Trade / BOP

Special Report

Highlights The U.S. basic balance is the strongest it’s been in decades. However, the White House’s profligacy threatens this positive. The euro area basic balance is also healthy. Now that the European Central Bank has ended its asset purchasing program, aggregate portfolio flows in Europe have much scope to improve, creating long-term support for the euro. Australia, Canada and New Zealand are likely to suffer deteriorating balance-of-payments trends, which will hamper their performance. Norway is the commodity driven economy that is likely to buck this trend. Stay positive the NOK against the SEK and the EUR as well as against other commodity currencies. Feature Balance-of-payments dynamics can often be overplayed when forecasting G10 FX. While their capacity to forecast FX moves is small on a 12-month horizon, the state of the balance of payments can occasionally take primacy over any other consideration. This is particularly true when global liquidity conditions deteriorate, as it makes financing current account deficits more expensive, often requiring sharp adjustment in currency valuations. Since we have experienced a period of rising financial market volatility and global liquidity has deteriorated, this gives us a momentous occasion to review balance-of-payments conditions across the G10. While the balance-of-payments situation for the U.S. is not as dire as is often argued, the deteriorating fiscal balance suggests that this situation is temporary. This means that balance-of-payments risks are likely to grow for the dollar over the coming years. Meanwhile, depressed portfolio flows into the euro area have a lot of scope to improve, which point to a bullish long-term outcome for the euro. Finally, other than Norway, the commodity currency complex sports tenuous balance-of-payments dynamics, which are likely to deteriorate. This suggests that the CAD, AUD and NZD have downside. As a long-term allocation, selling these currencies against the NOK makes sense as well. The U.S. Despite a strong economy that is lifting import growth, the U.S. trade and current account balances have remained stable since 2014, hovering near -3% of GDP and -2.3% of GDP, respectively. This stability is a consequence of the shale revolution, which has curtailed U.S. oil imports by 3.3 million bpd since 2006. However, thanks to robust growth due in large part to the Trump administration’s deregulatory push as well as last year’s tax cut, the U.S. has been the recipient of large FDI inflows, amounting to 1.4% of GDP, the highest level since 2006. Consequently, the U.S.’s basic balance of payments has rebounded, hitting a record high (Chart 1). Chart 1U.S. Balance Of Payments A strong basic balance of payments has been an important factor behind the greenback’s strength this cycle as net portfolio flows in the U.S. have not been particularly strong, having mostly been driven by weaker official purchases. In this context, the current M&A wave bodes well for the dollar as the U.S. has historically been the recipient of such flows. The U.S. equity market’s overweight towards tech and healthcare stocks strengthens this view. From a balance-of-payments perspective, the biggest risk for the dollar is Washington’s profligacy, which is forcing the world to digest a large stock of USD-denominated liabilities. However, if history is any guide, this risk is likely to drive the dollar lower only once U.S. real rates begin to become less appealing compared to their peers. Since BCA expects U.S. real rates to increase more, widening real rate differentials in the process, the dollar should continue to remain supported this year, especially as investors continue to expect a shallower path for rates than we do. The Euro Area After peaking at 2.4% of GDP, the euro area trade balance has softened to 1.8% of GDP. Rebounding economic activity in the European periphery explains this small deterioration as rising domestic demand tends to lift imports growth, hurting trade balances in the process. Despite this worsening trade balance, the euro area current account surplus remains as wide as ever, clocking in at 3.4% of GDP. This reflects both recent improvements in the European net international investment position as well as the fact that low European rates are curtailing the costs of liabilities. Poor FDI performance mitigates the benefits of the large European current account surplus. Hampered by low rates of return, lingering worries about European cohesion and banks’ health, long-term investors have flown out of the euro area – not in. Nonetheless, despite this negative, the euro area basic balance remains in surplus, creating a small positive for the euro (Chart 2). Chart 2Euro Area Balance Of Payments The biggest problem for the euro in recent years has been portfolio outflows, especially in the fixed income sphere. While the weakness in portfolio flows has been a crucial factor preventing the good value in the euro – EUR/USD trades at a 12% discount to its purchasing-power parity equilibrium – from realizing itself, the outlook on this front is improving. The European Central Bank’s negative interest rate policy coupled with its Asset Purchase Program have created a powerful repellent for private fixed-income investors. However, the APP is now over, and European policy rates should move back above zero by year-end 2020. As a result, euro area portfolio flows have room to improve considerably. Once this happens, since the basic balance is already in surplus, the euro will have scope to rally significantly. Japan Burdened by slowing exports to both China and emerging markets, the Japanese trade balance is vanishing quickly. However, it still remains at a wide 3.8% of GDP. This is a direct artefact of Japan’s extraordinarily large net international investment position of 60% of GDP, which generates such large net investment income that even when Japan runs a trade deficit of more than 2% of GDP, as it did in 2014, the current account remains balanced (Chart 3). Chart 3Japanese Balance Of Payments The flipside of Japan’s structural current account surplus is an FDI balance constantly in deficit. The Japanese private sector generates more savings than the country can use, even after the profligacy of the government is satiated. Essentially, Japanese firms are reluctant to expand capacity in ageing, expensive and deflationary Japan. They prefer to do so outside of the national borders, closer to potential new customers. As a result of this dichotomy between the current account surplus and FDI deficit, Japan’s basic balance of payments is a much more modest 1.1% of GDP. Thus, the long-term and stable components of the Japanese balance of payments are mildly positive for the yen. In terms of stock and bond flows, Japan is currently experiencing significant outflows, driven by Japanese investors moving funds outside the country. Historically, these portfolio flows have been a poor indicator for the yen’s direction, often moving into deficit territory as the yen strengthens. This is because Japanese investors are often hedging their foreign asset purchases. Consequently, money market flows will likely once again determine the yen’s fate. For now, the Bank of Japan remains firmly on hold and U.S. rates are rising, suggesting USD/JPY has room to rally this year. However, the JPY’s cheapness and the favorable balance-of-payments picture of Japan argue that the yen’s weakness is in its final innings. The next big structural move in the yen is higher. The U.K. Despite the post-referendum cheapening of the pound, the U.K. continues to run a massive trade deficit of 6.7% of GDP. The current account looks a bit better but remains at a large deficit of 3.9% of GDP. A current account deficit is not a problem for a currency so long as it can be financed cheaply. Historically, the U.K. has been attractive to long-term foreign investors, with a widening current account deficit often met with a growing net FDI balance, leaving only a small basic balance to finance through other channels (Chart 4). Chart 4U.K. Balance Of Payments This time around, the current account remains wide but net FDI flows have collapsed, from 8% of GDP in 2017 to 1.8% of GDP today. The uncertainty surrounding Brexit explains this deterioration. The financial services sector accounts for more than 50% of the stock of inward foreign investments in Great Britain. As financial services will suffer the brunt of Brexit, those investments have also melted. This means the U.K. will have to depend on portfolio flows to finance its current account deficit. Portfolio investments in the U.K. have grown since mid-2017, explaining the stability in the pound. However, this masks some heightened short-term volatility for the GBP against both the dollar and the euro. In the short-term, as the Brexit deadline quickly approaches, this volatility in both flows and the currency will remain high. On a long-term basis, we expect a benign resolution to Brexit. While large FDIs into the financial sector are forever something of the past, flows into British market securities are likely to improve, as the Bank of England will have room to increase rates once economic activity picks up again after the Brexit fog lifts. Canada The Canadian trade balance never recovered from its pre-Great Financial Crisis health. The rebound in oil prices since January 2016 has done little to help the Canadian trade balance, as Canadian oil trades at a large discount to global benchmarks – a consequence of a lack of pipeline capacity that has trapped Canadian oil where it is not needed. The Canadian current account balance offers little solace, and at -2.7% of GDP is in even worse shape than the trade balance (Chart 5). However, the Canadian basic balance is currently in better condition, as Canada continues to attract net FDIs equal to 2% of GDP. The problem for the country is that FDI inflows have become much more limited by the fact that Canadian oil sands generate little profits at current oil prices – a problem amplified by the lack of exporting capacity. This trend is unlikely to change anytime soon. Chart 5Canadian Balance Of Payments Portfolio flows remain positive, but at 1.1% of GDP, they are falling sharply. The poor profitability of Canadian resources stocks is obviously a problem there, but the growing risks to the Canadian housing market are also likely to hurt banks’ profitability as well as the aggregate financial sector, which accounts for nearly 40% of the country’s stock market capitalization. As a result, with Canadian yields still lagging the U.S., portfolio flows could also deteriorate further. This combination implies that the balance-of-payments picture for Canada is becoming a growing headwind. Australia Two factors are lifting the Australian trade balance, which stands at a surplus of 0.6% of GDP. As the exploitation of Australia’s large mineral deposits mature, the need for mining capex has declined, which has been limiting the growth of Australian machinery imports. On the other hand, this same maturity means that more minerals are being exported out of Australia. Consequently, since iron ore prices have rebounded 88% since their December 2015 lows, representing a generous boost to Australian terms of trade, the country’s trade balance has significantly improved. The current account balance has mimicked this improvement; however, it remains at a deficit of 2.6% of GDP (Chart 6). Much of the investment required to develop the mineral deposits present in the country came from outside Australia’s borders. As a result, foreign investors are receiving large amounts of income from their investment, generating a negative income balance for the country. Nonetheless, the Australian basic balance is now positive as net FDI flows represent more than 3% of GDP. Chart 6Australian Balance Of Payments Going forward, we worry that China’s slowdown has not fully played out. This means that Australia’s nominal exports could suffer under the weight of falling metals prices, generating a deterioration in the trade balance, the current account and the basic balance. Worryingly, portfolio inflows into the country would also suffer. Finally, Australian households’ high indebtedness, coupled with pronounced overvaluation evident in key cities like Sydney and Melbourne, could further impede capital inflows into the country. This suggests that from a balance-of-payments perspective, the AUD could witness further depreciation, especially as AUD/USD still trades 10% above its purchasing-power-parity fair value. New Zealand The New Zealand trade balance has fallen to -1.8% of GDP, its lowest level in 10 years. This principally reflects stronger imports growth, as exports are currently growing at