustainable deal, as we forecast in last week’s Strategic Outlook. That said, correct geopolitical calls do not butter our bread at BCA. Rather, we are paid to make market calls. To that end, we would point out that we correctly assessed the market-relevance of the trade conflict, fading S&P 500 risks and focusing on the effect on global risk assets. Will this continue into 2019? We think so. We do not see trade conflict as the originator of ongoing market turbulence (Chart 13) and would expect the U.S. to outperform global equities again over the course of 2019 (Chart 14). This view may appear wrong in Q1, as the market digests the Fed backing off from hawkish rhetoric, the ongoing trade negotiations, and the likely seasonal uptick in Chinese credit data in the beginning of the calendar year. Chart 13Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Chart 14U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance However, any stabilization in equity markets would likely serve to ease financial conditions in the U.S., where economic and inflation conditions remain firmly in tightening territory (Chart 15). As such, the Fed pause is likely to last no more than a quarter, maybe two at best, leading to renewed carnage in global risk assets if our view on Chinese policy stimulus – tepid – remains valid through the course of 2019. Chart 15If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On Europe (All Of It… Again) In 2017, our forecasting track record for Europe was stellar. This continued in 2018, with no major setbacks: Populism in Italy: Our long-held view has been that Europe’s chief remaining risks lay in Italian populists coming to power. We predicted in 2016 that this would eventually happen and that they would then be proven to be bluffing. This is essentially what happened in 2018. Matteo Salvini’s Lega is surging in the polls because its leader has realized that a combination of hard anti-immigrant policy and the softest-of-soft Euroskepticism is a winning combination. We believe that investors can live with this combination. Our only major fault in forecasting European politics and assets this year was to close our bearish Italy call too early: we booked our long Spanish / short Italian 10-year government bond trade for a small loss in August, before the spread between the two Mediterranean countries blew out to record levels. That missed opportunity could have also made it on our “worst calls” list as well. Pluralism in Europe: To get the call on Italy right, we had to dabble in some theoretical work. In a somewhat academic report, we showed that political concentration was on the decline in the developed world (Chart 16), but especially in Europe (Chart 17). Put simply, lower political concentration suggests that a duopoly between the traditional center-left and center-right parties is breaking down. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we argued that Europe’s parliamentary systems would enable centrist parties to adopt elements of the populist agenda, particularly on immigration, without compromising the overall stability of European institutions. As such, political pluralism, or low political concentration, is positive for markets. Immigration crisis is over: For centrist parties to be able to successfully adopt populist immigration policy, they needed a pause in the immigration crisis. This was empirically verifiable in 2018 (Chart 18). Chart 18European Migration Crisis Is Over Merkel’s time has run out: Since early 2017, we had cautioned clients that Angela Merkel’s demise was afoot, but that it would be an opportunity, rather than a risk, when it came. It finally happened in 2018 and it was not a market moving event. The main question for 2019 is whether German policymakers, and Europe as a whole, will use the infusion of fresh blood in Berlin to reaccelerate crucial reforms ahead of the next global recession. Brexit: Since early 2016, we have been right on Brexit. More specifically, we were corrent in cautioning investors that, were Brexit to occur, “the biggest loser would be the Conservative Party, not the EU.” As with the previous two Conservative Party prime ministers, it appears that the question of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU has completely drained any political capital out of Prime Minister Theresa May’s reign. We suspect that the only factor propping up the Tories in the polls is that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. We have also argued that soft Brexit would ultimately prove to be “illogical” and that “Bregret” would begin to seep in, as it now most clearly has. We parlayed these rising geopolitical risks and uncertainties by shorting cable in the first half of the year for a 6.21% gain. Malaysia Over Turkey And India Over Brazil Not all was lost for our EM calls this year. We played Malaysia against Turkey in the currency markets for a 17.44% gain, largely thanks to massively divergent governance and structural reform trajectories after Malaysia’s opposition won power for the first time in the country’s history. Second, we initiated a long Indian / short Brazilian equity view in March that returned 27.54% by August. This was a similar play on divergent structural reforms, but it was also a way to hedge our alarmist view on trade. Given India’s isolation from global trade and insular financial markets, we identified India as one of the EM markets that would remain aloof of protectionist risks. We could have closed the trade earlier for greater gain, but did not time the exit properly. Midterm Election: A Major Democratic Victory Our midterm election forecast was correct: Democrats won a substantial victory. Even our initial call on the Senate, that Democrats had a surprisingly large probability of picking up seats, proved to be correct, with Republicans eking out just two gains in a year when Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried in 2016. What about our all-important call that the election would have no impact on the markets? That is more difficult to assess, given that the S&P 500 has in fact collapsed in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election. However, we see little connection between the election outcome and the stock market’s performance. Neither do our colleagues or clients, who have largely stopped asking about the Democrats’ policy designs. In 2019, domestic politics may play a role in the markets. Impeachment risk is low, but, if it rears its head, it could prompt President Trump to seek relevance abroad, as his predecessors have done when they lost control of domestic policy. In addition, the Democratic Party’s sweeping House victory may suggest a political pendulum swing to the left in the 2020 presidential election. We will discuss both risks as part of our annual Five Black Swans report in early 2019. U.S. domestic politics was a collection of Red Herrings during much of President Obama’s presidency, and has produced strong tailwinds under President Trump (tax cuts in particular). This may change in 2019, with considerable risk to investors, and asset prices, ahead.     Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For our 2019 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, “2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge,” dated December 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      In part we like this cross because we also think that Mexico’s newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is priced to lose by two touchdowns, whereas he may merely lose by a last-second field goal.    

Highlights Dear Clients, This is the final publication for the year, in which we recap some of the key developments in 2018. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 2, 2019 with a Special Report on urbanization/industrialization. The China Investment Strategy team wishes you a very happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year! Best regards, Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports   The evidence over the past year raises the odds that China’s economy has entered a multi-year period of frequent mini-cycles. A mini-cycle world would be a difficult one for investors to navigate, particularly if the boom and bust phases are asymmetrical in length or magnitude. There is no magic wand to quickly transform China into a services-oriented economy, and it is not clear that the gains in tertiary sector GDP since 2010 are sustainable. A slow transition would raise deep questions about China’s growth model over the coming 2-3 years, and would create a major dilemma for policymakers. Chinese stocks are considerably cheaper than they were a year ago, yet they may be cheap for a reason (even over the very long term). On a risk-adjusted basis, we do not find the value proposition to be compelling, meaning that our recommended multi-year allocation to Chinese stocks is neutral barring even lower prices or tangible evidence of successful structural reforms. Feature Following the publication of our special year end Outlook report for 2019,1 BCA's China Investment Strategy service recently expanded on our global view by outlining our three key themes for China over the coming year.2 As a year-end tradition, we dedicate this week's report to recapping some important developments of the past year and their longer-term implications. Mini-Cycles, And The Policy Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging Over the past year we have described the progression of Chinese growth as part of an economic “mini-cycle”, one that actually began in early-2014 (we have focused on the expansion period of the cycle that started in mid-2015). While this is the first clear mini-cycle in China after a prolonged period of slowing activity that followed the enormous stimulus of 2008/2009, many investors and market participants have speculated about whether these types of events will become more prevalent in the future. In a March 2017 BCA Special Report,3 my colleague Arthur Budaghyan speculated about the potential for such cycles within the context of a falling primary growth trend. Arthur’s argument was that cyclical growth could hold up in China over the coming few years only if the government allows credit growth to continue booming, but that this would entail creeping socialism/statism that would cripple the country’s productivity and thus its potential growth. In fact, the experience of