a 11% annual rate. A consequence of this worsening trade balance has been a widening current account deficit, which now stands at 3.6% of GDP. New Zealand has not been able to attract enough FDI to compensate for its structural current account deficit. As a result, its perennially negative basic balance currently stands at 2.6% of GDP (Chart 7). This lack of structural funding for its current account deficit is linked to its interest rates, which always stand above the G10 average. Thanks to immigration, New Zealand has an economy with an elevated potential growth rate, and thus a higher neutral rate. This means that on average it tends to run a capital account surplus that is matched by a current account deficit. Inversely, the perennial current account deficit requires higher interest rates in order to be financed via capital inflows. Chart 7New Zealand Balance Of Payments The problem facing the NZD is that kiwi rates, both at the long and short end of the curve, currently stand below U.S. rates. With a negative basic balance of payments, this creates a natural downward bias to the NZD. The kiwi needs to cheapen enough today that its future returns will be expected to be large enough to compensate for the lower yields offered by domestic securities. Since the real trade-weighted NZD currently trades at a 7% premium to its long-term fair value, so long as the interest rate handicap remains, the path of least resistance points south. Only a sustained rebound in global activity will be able to revert this trend in a durable manner. So far, a sustained rebound in global growth is not in the cards. Consequently, any tactical rally in the kiwi will be temporary. Switzerland The Swiss trade surplus may have declined, but it still remains at a very healthy 4.2% of GDP. This deterioration reflects a pick-up in imports, which have been boosted by a rebound in domestic activity in place since late 2015, as well as the expensive nature of the CHF. The Swiss current account surplus is even larger, standing at 10% of GDP. This large surplus is mainly the consequence of Switzerland’s extremely large net international investment position, which stands at almost 120% of GDP. Such a large pool of foreign assets yields a large income balance, which boosts the current account. After a sudden pickup in net FDI flows last year to 10% of GDP, these flows have violently morphed into a net outflow of 8.3% of GDP. Last year’s positive FDI balance was odd, as countries like Switzerland, which run persistent large positive current account balances, tend to export capital, not import it. A consequence of this sudden reversal was to push the basic balance from a surplus of 17% of GDP to a small surplus of 1.5% of GDP (Chart 8). Chart 8Switzerland Balance Of Payments In contrast, Swiss portfolio flows have moved back into a very small surplus, reflecting investors’ desire for safety in a 2018 year full of volatility and global growth disappointments. These flows suggest that generally, investors have been parking their funds in Switzerland, explaining the strengthening of the CHF last year against the EUR. Now that global financial conditions are easing, setting the stage for stabilization in global growth, the expensive CHF is likely to depreciate. The more dovish tone of the Swiss National Bank is likely to catalyze this change. Sweden Since 2016, the Swedish trade balance has been in negative territory, currently standing at 0.6% of GDP. This is a phenomenon not experienced in this country for more than three decades. Two forces have hurt the trade balance. On one hand, boosted by negative interest rates, Swedish consumers have taken on debt and consumed aggressively. This has lifted domestic demand, propping up imports in the process. On the other hand, Sweden is very sensitive to global trade and industrial activity. The slowdown witnessed at the end of last year has dampened Swedish exports. In response to these developments, the Swedish current account balance has declined meaningfully, from 8.3% of GDP in 2007 to 2.2% today. Since Sweden’s net FDI balance is at zero, the basic balance stands at 1.8% of GDP. However, this is toward the low end of its historical distribution (Chart 9). If the deterioration in the current account continues, something we expect as the Riksbank is keeping interest rates at extraordinarily accommodative levels of -0.25%, thus ensuring that import growth will remain robust, the krona will face an increasingly onerous balance-of-payments backdrop. Chart 9Swedish Balance Of Payments The saving grace for the SEK is likely to come from portfolio flows into securities. The trade-weighted krona is cheap, trading at a nearly 2-sigma discount to its long-term fair value, implicitly boosting expected returns from holding SEK-denominated assets. Moreover, the combination of a Riksbank having finally abandoned its efforts to dampen the krona, and some signs of rebound in economic domestic economic activity such as strong PMI readings, points to a high probability of funds flowing into the country. Norway Thanks to rebounding oil prices since 2016, the Norwegian trade balance has also recovered, having moved from a low of 3.8% of GDP to 6.9% of GDP today. This is still well below the levels that prevailed from 2001 to 2013, when the trade balance averaged 14% of GDP. Meanwhile, the Norwegian current account has followed the trend in the trade balance. However, since Norway sports a massive net international investment position equal to 207% of GDP, the current account stands at 7.9% of GDP, boosted by a large income stream from foreign investments. As a country sporting a structural current account surplus, Norway is also an exporter of capital, which means its FDI balance is normally negative. Even though net FDIs today are -4.6% of GDP, the basic balance is nonetheless in surplus at 3% of GDP (Chart 10). This is still a much smaller basic balance than what prevailed from 2001 to 2013. This means that the long-term component of the balance of payments is not as supportive to the NOK as it once was. Chart 10Norway Balance Of Payments Norway also tends to suffer from portfolio outflows. This again is a consequence of the country’s large current account surplus, which is a channel outward via Norway’s massive sovereign wealth fund. Today, the portfolio balance is quite narrow, a consequence of declining oil receipts. However, Norwegian oil production is expected to increase by 50% by 2022. This means that the Norwegian current account will rebound, and portfolio outflows will once again grow. But since portfolios outflows are the mirror image of the current account dynamics, this is likely to be a neutral force for the NOK. Ultimately, we like the NOK because it is very cheap: the real trade-weighted NOK enjoys a one-sigma discount to its long-term fair value. Due to trade-weights, this means the NOK is cheap versus both the EUR and the SEK. Hence, with BCA’s positive view on oil prices and the positive outlook for Norwegian oil production, we would anticipate the NOK performing well against these two currencies on a 12- to 18-month basis.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The current trajectory in global share prices resembles what took place in 2000 and early 2001. The early 2001 rebound in global and EM stocks lasted several weeks only, despite ongoing easing by the Federal Reserve. Corporate profits – not the Fed – was the key driver in 2001 and remains the principal driver of global and EM stocks today. EM corporate profits are set to contract this year due to China’s continuing slowdown and weakening global trade. This suggests the current EM rally is unsustainable; continue underweighting EM. In Chile, bet on lower swap rates. Continue shorting the peso but overweight the local bourse within an EM equity portfolio. Feature The dovish shift by the U.S. Federal Reserve in the past month has boosted EM risk assets and currencies. Yet, we find that in the medium and long term there is a very low correlation between Fed policy and U.S. interest rates, on the one hand, and EM financial markets on the other. Instead, EM risk assets and currencies correlate with EM/China business cycles and global trade (Chart I-1). We have not detected any improvement in China/EM growth, nor in global trade (Chart I-1). What’s more, we expect Chinese growth and world trade to continue to weaken in the coming six months. Therefore, the EM rebound and outperformance will be reversed sooner than later. Chart I-1Global Growth Indicators Do No Confirm EM Rally Please note this is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team. BCA’s house view is presently positive on global risk assets and global growth. The basis for this difference between our current position and that of the majority of our colleagues is the outlook for China’s growth. A Replay Of 2016 Or 2001? Most investors are betting that 2019 will be a replay of 2016, when the Fed’s dovish turn and China’s stimulus propelled the EM and global equity rallies. It is enticing to compare the current episode in financial markets to the one that occurred only three years ago. To be sure, there are a lot of similarities: the global trade slowdown driven by China/EM, selloffs in global equity and credit markets, a dovish shift in the Fed’s stance and policy stimulus in China are all reminiscent of early 2016. Not surprisingly, this has created a stampede into EM. According to the most recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, as of mid-January some 29% of investors were overweight EM stocks compared to 1% overweight in the U.S., 11% underweight in the euro area and 1% underweight in Japan. By now, the overweight in EM equities is most likely even higher, given the stampede into EM assets that has occurred over the past several weeks. This stands in contrast to the 33% underweight in EM equities in January 2016. It is apparent that the majority of investors are indeed extrapolating 2016 into 2019. We hold a different view and believe China’s slowdown will be more protracted than in 2015-’16, and that EM corporate earnings are set to contract (please refer to Chart I-5 on page 6). A key distinction between China’s current policy efforts and what was implemented in 2015-‘16 is the absence of stimulus for real estate. The odds are that China’s property market will continue to languish, weighing on household and business sentiment as well as spending. Further, the efficiency of monetary transmission mechanisms could be lower today than it was in 2016 due to the regulatory tightening on both banks and non-banks. The fiscal multiplier could also be lower due to the fragile sentiment among consumers and businesses. We discussed these issues in detail in our January 17, 2019 report. Remarkably, it appears that global share prices are tracking the pattern of 1998-2001 – their trajectories are identical in terms of both magnitude and duration (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Global Stocks Are Tracking Pattern Of 1998-2001 In Magnitude And Duration That said, there are substantial differences between today and 2001 in respect to the economic backdrops in the U.S. and China. Our focal point is to demonstrate that the Fed easing is not sufficient to prop up share prices if it does not lead to a recovery in corporate earnings. We conclude that the latest rebound in EM risk assets is probably late because neither the Fed’s pause nor China’s stimulus will revive EM corporate profits in the next nine months. In terms of market action, one can draw a number of parallels between the trajectory in global share prices today and in 2000-’01. Following an exponential rally in 1999, the global equity index peaked in January 2000 (Chart I-3). The equity selloff accelerated in the last quarter of 2000, with stocks plunging in December of that year. Chart I-3Is Rebound In Global And EM Stocks Late? Oversold conditions in global share prices and the Fed’s intra-meeting 50-basis-point rate cut on January 3, 2001, generated a 7% and 15% rebound in global and EM stocks, respectively. The bounce lasted from late December 2000 until early February 2001. The current trajectory in global share prices – the rollover in late January 2018, the top formation lasting several months followed by a dramatic plunge, the bottom in late December, 2018 and the subsequent rebound – closely resemble the path global share prices took in 2000 and early 2001 (Chart I-3, top panel). The same holds true for EM share prices (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Critically, the Fed continued to cut interest rates in 2001 and 2002, yet the bear market in global equities, including EM, persisted until March 2003 (Chart I-4A and I-4B, top panels). The culprit was shrinking corporate profits (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B, bottom panels). Chart I-4AFed Easing Did Not Help Global Stocks In 2001 Chart I-4BFed Easing Did Not Help EM Stocks In 2001 Odds are that EM earnings are set to contract this year as discussed below and shown in Chart I-5. As a result, this view bolsters our conviction that EM equities are likely to roll over soon and plunge anew in absolute terms, and certainly underperform U.S. stocks. Bottom Line: There are many economic differences between today and 2001. Our main point is that the Fed easing-inspired rally in global equities in early 2001 lasted several weeks only and was followed by a new cycle low. The key factor was not Fed policy but corporate profits. Provided our view that corporate earnings in EM and global cyclical sectors will contract this year, the rally in these segments is not sustainable regardless of Fed policy. What Drives EM: Chinese Or U.S. Growth? Predicting the outlook for China and global trade correctly is key to getting the EM call right. First, China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads EPS growth of companies included in the EM MSCI equity index by nine months, and it currently points to continued deceleration and contraction in EM EPS in the months ahead (Chart I-5, top panel). The average of new and backlog orders within China’s manufacturing PMI also portends a negative outlook for EM corporate earnings (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Chart I-5EM Profits Are Heading Into Contraction The primary linkage between China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse and EM profits is as follows: China impacts EM and the rest of the world via its imports. This explains why EM share prices correlate with Chinese PMI imports (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Chinese Imports And EM Equities Second, China’s imports are to a large extent driven by capital spending, especially construction. Some 85% of mainland imports are composed of various commodities, industrial goods and materials, and autos. Consumer goods make up only about 15% of imports. Major capital expenditures in general and construction, in particular, cannot be undertaken without financing. This is why the country’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads its imports cycles (Chart I-7). This impulse is presently foreshadowing a deepening slump in mainland imports and by extension its suppliers’ revenues and profits. Chart I-7Chinese Imports Are Heading South Third, as EM shipments to China dwindle, not only will EM corporate revenues and profits disappoint but EM currencies will also depreciate. The latter bodes ill for EM U.S. dollar and local currency bonds. The basis is that exchange rate depreciation makes U.S. dollar debt more expensive to service, and also pushes up local bond yields in high-yielding EM fixed-income markets. Fourth, The majority of developing economies sell more to China than to the U.S. Remarkably, global trade and global manufacturing decelerated in 2018, even though U.S. goods imports were booming (Chart I-8). Crucially, the more recent strength in the U.S.’s intake of goods was in part due to frontloading of shipments to the U.S. before the import tariffs went into effect on January 1, 2019. Chart I-8U.S. Imports Are Very Robust Yet despite robust U.S. demand, aggregate exports of Korea, Taiwan, and Japan have done poorly and their manufacturing have slumped (Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B). Chart I-9AAsian Exports: Flirting With Contraction Chart I-9BAsian Manufacturing: Flirting With Contraction This highlights the increased significance of Chinese demand and the diminished importance of U.S. domestic demand in world trade. In particular, at $6 trillion, EM aggregate goods and services imports, including Chinese imports (but excluding China’s imports for processing and re-exporting), is greater than the combined imports of the U.S. and EU, which currently stand at $4.7 trillion ($2.5 trillion plus $2.2 trillion, respectively). Finally, the media and many investors have exaggerated the impact of U.S. tariffs on the Chinese economy. We are not implying that the tariffs are not relevant at all, or that they have not damaged sentiment among mainland businesses and households. They have. The point is that China’s exports to the U.S. constitute 3.8% of Chinese GDP only (Chart I-10). This compares to Chinese capital spending amounting to 42% of GDP and total annual credit origination and fiscal spending of 26% of GDP. Chart I-10China's Exports To U.S. Are Small (3.8% of GDP) Overall, China’s growth slowdown in 2018 was not due to its plunging shipments to the U.S. – actually, the latter were rising strongly till December due to frontloading – but due to weakness in credit origination, primarily among non-banks (shadow banking). Bottom Line: The Chinese business cycle – not the U.S.’s – is the key driver of EM share prices and currencies and more important than the Fed. EM And The Fed On the surface, it seems that EM is tracking Fed policy. To us, however, this is akin to“not seeing the forest for the trees”. Investors need to stand back and examine the medium- and long-term relationships between U.S. interest rates, DM central banks’ balance sheets, and EM financial markets. In this broader context, the following becomes apparent: There is no stable correlation between EM share prices, EM currencies and EM sovereign credit, on the one hand, and U.S. 10-year bond yields, on the other (Chart I-11). Chart I-11EM And U.S. Bond Yields: No Stable Correlation Historically, the correlation between EM share prices and the Fed funds rate has been mixed, albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-12). On this 40-year chart, we shaded the periods when EM stocks did well during periods of a rising fed funds rate. These time spans are 1983-1984, 1988-1989, 1999-2000, 2003-2007 and 2017. Chart I-12EM Stocks And Fed Funds Rate: A Historical Perspective The only two episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates were the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican peso crisis. Yet, it is essential to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals: elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-1998. However, these late-1990s crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields. Remarkably, there is also no correlation between the size and the rate of change of DM central banks’ balance sheets, on the one hand, and EM risk assets and currencies on the other. In particular, Chart I-13 validates that the annual growth rate of G4 central banks’ balance sheets does not correlate with either EM share prices or EM local currency bonds’ total returns in U.S. dollars. Chart I-13Pace Of QEs And EM: No Correlation Finally, there is a low correlation between U.S. real interest rates and the real broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-14). Notably, Chart I-15 illustrates that the greenback often acts as a countercyclical currency, appreciating when global growth is slowing and depreciating when the global business cycle accelerating. Please note that the dollar is shown inverted on this chart. Chart I-14The U.S. Dollar And U.S. Real Rates Chart I-15The U.S. Dollar Is Countercyclical Bottom Line: Many analysts and investors assign more significance to the Fed policy’s impact on EM risk assets than historical evidence warrants. Unless Fed policy easing coincides with EM growth recovery, the Fed’s positive impact on EM will prove to be fleeting. Investment Considerations Widespread bullish bias on EM among investors currently and a continuous slew of poor growth data in China and global trade give us the conviction to argue that the current EM rally is not sustainable. Even if the S&P 500 drifts higher, EM stocks and credit will underperform their U.S. counterparts (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Stay Short EM / Long S&P 500 The EM equity index is sitting at a major technical resistance, and a decisive break above this level will challenge our view (Chart I-17, top panel). The same holds true for many EM currencies and copper (Chart I-17, bottom panel). However, for now, we are maintaining our negative bias. Chart I-17EM Equities And Copper Are Facing Resistance Within the EM equity universe, our overweights are Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Korea, and Thailand. Our underweights are Indonesia, India, Philippines, South Africa, and Peru. We continue to recommend shorting the following EM currency basket versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, IDR, MYR, CLP, and KRW. The full list of our recommended positions across EM equities, local rates, credit, and currencies is available on pages 17-18. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks Local currency bonds will outperform equities in Chile over the next six to nine months (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Chile: Favor Bonds Over Stocks The central bank is raising interest rates to cap inflation. However, we believe this is misguided because China’s ongoing deceleration along with lower copper prices, will slow growth in Chile over the course of this year. In addition, the current domestic inflation dynamics are less worrisome than the central bank contends. There is ongoing debate in the policy circles of Santiago over whether the recent large net immigration wave, particularly from Venezuela, is inflationary or disinflationary. On the one hand, net immigration expands the supply of labor and puts downward pressure on wages, and hence is disinflationary (Chart II-2). On the other hand, net immigration bolsters demand, and thereby inflation. Chart II-2Chile: Labor Force Is Expanding At 2% The central bank has acknowledged both effects but has cited that the latter will overwhelm the former. We disagree with this assessment and believe that current immigration in Chile will be more disinflationary. There are a number of factors that make us believe so: Both nominal and real wage growth are cooling off rapidly (Chart II-3). This corroborates the thesis that the expanding supply of labor is capping wage increases. Chart II-3Chile: Wage Growth Is Decelerating Central banks in any country need to be concerned with rising unit labor costs and service sector inflation. Energy and food prices are beyond a central bank’s control. Monetary policy should not respond to fluctuations in these prices unless there are second-round effects on wages and other prices.  There is presently no genuine inflationary pressures in Chile. The average of Chile’s core and trimmed mean inflation rates stands at 2.5%, and service sector inflation is at 3.7% (Chart II-4). This is within the central bank’s inflation target range of 3% +/-1%. Chart II-4Chile: Inflation Is Within Target Range Finally, Chile’s exports are set to shrink due to the ongoing deceleration in China and lower copper prices (Chart II-5). With exports accounting for 30% of GDP, a negative external shock will slow domestic demand too. This will be disinflationary. Chart II-5Chilean Exports Are About To Contract The fixed-income market in Chile is pricing in rate hikes (Chart II-6). We continue to recommend receiving 3-year swap rates. Even if the central bank continues to tighten, long-term interest rates will decline, anticipating rate cuts down the road. Chart II-6Chile: Receive 3-Year Swap Rates Chilean share prices, in absolute terms, are at risk from the EM and commodities selloff. However, we recommend dedicated EM equity portfolios overweight Chile. The economy is fundamentally and structurally solid, and local equity markets are supported by large local investment pools. Importantly, unlike many other commodity producers, currency depreciation in Chile does not stop the central bank from cutting interest rates. Banco Central de Chile does not target the exchange rate and will cut rates to mitigate the adverse external shock. This will ensure that business cycle fluctuations in Chile will be milder than in other developing economies where central banks tighten to defend their currencies. This is positive for Chilean stocks versus other EM bourses. Finally, the peso is at risk of depreciation from lower copper prices. Bottom Line: Local investors should favor domestic bonds over stocks. Fixed-income traders should bet on lower three-year swap rates. Dedicated EM investors should overweight Chilean equities. Currency traders should maintain a short CLP / long USD trade. Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights So What? The late-cycle rally faces non-trivial political hurdles. Why? The rally is based on a too-sanguine view of the Fed, China, and the trade war. Other issues – like Brexit and the U.S. border showdown – are also problematic. Venezuela still has the potential to push oil prices sharply upwards. Feature All is well. Global equities are on the path of recovery, as should be the case at the end of an economic cycle. The U.S. S&P 500 has gained 16% since the bottom on December 24, with healthy technicals suggesting a breakout is ahead (Chart 1). The S&P 500 may be entering one of its typical late-cycle rallies, which tend to be the second best-performing decile of a bull market (Chart 2).1 Meanwhile, emerging market equities and currencies are outperforming developed market peers (Chart 3), a reversal from 2018 Chart 1Late Cycle Rally Ahead?   Chart 3...As Does Current Global Outperformance Typically, global risk assets outperform American risk assets at the end of an economic cycle. While institutional investors can use these rallies to lighten the load ahead of a recession, most investors cannot afford to miss such a rally. As such, BCA (and others) are calling for investors to play what is expected to be a yearlong rally in global risk assets and the S&P 500. Our view at BCA Geopolitical Strategy is more cautious, perhaps because it is informed by a methodological bias rooted in geopolitics. We believe that the reversal in U.S. outperformance relative to global risk assets rests on three pillars: The Federal Reserve remains dovish throughout 2019; China begins a major reflationary effort;  The U.S.-China tariff truce results in a trade deal. In addition, a consensus is emerging that a “no deal” Brexit will not occur, that U.S. polarization cannot get worse, and that President Trump eschews foreign interventionism. While we hold a nuanced view on each of these assertions, the mix is far less bullish than investors may think. We see a witches’ brew of factors that is murky at best and bearish at worst. The Three Pillars Of The Bullish View Before we turn to geopolitics, let us examine the three pillars underpinning the bullish view. Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, remains bullish on the U.S. economy and expects the Fed to resume hiking rates by mid-year.2 The Conference Board’s Leading Credit Index remains in expansionary territory (Chart 4). While business capex intention surveys have come off their highs, they still point to robust spending plans over the next few quarters (Chart 5). Chart 4Little Sign Of A Looming Credit Crunch Chart 5Capex Plans Still Solid It is no surprise that the BCA Fed Monitor continues to suggest that “tighter monetary policy is required” (Chart 6). This is a far cry from 2016, when our indicator was in deeply “tightening” territory and the Fed paused for 12 months. If we compare 2019 to 2016, it is difficult to see how the market expectation of 4.72 bps of rate cuts will occur over the next 12 months (Chart 7). Of the three components that make up the BCA Fed Monitor, only the financial conditions have fallen into “easing required” territory (Chart 8), and they are already shifting back to “tightening required” territory with the stock market rally underway (Chart 9). Chart 6A Hawkish Fed Is Needed Chart 8BCA Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Policy Chart 9Financial Conditions Starting To Ease In addition, in 2016 the Fed was not contracting its balance sheet. Today it is doing so, although the pace has moderated. As such, the Fed’s rate hike pause is occurring amidst an ongoing effort to normalize monetary policy and to transfer rate risks back to the private sector. By chance, this is also occurring at a time when the Treasury Department must issue more debt to cover a larger deficit, a process that could significantly pull U.S. rates higher and, by extension, yields on assets further down the risk curve. This would be a particular problem for global risk assets given the exposure of several EM economies to dollar-denominated debt.  The bottom line for investors is that a rate hike pause is not a pause in the overall hawkish policy of the U.S. Fed, which acts as a global central bank. The fall in the amount of dollars available for the international financial system acts as a brake on growth. Over the past 10 years, each time money supply growth fell below the loan uptake of the U.S. corporate sector, BCA’s Global Industrial Activity Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, Korean exports, and global export prices all deteriorated considerably (Chart 10). Chart 10Deteriorating Excess Liquidity Hurts Global Growth Our muted view on Chinese reflation is unnecessary to repeat here. There is no doubt that Chinese policymakers are stimulating the economy, but the question is whether they are willing to pull the credit lever as aggressively as they have done in the past (Chart 11).So far, all of the evidence we have reviewed point to a cautious effort to stabilize growth, not reflate the entire planetary economy as Beijing did in 2016. If our BCA House View on the Fed is correct, a tepid Chinese effort to stimulate the domestic economy will fall short of lighting the flame of a global risk rally in 2019. Chart 11Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts The BCA China Play Index, which in the past has tracked EM vs. DM equity outperformance, is sending mixed signals today (Chart 12). Enthusiasm for global risk assets has not been confirmed by the most China-sensitive plays. Chart 12Mixed Signals From China-Sensitive Plays Finally, there is the trade truce that should produce a trade deal. The logic is clear: President Trump sets aside the political constraints working against a deal and focuses on ensuring that he wins 2020 by avoiding a recession. The near bear market in the S&P 500 was a game changer that focused the White House on averting any further downside to markets and the economy from the trade war. But if the current rally proves that the selloff in December was a temporary pullback, the White House may be emboldened to play hard-to-get with China. After all, the electorate is generally supportive of getting tough on China (Chart 13) and there is no demand from either Trump voters or Democrats for a quick deal. The Fed pause and lower oil prices also give Trump some space to push negotiations a bit harder. Already there are leaks from the negotiations that the U.S. is asking for a lot from China, which could prolong the talks. This includes genuine structural changes to the economic relationship that would address long-standing U.S. concerns of forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and foreign investor access to the Chinese domestic market. It also includes U.S. demands that these changes be verifiable and enforceable. China is likely to balk at some of the U.S. demands, particularly if the U.S. is indeed pushing for regular reviews of China’s progress, a condition that implicitly creates a hierarchy between the two economies and would thus represent a loss of face for Beijing.3 Table 1 presents our latest expectations of where the U.S. and China will be on March 1. We assign only 10% each to “black and white” outcomes, a “Grand Compromise” and “No deal, with major escalation.” The remaining 80% is divided between “mushy” outcomes, including a 25% probability that negotiations simply continue. Table 1Updated U.S.-China Trade War Probabilities How would the market react to such uncertain outcomes? We think that almost anything other than a “Grand Compromise” would be greeted with limited relief, if not outright market correction. A vaguely positive meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi, and a memorandum of understanding, would not remove long-term risks in the relationship, especially if the parallel “tech war” is not resolved. On top of the ongoing U.S.-China negotiations, there is one remaining trade issue that investors should keep in mind: auto tariffs. The Section 232 investigation into whether auto imports are a national security threat is ongoing and U.S. authorities are expected to present their conclusions on February 17. We fear that the Trump administration could still stage a surprise and impose tariffs on auto imports. This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production within the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. An extended truce with China could provide the opportunity. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but the timing of this decision could upset the market’s perception of Trump’s commitment to free trade once again. Bottom Line: The conventional narrative is that global markets are experiencing a late-cycle rally, one that is worth playing given its usual duration and amplitude. This view rests on three pillars: that the Fed has backed off from tightening, that China is stimulating in earnest, and that the trade deal will produce a definitive outcome. We fear that all three pillars are shaky. First, the Fed is not easing. Its balance sheet contraction process, which is ongoing, is a form of tightening. And the U.S. economy remains healthy. As such, the expectation of a 12-month Fed pause is overly optimistic. Second, China is stimulating, but only tepidly. Third, “black and white,” definitive outcomes are unlikely in the U.S.-China negotiations. In fact, more protectionism could be around the corner if U.S.-China tech issues continue to flare or if the U.S. announces the conclusion of its investigation into auto imports. Geopolitical Factors To Monitor Aside from shaky pillars, markets will also have to contend with several uncertain geopolitical processes this year. While we are not necessarily bearish on each one, we are concerned that the collective investment community is overly bullish. Take Brexit. We agree with the conventional view that the chances of a no-deal Brexit outcome are below 10%. Political betting markets have only priced in an actual exit on March 29, which is in ink in British legislation, at just above 30% (Chart 14). Chart 14Online Betters Expect A Brexit Delay The problem is not with the conventional view but with its timing. While Prime Minister Theresa May will ultimately be forced to extend the Article 50 deadline, it may take a lot of brinkmanship and eleventh hour negotiations to do so. Getting from here – collective bullishness – to there – an actual extension of Article 50 – may require a downturn in GBP/USD or other U.K. assets. Furthermore, several scenarios could produce a downturn in GBP/USD (Diagram 1). For example, the Labour Party remains neck-and-neck with the Tories in the polls, despite being led by the most left-leaning leader since the 1970s. Although a new election that produces a Labour government would likely reduce the odds of Brexit eventually occurring, it would raise the odds of Corbyn pursuing unorthodox economic policy while also trying to negotiate his own version of Brexit with the EU. Diagram 1Brexit: The Path To Salvation Remains Fraught With Dangers The point is that it is tough to recommend that investors close their eyes and buy GBP/USD, no matter how cheap the currency may look, unless one has a very long time horizon and a high threshold for pain. The second issue where we take a more nuanced position is the ongoing U.S. executive-legislative standoff over the border. The government shutdown is only on pause until February 15. The House Democrats are demanding that a solution be found by Friday, February 8 if it is to be voted on in time. Meanwhile President Trump’s popularity is in the doldrums (Chart 15). His supporters note that President Reagan was even less popular at this point in his term, but that is because unemployment hit 10.4% in January 1983 (Chart 16). The grave risk for President Trump is that he is as unpopular as Reagan, even though unemployment is at 4% and the U.S. economy is on fire. Chart 15President Trump Is Unpopular... Chart 16...And It Can't Be Blamed On Unemployment As such, the real risk is not another shutdown, but rather political dysfunction in Congress that imperils the legislative process. The current two-year budget deal, which raised spending levels in January 2018, is set to expire when the FY2019 ends. Democrats and Trump have to come to an agreement to avert the “stimulus cliff” expected in 2020 (Chart 17). If they cannot conclude the border issue and the FY2019 appropriations, then Trump may declare a national emergency (or act unilaterally in other ways) and spark a new conflict with the courts. He could also threaten not to raise the debt ceiling in spring or summer. This is not an atmosphere in which a FY2020 deal looks very easy. Chart 17Stimulus Cliff Ahead Ultimately, we expect Democrats to succumb to the pressure from their voters for more spending. But a total failure to cooperate is a risk. Furthermore, the