the past three years suggests that mini-cycles may occur over the coming few years even if policymakers do try to prevent a falling primary growth trend. Chart 1 shows that the slowdown in domestic demand that investors only began to price in the middle of this year has clearly been caused by a slowing in money & credit growth (as represented by our leading indicator), which in turn strongly appears to have occurred because of monetary tightening that began at the end of 2016 (panel 2). This tightening has been closely linked to the government’s attempt to de-risk the financial sector. Chart 1Tighter Monetary Policy Caused The Recent Mini-Cycle Slowdown In addition, we presented evidence in our August 29 Special Report suggesting that Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) now have a negative net return on borrowed funds (Chart 2), underscoring that Chinese authorities now face a policy trade-off between growth and leveraging.4 The inference is that investors can expect more of these episodes so long as policymakers stay committed to reforming the financial sector, a policy that appears to remain a strong priority of the Xi government. Chart 2SOEs Now Have A Negative Net Return On Borrowed Funds Chart 3 presents three stylized scenarios as a possible multi-year roadmap for investors faced with a “mini-cycle world”. Scenario 1 represents the pessimistic case articulated by Arthur, a set of frequent cycles occurring against the backdrop of a falling primary (or potential growth) trend. Scenarios 2 and 3 represent possible outcomes emerging from successful structural reform: in scenario 2 the downtrend in potential growth is arrested and the primary growth trend becomes flat, whereas scenario 3 depicts the optimistic case, where reform initiatives unleash productivity gains that result in a net increase in potential growth. In both scenarios 2 and 3, the frequency of economic cycles is reduced to be more akin to that of typical business cycles in the developed world, ending the more rapid mini-cycle phase that preceded the success of the reforms. Chart 3A Potential Roadmap For Investors Living In A "Mini-Cycle World" For an investor primarily concerned with cyclical asset allocation, one response to Chart 3 might be that any of the scenarios are acceptable because there is money to be made in each case by shifting one’s investment stance in advance of key inflection points. However, as Arthur alluded to in last year’s report, the cycles depicted in Chart 3 are highly stylized and will not repeat themselves over regular, predictable intervals. In addition, even in scenarios 2 and 3, the higher frequency of oscillations depicted in the chart prior to the positive impact of structural reforms means that a mini-cycle world will be a difficult one for investors to navigate, particularly if the boom and bust phases are asymmetrical in length or magnitude. From a longer-term perspective, Chart 3 clearly outlines two key questions that investors should be asking themselves about China if we truly have entered a multi-year period of frequent mini-cycles: Is there tangible evidence of a falling primary growth trend in China, and can this be detected ex-ante rather than ex-post? What are the markers for successful structural reform, and how can progress be tracked in real-time? These are of course difficult questions to answer, and our thoughts are likely to evolve as more evidence presents itself. However, for now, we note the following: Chart 4 presents some evidence of declining potential growth in China, or more precisely a decline in the natural rate of interest. The chart shows that the rise in the weighted average lending rate since late-2016 was relatively minor compared with levels that have prevailed over the past decade, and yet it is clear that it succeeded in materially slowing the investment-driven sectors of China’s economy. Chart 4There Is Some Evidence That China's Natural Rate Of Interest Has Declined We also presented some evidence in our November 21 Weekly Report showing that China’s monetary policy transmission mechanism is impaired.5 Chart 5 shows that the recent decline in interbank repo rates implies that average lending rates are set to decline materially over the coming months; measuring the strength of the reaction in the old economy to this decline will provide investors with another crucial observation about the responsiveness of the economy to interest rates. Chart 5More Information On The Responsiveness Of The Economy To Interest Rates Will Soon Emerge Concerning potential signposts of successful structural reform, signs that the government is about to undertake a big-bang cleanup and reorganization of China’s SOEs, one that involves the large-scale transfer of bad SOE debts to the public sector, would obviously be the primary event for investors to watch for. We assume that this will not occur over the coming few years barring a major crisis. At the firm level, non-trivial deleveraging, privatization/incorporation, material capital injection/withdrawal, material divestment of non-core fixed assets and (to a lesser degree) reduction in the wage bill relative to the industry have all shown themselves to be significantly