greatest political risk in the U.S. is that the 2020 election will not be contested on the same issues as in 2016: trade and immigration. Instead, income inequality is rearing its head, as Democratic candidates jostle for attention and as they test various messages on focus groups. If income inequality catches fire as the issue of 2020, we will know it soon. And it may begin to impact the markets as Democrats begin to campaign on, for instance, reversing President Trump’s income tax cuts. While the market may ignore headline election risks for some time, we do not think that non-financial corporates can do the same. Any hint that President Trump’s pro-business policies will be reversed could send shivers down the spines of CEOs and negatively impact capex intentions, hurting the real economy well before the next election. Finally, there is the issue of foreign policy. President Trump has abandoned his maximum pressure tactic on Iran and has begun withdrawing the remaining troops in the Middle East. These trends are likely to continue in 2019 as President Trump focuses on China and lesser issues like Venezuela. There is one important area of alignment between him and the defense and intelligence community, notwithstanding recent scuffles: less focus on the Middle East means more focus on Asia and specifically China. However, President Trump is facing a dilemma. Despite an extraordinary economic performance, his popularity remains in the doldrums. When faced with similar situations in the past, presidents far more orthodox than Trump have sought relevance abroad, by means of military interventions. A convenient opportunity has presented itself in Venezuela, where a revolution against Chavismo could give the U.S. an opening to intervene. On paper, we see how such a scenario could look appealing for a quick, and relatively painless, intervention. The problem is that it could also get messy and, in the analysis of BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy, raise oil prices to nearly $100 per barrel by mid-year if a total loss of Venezuelan production ensues (Chart 18). This is a non-negligible risk. Chart 18A Venezuela Collapse Could Send Brent Crude Prices Toward $100/Bbl Bottom Line: Geopolitical risks still abound. We are not alarmist. However, there is little reason to believe that Brexit, U.S. polarization, U.S.-China tensions, or a potential U.S. intervention in Venezuela will end painlessly for the market. An unpopular U.S. president is seeking to remain relevant and a global populist wave is continuing to create unorthodox and anti-establishment policy prescriptions. Given that the current rally is supported by three shaky pillars, any one of these geopolitical risks could catalyze a relapse, the history of late-cycle rallies be damned.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Late-Cycle Blues,” dated October 29, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Patient Jay,” dated January 18, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see Reuters, “Exclusive: U.S. demands regular review of China trade reform,” dated January 18, 2019, available at reuters.com.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Global equity markets have managed to recoup some of last year’s plunge since we upgraded stocks to overweight in late December. The equity rally has been tentative, however, and so far feels more like a technical bounce from oversold levels than a resumption of the bull market. One driving factor behind last year’s market swoon was that policy uncertainty spiked at a time when the last pillar of global growth, the U.S., was showing signs of cracking. Investors thus welcomed the Fed’s signal that it would pause in March. Nonetheless, shrinkage in the Fed’s balance sheet is proving to be troublesome. Quantitative tightening does not necessarily imply permanently higher risk premia, but it will be a source of volatility. There are hopeful but tentative signs that a U.S. slowdown is not the precursor to a recession. The hit to GDP from the U.S. government shutdown will be reversed next quarter. The FOMC has also signaled that policymakers are attuned to the economic risks associated with tightening financial conditions, and that the calm inflation backdrop provides room to maneuver. The FOMC will stand pat in March, but should restart rate hikes in June as the economic soft patch ends. We still see only a modest risk of a U.S. recession this year. In contrast, our outlook for growth outside the U.S. remains downbeat for at least the first half of the year. Among the advanced economies, Japan and Europe are being the most affected by the Chinese economic slowdown and global trade tensions. This means that monetary policy divergence will continue to be a tailwind for the dollar. China continues to stimulate at the margin, but efforts so far have been insufficient to put a floor under growth. The contraction in Chinese exports has just begun. It is still too early to upgrade EM assets or base metals. Despite the cloud still surrounding Brexit, sterling is beginning to look attractive as a long-term punt. Our decision to upgrade corporate bonds to overweight this month, similar to our reasoning for upgrading equities in December, is based on improved value and a sense that investor pessimism had become excessive. Just as the selloff in risk assets was overdone, so too was the rally in government bonds. It is highly unlikely that the Fed is done tightening, as is currently discounted in the money market curve. A resumption of Fed rate hikes around mid-year means that the 10-year Treasury yield will move back above 3% by year end. Feature Global equity markets have managed to recoup some of last year’s plunge since we upgraded the asset class back to overweight in the latter half of December. A decline in the VIX and high-yield bond spreads are also positive signs that global risk appetite is recovering, following an overdone investor ‘panic attack’ last quarter. The equity rally has been tentative, however, and so far feels more like a simple technical bounce from oversold levels than a resumption of the bull market. One problem is that policy uncertainty has spiked at a time when the last pillar of global growth, the U.S., is showing signs of cracking (Chart I-1). Investors are skittish while they await a clear de-escalation of U.S./China trade tensions, an end to the U.S. economic soft patch, an end to the U.S. government shutdown, and signs that global growth is bottoming (especially in China). There has only been some modestly positive news on a couple of these issues. Chart I-1Policy Uncertainty Has Spiked Another factor that appeared to play a role in last quarter’s market swoon is the fear that the end of asset purchases by the European Central Bank and the normalization of the Fed’s balance sheet necessarily imply a structural de-rating for all risk assets. A related worry is that the de-rating might intensify the global economic slowdown, resulting in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. Does QT Imply Lower Multiples? The question of balance sheet normalization is a difficult one because there is widespread disagreement on how, or even whether, quantitative easing (QE) works. We have always maintained that QE was not about creating a wave of central bank liquidity that flowed into asset prices. Central banks did not “print money” – they created bank reserves. These reserves did not result in a major acceleration in broader measures of money growth, including M1 and M2, largely because there was little demand for loans and because banks tightened lending standards. In other words, the credit channel of monetary policy was broken. The implication is that investors should not worry that quantitative tightening (QT) implies a withdrawal of central bank liquidity that must mechanically come from the sale of risk assets. Rather, we believe that QE operates mostly through the portfolio balance effect. There are two ways to think about this channel. First, the central bank forced investors to move into riskier assets by purchasing large amounts of “safe” assets, such as government bonds. Investors had little choice but to redeploy the capital into other riskier areas, pushing up asset prices. The second perspective is that central bank purchases of government bonds depressed both the yield curve and bond volatility. Volatility fell because investors could forecast the policy rate with certainty – it would be glued to zero (or negative) for the foreseeable future in most of the advanced economies. This is akin to strong forward guidance that flattened the yield curve. Aggressive monetary stimulus, such as QE, also helped to reduce the perceived risk that the economy would succumb to secular stagnation or fall back into recession. Reduced bond volatility, lower bond yields, and less economic risk all increased the attractiveness of the riskier asset classes. These explanations represent two sides of the same coin. Either way, QE boosted a broad array of asset prices. If this is true, then unwinding QE must be bearish for risk assets, all else equal. In the case of the U.S., the fed funds rate is much more difficult to forecast than was the case when the Fed was buying bonds. Higher yields and bond volatility imply a lower equilibrium multiple in the equity market and wider equilibrium corporate bond spreads. Nonetheless, all else is not equal. If interest rates and bond volatility are rising in the context of healthy economic and profit growth, then it is likely that the perceived risk of secular stagnation is falling. It would be a sign that the economy has finally put the financial crisis firmly in the rear-view mirror. It could be the case that the upgrade in economic confidence overwhelms the negative impact of the reverse portfolio balance effect related to quantitative tightening, allowing risk assets to rise. No one can prove this thesis one way or the other and we are not making the case that unwinding the Fed’s balance sheet will necessarily go smoothly, especially since interest rates are rising at the same time. The problem is that both investors and the Fed are trying to figure out where the neutral fed funds rate lies. If the so-called level of R-star is still very low, then the Fed might have already made a policy mistake by raising rates too far. We discussed in last month’s Overview the market implications of four scenarios for the level of R-star and the Fed’s success in correctly guessing it. If the economy holds up and the economic soft patch ends in the coming months as we expect, then investors will revise their estimate of the neutral rate higher and risk assets will rally even as bond yields rise. The Doom Loop One risk to our base-case scenario is the so-called financial conditions “doom loop”. Irrespective of whether or not QT is playing a role, the doom loop scenario involves a shock to investor confidence that leads to a tightening in financial conditions and market liquidity as stock prices fall and credit spreads widen. More onerous financial conditions, in turn, undermine economic activity, which then feeds back into even tighter financial conditions. One could make the argument that risk assets are even more exposed to this type of negative feedback loop today than in past monetary tightening cycles because of program trading, the Fed’s balance sheet shrinkage and investors’ lingering shell shock from the Great Recession and financial crisis. Nonetheless, there are a few mitigating factors to consider. We believe that a 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. On a positive note, 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 I-2). The highly cyclical parts of the U.S. economy are not stretched to the upside as a share of GDP, reducing the risk that overspending in one part of the economy will required a deep contraction to correct the imbalance (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Private Sector: A New Saver Chart I-3U.S. Cyclical Spending Not Extended In terms of financial excesses, the good news is that the U.S. household sector is in its best shape in decades. Our main concern is debt accumulation in the corporate sector. We reviewed the related risks in a Special Report published in the November 2018 issue.1 We concluded that corporate leverage will not cause the next U.S. recession, because high levels of debt will only become a problem when profits begin to contract (i.e. when the economic downturn is already underway). Nonetheless, when a recession does occur, corporate spreads will widen by more than in the past for any given degree of economic contraction (see below). ‘Fed Put’ Still In Play Another factor that tempers the risk of a doom loop is that the so-called ‘Fed Put’ is still operating. The December FOMC Minutes and comments by various FOMC members communicated to investors that the Fed is attuned to the economic risks associated with tightening financial conditions, and that the calm inflation backdrop provides policymakers with room to maneuver. Chair Powell even said he was willing to adjust the Fed’s balance sheet run-off if necessary. One important reason for policymakers’ willingness to be flexible is that the fed funds rate is still not far from the zero-lower-bound, making it potentially more difficult for the FOMC to respond adequately in the event of a recession this year because the fed funds rate can only be cut by 250 basis points. Several U.S. data releases have been delayed due the government shutdown, but what has been released has been mixed. The downdraft in the January reading of the manufacturing ISM was eye-opening, highlighting that the global manufacturing slowdown has reached U.S. shores. The good news is that the non-manufacturing ISM and the small business survey, although off their peaks, remain consistent with solid underlying growth. The December U.S. payroll report revealed that wage growth continued to accelerate on the back of gangbusters job creation at the end of the year. There have also been some recent hints that the soft patch in capital spending and housing is ending (Chart I-4). Existing home sales fell sharply in December, but extremely low inventories suggest that it is more of a supply than a demand problem. The impressive bounce in home mortgage applications for purchases is a hopeful sign. U.S. commercial and industrial loan growth is also accelerating. Chart I-4Some Tentative Signs These tentative signs that the economic soft patch is close to an end will not be enough to get the FOMC to tighten in March, after so many members have gone out of their way to signal a pause in recent weeks. Nonetheless, we believe the economy will remain strong enough for the Fed to resume hiking in June. The U.S. government shutdown will complicate interpreting incoming economic data. Ultimately, while its impact on Q1 real GDP growth will be non-trivial, it will be reversed the following quarter and we do not expect any permanent damage to be done. U.S. inflation should edge higher by mid-year, supporting our view that the Fed will resume tightening in June. The decline in oil prices will continue to feed into a lower headline inflation rate in the coming months, but that does not mean that the core rate will fall. Indeed, core CPI has increased by roughly 0.2% in each of the past three months, translating into an annualized rate of approximately 2.4%. Base effects will depress annual core inflation in February but, thereafter, this effect will begin to reverse. The acceleration in wage growth according to measures such as average hourly earnings and the Employment Cost Index highlights that underlying inflationary pressures continue to percolate (Chart I-5). The implication is that the Treasury bond market is overly complacent in discounting that the fed funds rate has peaked for the cycle. Chart I-5U.S. Wage Pressure Is Percolating Looking further ahead, our base case remains that the next U.S. recession will not occur until 2020, and will be the result of tighter fiscal policy and further Fed tightening that takes short-term rates a step too far. No Bottom Yet For Global Growth Our outlook for growth outside the U.S. remains downbeat for at least the first half of the year. Our global economic indicators still show no sign of a turnaround, except for a bottoming in the diffusion index based on BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator (Chart I-6). The global ZEW economic sentiment index continued to fall in January, while business and consumer confidence readings in the advanced economies eroded heading into year end. Chart I-6Global Leading Indicators Still Deteriorating A better global growth dynamic awaits more serious policy stimulus in China. Real GDP growth decelerated further to 6.4% year-over-year in the last quarter of 2018. This is no disaster, but the point is that there are still no signs of stabilization. The Chinese authorities continue to tweak the policy dials at the margin, most recently providing some tax cuts and a liquidity injection into the banking system. Nonetheless, the central government has so far abstained from stimulating the property market due to existing speculative excesses. This is very different from the previous two policy easing episodes, including 2015/16 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7China: No Property Market Stimulus... The stimulus undertaken so far has been insufficient in terms of putting a floor under growth according to our 12-month Credit Impulse (Chart I-8). It is a hopeful sign that broad money growth is trying to bottom, but this does not guarantee that the credit impulse is about to turn. The latter is required to confirm that Chinese import demand will accelerate, providing a lift to EM exporters, EM asset prices and commodity prices. Without a positive credit impulse, China’s investment and construction activity will continue to moderate, leading to lower imports of machinery and raw materials. Chart I-8...And No Credit Impulse The economic situation in China is likely to get worse before it gets better. Dismal trade figures in December confirmed that the trade war is beginning to bite. The period of export ‘front-running’ related to higher U.S. tariffs is over as total exports fell by 4.4% year-over-year. Last year’s collapse in export orders indicates that the woes are just beginning. In turn, moderating production related to the Chinese export sector will bleed into domestic consumption and imports, suggesting that it is too early to expect a durable rally in EM assets or commodity prices. Lackluster Chinese demand and growing trade concerns have weighted on global business confidence, contributing to the pullback in capital goods orders, manufacturing PMIs and industrial production in the advanced economies (Chart I-9). Even the average service sector PMI and consumer confidence index in the advanced economies have fallen in recent months, although both remain at a high level. Chart I-9The Fallout From Trade Europe and Japan, in particular, are feeling the pinch. German GDP only grew 1.5% in 2018, implying that Q4 GDP growth was in the vicinity of just 0.2% QoQ. Meanwhile, European industrial production contracted by 3.3% year-over-year in December. The German Ifo and ZEW surveys do not point to any significant improvements in this trend. A few idiosyncratic factors explain some of this poor performance, including new emissions testing standards that have weighted on the German auto industry, a tightening in financial conditions in Italy, and the ‘gilets jaunes’ protests in France. Nonetheless, the euro area slowdown cannot be fully explained by one-off factors. The economy is highly sensitive to global trade fluctuations given that 18% of the euro area’s gross value added is generated in the manufacturing sector. Hence, China’s poor economic health has been painful for Europe, and the trend in Chinese credit does not bode well for the near term (Chart I-10). The European Central Bank (ECB) is likely to stay on the defensive as a result, especially as euro area core inflation, which has been stuck near 1% for three years, is unlikely to pick up if growth remains on the back foot. The ECB stuck with the view that the economic soft patch is temporary after the January policy meeting, but policymakers will consider providing more stimulus in March if the economy does not pick up (using forward guidance or a new TLTRO). This will weigh on the euro. Chart I-10China's Woes Are Infecting Europe Japan is suffering from similar ills. Exports are no longer growing, and foreign machinery and factory orders are contracting at a 4.1% and 4.3% pace, respectively. This weakness is not mimicked in domestic growth, but the disproportionate contribution of the external sector to Japan’s overall economic health means that this country is also falling victim to the malaise witnessed in China and emerging markets, the destination of 19% and 45% of Japanese shipments, respectively (Chart I-11). Collapsing oil prices and a firming trade-weighted yen have amplified this deflationary backdrop. It is therefore far too early to bet that the Bank of Japan will tighten the monetary dials. Chart I-11Japan Hit By The Chinese Cold As Well If we are correct that the U.S. economic soft patch will soon end, then the dollar will once again look to be the best of a bad lot. Interest rate expectations will move in favor of the dollar. We expect the dollar to rise by about 6% this year on a trade-weighted basis, appreciating most strongly against the AUD and SEK. As for sterling, it is beginning to look attractive as a long-term punt. Brexit Deadlock We are a month closer to the end-March deadline and a Brexit deal seems even farther out of reach. It could play out in one of three ways: (1) a “no deal” where the U.K. leaves the EU with no alternative in place; (2) a “soft Brexit” involving an agreement to form a permanent customs union or some sort of “Norway plus” arrangement; or (3) a decision to reverse the results of the original referendum and stay in the EU. There is no support for the “no deal” option in Parliament, which means that it won’t happen. We do not have a strong view on which of the latter two scenarios will occur. The odds of another referendum are rising and the polls are swinging away from any sort of Brexit, suggesting that the original referendum result may be over-turned via another referendum (Chart I-12). Nonetheless, for investors, it does not matter much whether it is scenario 2 or 3; either outcome would be welcomed by markets. Overweight sterling positions are attractive as a long-term play, although it could be some time before the final solution emerges. Chart I-12Brexit Result May Be Overturned Upgrade Corporate Bonds To Overweight Given the recent global economic dynamics, it is perhaps surprising that U.S. corporate financial health actually improved in 2018 according to our Corporate Health Monitors (CHM). We highlighted in the aforementioned Special Report the risks facing U.S. corporate bonds when the economic expansion ends. High levels of corporate leverage mean that the interest coverage ratio for the median corporation in the Barclays-Bloomberg index will plunge to near or below all-time historic lows. The potential for a large wave of fallen angels implies that downgrade activity will be particularly painful for corporate bond investors. The surge in lower-quality issuance has led to a downward trend in the average credit rating and has significantly raised the size of the BBB-rated bonds relative to the IG index and relative to the broader universe of corporate bonds. Moreover, poor market liquidity and covenant erosion will intensify pressure for corporate spreads to widen when the bear market arrives. Rapid debt accumulation is reflected in our bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors (CHM) for the U.S. investment-grade and high-yield sectors (Chart I-13). The CHMs are constructed from six financial ratios that the rating agencies use when rating individual companies. The companies in our bottom-up sample were chosen so as to mimic the sector and quality distribution in the Bloomberg-Barclay’s corporate bond index. Chart I-13U.S. Corporate Health The debt-to-book-value of equity ratio for both the U.S. IG and HY sample of companies has risen to nose-bleed levels, although the ratio appears to have flattened off for the latter. Despite rising leverage, the HY CHM has shifted into “improved health” territory and the IG CHM is on the verge of doing the same. Last year’s upturn in the profitability measures, such as the return on capital, overwhelmed the deteriorating leverage trend. In Europe, where we distinguish between domestic and foreign issuers, rising leverage has been concentrated among the latter until recently (Chart I-14). In any event, the CHM for both types of issuers is close to the neutral zone. Chart I-14Euro Area Corporate Health Improving U.S. corporate health on its own would not justify increasing exposure to corporate bonds within balanced portfolios or moving down in quality. Profit growth is likely to moderate this year, especially in Europe, such that last year’s improvement in corporate health is likely to reverse. And, as previously discussed, the economic cycle is well advanced and this sector is particularly vulnerable to a recession. Nonetheless, value has improved enough to warrant a tactical upgrade to overweight within fixed-income portfolios, at a time when the FOMC has signaled a pause and the next recession is at least a year away. Implied volatility should continue to moderate and spreads should narrow, similar to dynamics in 2016, the last time that the Fed signaled patience following a period of market turmoil (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Fed Patience To Narrow Spreads Spreads have already narrowed from the peak in late December, but 12-month breakeven spreads for most credit tiers are all still close to or above their historical means, except for AA-rated issues (Chart I-16). For example, the 12-month breakeven spread2 for the Baa credit tier is 46%. This means that the spread has been tighter than its current level 46% of the time since 1988 and wider than its current level 54% of the time. Historically, spreads tend to hover within the tight-end of their historical range during this phase of the credit cycle, and only cheapen significantly when the yield curve inverts and the default rate moves higher. Chart I-16Value Restored In IG Corporates... For U.S. high yield, our estimate of the spread adjusted for expected defaults has risen to 237 bps (Chart I-17). This implies that investors are discounting a 2019 default rate of 3.2%, in line with Moody's forecast. Since we do not foresee recession this year, high-yield bonds are not expensive enough to be avoided within a portfolio. Chart I-17...And In HY Too Value has also improved in the European corporate bond market, but our global fixed-income team still recommends favoring the U.S. market for global credit investors. Leverage is higher in the U.S., especially relative to domestic issuers in Europe, but the U.S. economic and profit outlook for 2019 is better. Conclusions Our decision to upgrade corporate bonds this month, similar to our reasoning for upgrading equities to overweight in December, is based on improved value and a sense that investor pessimism had become excessive. For the equity market, the S&P 12-month forward P/E is an attractive 15.4 as we go to press, and bottom-up estimates for 2019 EPS have been slashed to a very reasonable 8%. Just as the selloff in risk assets late last year was overdone, so too was the rally in government bonds. It is highly unlikely that the Fed is done tightening. A resumption of Fed rate hikes, probably in June, means that the 10-year Treasury yield will move back above 3% by year end. Across the major countries, market expectations for yields 5-10 years from now are close to current levels, which is extremely complacent (Chart I-18). Investors should keep duration short of benchmark. Chart I-18Forward Rates Far Too Low Our shift to overweight in both equities and corporate bonds is tactical in nature. We fully expect to move back to neutral and then to underweight later this year or into 2020, as the peak in U.S. GDP draws nearer. Timing will be difficult as always, which means that investors should be prepared to trim risk exposure earlier than implied by our base-case economic timeline.  The tactical upgrade does not imply that we have become more sanguine on the economic and geopolitical risks for 2019. We do not believe that quantitative tightening or U.S. corporate leverage will truncate the U.S. expansion prematurely. Nonetheless, there is a plethora of other risks to keep us up at night. These include a Fed policy mistake, a hard economic landing in China, a full-blown financial crisis in Italy and an escalation in U.S./China trade tensions. The last one has diminished marginally in probability. We have a sense that the recent equity market downdraft unnerved President Trump, such that he now has a diminished appetite for upsetting investors with talk of an escalating trade war ahead of next year’s election. Outside of these well-known risks, our geopolitical team has recently published its “Black Swans” report for 2019. These are deemed to be risks that are off of most investors’ radar screens, but that would have profound implications if they were to occur: It is premature to expect armed conflict over Taiwan, but an outbreak of serious tensions between China and Taiwan is possible as Sino-American strategic distrust continues to build. Russia and Ukraine may have a shared incentive to renew hostilities this year. Saudi Arabia has received a “blank cheque” from Donald Trump, and thus it may continue to be provocative. This could boost the geopolitical risk premium in oil prices. Tensions are building in the Balkans. A renewed conflict on Europe’s doorstep could be the next great geopolitical crisis. A “Lame Duck” Trump could stage a military intervention in Venezuela. We encourage interested readers to see our Special Report for details.3 As for emerging market assets and base metals, we continue to shy away until we receive confirmation that China is aggressively stimulating. We expect better news on this front by mid-year, but watch our China Credit Impulse indicator for timing. In contrast, investors should be overweight oil and related assets now because our commodity specialists still see the price of Brent rising above US$80/bbl sometime this year. Recent political turmoil in Venezuela buttresses our bullish oil view. Finally, this month’s fascinating Special Report, penned by BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, examines the long-term implications of the peaking in the average IQ in the advanced economies. Average intelligence is falling for both demographic and environment reasons. The impact will be far from benign, potentially leading to lower productivity growth, lower equity multiples, larger budget deficits and higher equilibrium bond yields. The report begins on page 20. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Mathieu Savary Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy January 31, 2019 Next Report: February 28, 2019   II. The Most Important Trend In The World Has Reversed And Nobody Knows Why After rising for thousands of years, human intelligence has begun to decline in developed economies. This can be seen in falling IQ scores and a decline in math and science test scores. Environmental factors appear to account for the bulk of this decline, but no one knows what these factors are. If left unchecked, falling intelligence will severely undermine productivity growth. This could lead to lower equity multiples, larger budget deficits, and ultimately, much higher government bond yields. Technological advances, particularly in the genetic realm, promise to radically raise IQs. In a complete abandonment of its one-child policy, China will combine these controversial technologies with pro-natal measures in order to boost sagging birth rates. The coming Eugenic Wars will be one of the most important economic and geopolitical developments of the 21st century. Part 1: What The Tame Fox Says In 1959, a Soviet scientist named Dmitry Belyaev embarked on an ambitious experiment: to domesticate the silver fox. A geneticist by training, Belyaev wanted to replicate the process by which animals such as cats and dogs came to live side-by-side with humans. It was a risky endeavor. The Soviets had essentially banned the study of Mendelian genetics in favor of the blank slate ideology that is popular in progressive circles today. Belyaev persevered. Working under the guise of studying vulpine physiology, he selected foxes based on only one trait – tamability. Less than 10% of foxes made it to the subsequent generation, with the other 90% being sent off to fur farms. By the fourth generation, the changes were undeniable. Rather than fleeing humans, the foxes sought out their attention with no prompting whatsoever. They even wagged their tails and whined and whimpered like dogs do. The tame foxes also displayed physical changes. Their ears flopped over. Their snouts became shorter and their tails stood upright. "By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years," wrote Lyudmila Trut, who began as Belyaev’s assistant and took over the project when her boss died in 1985.  Genetically Capitalist? Evolution can broadly proceed in two ways. The first way is through random mutations. This form of evolution, which scientists sometimes refer to as genetic drift, can take thousands of years to yield any discernable changes. The second way is through natural selection, a process that exploits existing variations in genetic traits. As the Russian fox experiment illustrates, evolution driven by selective pressures (either natural or artificial) can occur fairly quickly. Did selective pressures manifest themselves in human evolution in the lead up to the Industrial Revolution? Did humans, in some sense, domesticate themselves? In his book, A Farewell To Alms, economic historian Gregory Clark argued in the affirmative. Clark documented that members of skilled professions in Medieval England had twice as many surviving children as unskilled workers (Chart II-1). Indeed, the fledgling middle class of the time had even more surviving children than the aristocracy, who were often out fighting wars. As a result, the wages of craftsmen declined by a third relative to laborers between 1200 and 1800, implying that the supply of skilled labor was growing more quickly than the demand for skilled workers over this period. In subsequent work, Clark and Neil Cummins argued that the spread of bourgeois values across pre-industrial England was more consistent with a model of genetic transmission than a cultural one (see Box II-1 for details). Similar developments occurred in other parts of the world. For example, in China, the gateway into the bureaucracy for a thousand years was the highly competitive imperial exam. Xi Song, Cameron Campbell, and James Lee showed that high-status men had more surviving children during the eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuries (Chart II-2).4 The 10,000 Year Explosion Stephen Jay Gould famously said that “There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain.” Gould was wrong. Data from the International HapMap Project show that human evolution accelerated by 100-fold starting around 10,000 years ago (Chart II-3). In their book The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, Gregory Cochran and the late Henry Harpending explained why evolution sped up so rapidly.5 The advent of agriculture led to a surge in population levels. This, in turn, increased the absolute number of potentially beneficial genetic mutations that could be subject to selection effects. Farming and the rise of city states also completely reshaped the environment in which people lived. Basic biology teaches us that environmental dislocations of this kind tend to generate selective pressures that cause evolution to accelerate. John Hawks, professor of anthropology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, put it best: “We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals.” Many of the changes to our genomes relate to diet and diseases. The various genetic resistances that people have built up to malaria are all less than 10,000 years old. Mutations to the LCT gene, which confers lactose tolerance into adulthood, occurred independently in three different geographical locations: one in East Asia, one in the Middle East, and one in Africa. The Middle Eastern variant was probably responsible for the rapid enlargement of the Indo-European language group, which now stretches from India to Ireland. The African variant likely facilitated the Bantu expansion, which started near the present-day border of Nigeria and Cameroon, and then spread out across almost all of sub-Saharan Africa. Evolution Of The Human Brain About half of the genes in the human genome regulate some aspect of brain function. Given the rapid acceleration in evolution, it would be rather surprising if our own brains had not been affected. And indeed, there is plenty of evidence that they were. The frontal lobe of the brain has increased in size over the past 10,000 years. This is the part of the brain that regulates such things as language, memory, and long-term planning. Testosterone levels have also declined. That may explain the steady reduction in violent crime rates (Chart II-4). We know that certain genes that are associated with higher intelligence have been under recent selective pressure. For example, the gene that leads to torsion dystonia – a debilitating movement disorder – appears to have increased in frequency. Why would a gene that causes a known disease become more widespread? The answer is that individuals who have this particular mutation tend to have IQs that are around 10-to 20-points above the population average. Why IQ Matters IQ has a long and contentious history. Yet, despite numerous efforts to jettison the concept, it has endured for one simple reason: It has more predictive power than virtually anything else in the psychological realm. A simple 30-minute IQ test can help predict future educational attainment, job performance, income, health, criminality, and fertility choices (Table II-1 and Chart II-5). IQ even predicts trader performance!6   Like most physiological traits, IQ is highly heritable.7 The genetic contribution to IQ increases from 20% in early childhood to as high as 80% by one’s late teens and remains at that level well into adulthood.8 This makes IQ almost as heritable as height (Chart II-6). Although there is a great deal of variation among individuals, on average, more intelligent people earn higher incomes (Chart II-7). If the same relationship existed in the pre-industrial era, as seems likely, then human intelligence probably increased in a way that facilitated the economic explosion that we associate with the Industrial Revolution. The stunning implication is that the emergence of the modern era was a question of “when, not if.” Part 2: The Flynn Effect By the late-19th century, it had become clear that the rich were no longer having as many children as the poor. This realization, together with the growing popularity of Darwin’s theories, helped galvanize the eugenics movement. Contrary to popular belief, this movement was not a product of the far-right. In fact, the most vocal proponents of eugenics were among the progressive left. John Maynard Keynes, for example, served as the Director of the British Eugenics Society between 1937 and 1944. Yet, a funny thing happened on the road to idiocracy: The concerns of eugenicists did not come to pass. Rather than becoming dimmer, people became smarter. This phenomenon is now known as the Flynn Effect, named after James Flynn, a psychologist who was among the first to document it. Chart II-8 shows the evolution of IQ scores in a sample of countries between 1940 and 1990. The average country recorded IQ gains of three points per decade over this period, a remarkably large increase over such a relatively short period of time. Explaining The Flynn Effect The Flynn Effect must have been entirely driven by environmental factors since genetic factors – namely the tendency of less-educated people to have more children, and to have them at an earlier age – would have reduced average IQs over the past two hundred years. But how could environmental factors have played the dominant role in light of the strong role of genes discussed above? The answer was proposed by geneticist Richard Lewontin in the 1970s. Lewontin suggested imagining a genetically-diverse sack of seed corn randomly distributed between two large identical fields. One field had fertilizer added to it while the other did not. Genetic variation would explain all of the differences in the height of corn stalks within each field, while environmental factors (the addition of fertilizer) would explain all of the difference in the average height of corn stalks between the two fields. This logic explains why genes can account for the bulk of the variation in IQs within any demographic group, while environmental effects may explain most of the variation across groups, as well as why average scores have changed over time. And what environmental effects are these? The truth is that no one really knows. Plenty of theories have been advanced, but so far there is still little consensus on the matter. Bigger, Healthier Brains It has long been known that learning increases the amount of grey matter in the brain. For example, a recent study showed that the hippocampi of London taxi drivers tend to be larger due to the need for drivers to memorize and navigate complex routes.9 The emergence of modern societies likely kicked off a virtuous circle where the need to solve increasingly complex tasks forced people to hone their learning skills, leading to higher IQs and further technological progress. The introduction of universal primary education amplified this virtuous circle. Better health undoubtedly helped as well. Early childhood diseases reduce IQ by diverting the body’s resources away from mental development towards fighting off infections. There is a strong correlation between measured IQ and disease burden across countries (Chart II-9). A number of studies have documented a strong relationship between the timing of malaria eradication in the U.S. and other parts of the world and subsequent observed gains in childhood IQs.10 Brain size and IQ are positively correlated. Forensic evidence from the U.S. suggests that the average volume of adult human skulls has increased by 7% since the late 1800s, or roughly the size of a tennis ball.11 Part 3: The End Of A 10,000 Year Trend The problem with environmental effects is that they eventually run into diminishing returns. This appears to have happened with the Flynn Effect. In fact, not only does the recent evidence suggest that the Flynn Effect has ended, but the data suggest that IQs are starting to decline. Chart II-10 shows that average math and science test scores fell in the OECD’s Program For International Scholastic Achievement (PISA) between 2009 and 2015, the latest year of the examination. The drop in math and science test scores has been mirrored in falling IQ scores. Flynn observed a decade ago that IQs of British teenagers were slipping.12 Similar results have been documented in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and most recently, Norway. The Norwegian results, published last year, are particularly noteworthy.13 Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg examined three-decades worth of data on IQ tests of Norwegian military conscripts. Military duty has been mandatory for almost all men in Norway since 1814, which means that the study’s authors were able to collect comprehensive data on most Norwegian men and their fathers.  Their paper clearly shows that IQ peaked with the generation born in the mid-1970s and declined by about five points, or one-third of a standard deviation, for the one born in 1990 (Chart II-11). For the first time in recorded history, Norwegian kids today are not scoring as well as their parents. A Mystery What caused the sudden reversal of the Flynn Effect in Norway and most other developed economies? Nobody knows. We can, however, offer three possible theories: New Technologies For much of human history, rising intelligence and technological innovation were complementary processes, meaning that the smartest people were the ones who could best exploit the new technologies that were coming their way. Moreover, as noted above, even those who were less gifted benefited from the mental stimulation that a technologically advanced society provided. It remains to be seen how future technological advances such as generalized AI will affect human intelligence, but recent technological advances seem to have had a dumbing down effect.14 For example, the GPS has obviated the need for people to navigate unfamiliar locations, thus blunting the development of their visuospatial skills. Modern word processors have made spelling skills less important. Having all the information in the world just a click away is a wonderful thing, but it has reduced the need for our brains to retain and codify what we learn. Meanwhile, the constant bombardment of information to which we are subject has made it difficult to concentrate on anything for long. How many youth today can read a report of this length without checking their Facebook feed multiple times? My guess is not many. Diminishing Returns To Education The ability to take young bright minds, who would have otherwise spent their lives doing menial labor, and provide them with an education was probably the greatest tailwind to growth that the 20th century enjoyed. There is undoubtedly still scope to continue this process, but the low-hanging fruits have been picked. Educational attainment has slowed dramatically in most of the world (Chart II-12). Economist James Heckman estimates that U.S. high-school graduation rates, properly measured, peaked over 40 years ago.15 Despite billions of dollars spent, efforts to improve school performance have generally fallen flat. A recent high-level report by the U.S. Department of Education concluded that “The panel did not find any empirical studies that reached the rigor necessary to determine that specific turnaround practices produce significantly better academic outcomes.”16 This gets to a point that most parents already know, which is that when people talk about “bad schools," they are really talking about “bad students.” Deteriorating Health Better health probably contributed to the Flynn Effect. But is it possible to have too much of a good thing? More calories are welcome when people are starving, but today’s calorie-rich, nutrient-poor diets have led to a surge in obesity rates. A clean environment reduces the spread of germs, but it also makes children hypersensitive to foreign substances. Following German reunification, researchers observed that allergies were much more common among West German children than their Eastern peers, presumably because of the West’s more salubrious environment.17 All sorts of weird and concerning physiological changes are occurring. Sperm counts have fallen by nearly 60% since the early 1970s.18 Testosterone levels in young men are dropping. Among girls, the age of first menarche has declined by two years over the past century.19 Are chemical agents in the environment responsible? If they are, what impact are they having on cognitive development? Nobody knows. Reported mental illness is also on the rise. The share of U.S. teenagers with a reported major depressive episode over the prior year surged by over 60% between 2010 and 2017 (Chart II-13). The fraction of young adults that made suicide plans nearly doubled.20 More than 20% of U.S. women over the age of 40 are on antidepressants.21 Five percent of U.S. children are receiving ADHD medication.22 Implications For Economic Growth And Asset Markets So far, the reversal of the Flynn Effect has been largely confined to the developed economies. Test scores are still rising in the developing world, albeit from fairly low levels. For example, two recent studies have documented significant IQ gains in Kenya and Brazil.23 In the poorest countries, opportunities for improving health abound. Even small steps such as fortifying salt with iodine (which costs about five cents per person per year) have been shown to boost IQ by nearly one standard deviation.24 Measures to reduce inbreeding are also likely to boost IQ scores.25 Yet, we should not underestimate the importance of falling cognitive skills in developed economies. Chart II-14 shows that there is a clear positive correlation between student score on math and science and per capita incomes. Most technological innovation still takes place in developed economies. There is an extremely tight relationship between visuospatial IQ and the likelihood of becoming an inventor (Chart II-15). Since IQ is distributed along a bell curve, a 0.1 standard deviation drop in IQs across the entire distribution will result in an 8% decline in the share of people with IQs over 100, a 14% decline in those with IQs over 115, and a 21% decline in those with an IQ over 130 (by convention, each standard deviation on an IQ test is worth 15 points). Falling IQs could result in slower productivity growth, which could further strain fiscal balances. Lower IQs are also associated with decreased future orientation.26 People who live for the moment tend to save less. A decline in savings would push up real rates, leading to less capital accumulation. History suggests that a deceleration in productivity growth and higher real rates will put downward pressure on equity multiples (Chart II-16). Part 4: Generation E For 200 years, the environmentally-driven Flynn Effect disguised the underlying genetically-driven decline in IQs that began not long after the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Flynn has acknowledged this himself, noting at the 2017 International Society For Intelligence Research Conference that “I have no doubt that there has been some deterioration of genetic quality for intelligence since the late Victorian times.”27 Now that the Flynn Effect has reversed, both genes and the environment are working together to reduce cognitive abilities in developed economies. This means that the most important trend in the world – a trend that allowed the human population to increase during the Malthusian era and later allowed output-per-worker to soar following the Industrial Revolution – has broken down. Yet, there may be another twist in the story – one that began just a few months ago: the first members of Generation E were born. E Is For