related to the odds of a “zombie” firm returning to a healthy financial state.6 Even quiet signs that SOEs may be going through this process would be a positive indication of the potential for reform. At the macro level, our signposts of successful structural reform would be indications that SOE return on assets is set to rise back above borrowing costs (because of a material rise in the former, not a significant decline in the latter), tangible evidence of passive deleveraging (debt to nominal GDP falling because of a sustained rise in the latter), and a structural rise in the presence of private firms in China’s economy. Chart 6 shows that, at least in the case of the latter, progress appears elusive. Chart 6The Size Of The Private Sector In China Is Now Moving In The Wrong Direction Over the shorter-term, global investors are strongly focused on whether we are about to enter another mini-cycle upswing, a view that we have recently argued against. We presented our base case view for 2019 in our December 5 Weekly Report2, which is that growth will modestly firm in the second half of 2019 and will provide a somewhat stronger demand backdrop for commodities and emerging economies that sell goods to China. But we underscore that the character of the improvement is likely to be materially different than what occurred in 2016, implying that investors betting on substantial returns from China-related financial assets next year are likely to be disappointed. Transitioning To A Services-Oriented Economy: There Is No Magic Wand Part of the structural reform agenda articulated by Xi Jinping involves transitioning China's economy towards the tertiary sector (services). Services activity, in general, tends to have higher added value than manufacturing, construction, and raw material extraction, and it is hoped that a more services-oriented economy will increase China’s per capita GDP and help the country escape the middle-income trap. Chinese policymakers have been very clear about their intention to promote this shift and have emphasized their need to do so quickly, but have not been very clear about how they plan to do so. Admittedly, there is some evidence to suggest that this trend has already begun: Chart 7 shows that tertiary industry GDP has risen as a share of overall GDP by about 7.5 percentage points since 2010, tertiary industry electricity consumption as a share of total is rising steadily, and the market capitalization of information and communication technology-related sectors has risen in China’s domestic and investable equity market (sharply in the case of the latter).7 Chart 7Some Signs Of A Move Towards Services... However, BCA’s China Investment Strategy service has been and remains quite skeptical about the likely pace of this transition, which raises deep questions about China’s growth model over the coming 2-3 years: Chart 8 breaks down the increase in tertiary industry GDP as a share of total from 2010 – 2017 into individual sectors.8 The chart shows that finance-related sectors (financial intermediation, leasing & business services, and real estate) accounted for nearly half of the increase in services GDP over the period. It seems difficult to expect that this trend will continue in an environment where the government is trying to contain financial sector risk. Chart 8 shows that tech-related sectors accounted for the second largest increase in tertiary industry GDP over the period, which is not surprising given the data shown in panel 3 of Chart 7. However, there are three problems with assuming that China’s tech sector will expand at a very rapid pace from current levels. First, Chart 9 makes it clear that the incubation period for China’s largest two technology companies by market capitalization was quite long. Alibaba and Tencent were both formed nearly 20 years ago, and only recently gained significant traction. Second, neither of these firms appears to have succeeded because of Chinese industrial policy, underscoring the importance of dynamic, competitive, private markets in driving innovation. Third, other successful examples of “breakthrough” state support for industries show that the process is not a rapid one. In the U.S. between 1978 and 1992, the U.S. Department of Energy invested in the Eastern Gas Shale Program, which contributed somewhat to the development of fracking technology used in shale oil & gas production today. Chart 10 shows how long it took for this program to bear fruit: gas production began to trend higher 12 years after the end of the program, whereas it took nearly two decades for oil production to begin to move higher. And even in this case, the role of private industry in commercializing the technology was overwhelmingly dominant. Chart 9The Incubation Period Of China's Major Tech Success Stories Was Quite Long Chart 10The Dividends From State-Assisted R&D Can Take A Long Time To Occur It is encouraging to see that education spending in China has increased as a share of GDP over the past several years, as services activity typically requires a highly educated workforce as an input. But China’s post-secondary educational attainment (defined here as the share of 25-34 year olds with tertiary education) appears to be too low to make a meaningful leap over the next 2-3 years (Chart 11). We acknowledge that China’s educational achievement ranks quite highly relative to the world, and this speaks to the high quality of skilled labor in China. However, for now, China’s attainment rate appears to be too low for the country to rapidly shift to services. Finally, Chart 12 shows that while tertiary industry electricity consumption is rising as a share of total, it remains small compared with secondary industry consumption. This underscores that China’s shift to a truly-services oriented economy is something that will take a considerable amount of time. What does a slow transition from secondary to tertiary industry mean for investors? To us, it either raises the risk that: Chart 12A Long Way To Go policymakers will have to rely on China’s old growth model for longer than they intend, or that Chinese growth will slow considerably more over the coming few years than investors currently expect. In the first case, policymakers may be on a collision course with the reality of poor financial health among SOEs, which as we noted earlier already have a negative net return from leveraging. In the second case, the threat is clear: China’s contribution to global growth could decline sharply, with potentially severe consequences for China-related financial assets. Cheap(er) Chinese Stocks: A Great Long-Term Buying Opportunity? We have received several questions from clients over the past few months asking whether they have been presented with a great long-term buying opportunity for Chinese stocks, even if cyclical economic conditions are set to weaken from current levels. Chart 13In The U.S., Valuation Predicts Long-Term Returns Quite Successfully This is a valid line of inquiry. Over a 6-12 month time horizon, valuation rarely drives asset returns, and we recently argued against the view that valuation could act as an overwhelming rally catalyst for Chinese stocks in 2019. However, we agree that valuation should be increasingly considered as one’s time horizon expands. Chart 13 shows that valuation has been a powerful predictor of 10-year future performance for the U.S. equity market, and Chart 14 shows that the forward P/E ratio for both domestic and investable Chinese stocks has certainly improved over the past several months. In relative terms, Chinese stocks are not as cheap as they have ever been, but haven’t usually been cheaper (at least over the past decade). This is particularly true for the A-share market (Chart 15). Chart 14Chinese Stocks Are Now Considerably Cheaper Than A Year Ago...Chart 15...Although They Have Been Cheaper In Relative Terms We struggle to answer the question, because while valuation usually predicts future returns quite well, deviations from this relationship can exist. Chart 13 shows that material differences between the actual and predicted 10-year returns existed during the 1970s/early-1980s and as well during the late-1990s, and would have as well in 2008/2009 had the valuation extremes of the late-1990s not lined up so well with the timing of the global financial crisis a decade later. In short, cheap stocks can be cheap for a reason, and the structural issues that we noted above certainly highlight the potential for the next 10-years of Chinese equity market performance to be anomalous relative to what would normally be implied by current valuation. For now, the best answer we can provide is that Chinese stocks are a great long-term buy for investors who do not share our structural concerns. On a risk-adjusted basis, we do not find the value proposition to be compelling, meaning that our recommended multi-year allocation to Chinese stocks is neutral. But we will be watching closely over the coming few years for signs of successful structural reform as detailed above, and we are likely to upgrade our structural recommendation on any material progress, particularly if that progress involves a cyclical deterioration in the economy that further cheapens equities. Stay tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Pease see The Bank Credit Analyst “OUTLOOK 2019: Late-Cycle Turbulence”, dated November 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year”, dated December 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report “The Great Debate: Does China Have Too Much Debt Or Too Much Savings? ”, dated March 23, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging”, dated August 29, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 IMF Working Paper WP/17/266 “Resolving China’s Zombies: Tackling Debt and Raising Productivity” 7 Note that we have included the consumer discretionary sector in Chart 8 owing to the recent GICS sector changes that have included e-commerce providers such as Alibaba in the discretionary sector. 8 Note that 2016 is the most recent data point for healthcare & social security, education, scientific research & technology services, public management & social organizations, and miscellaneous others. However, their change from 2010 – 2017 reflects almost all of the change in the sum of these categories from 2010 – 2017. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations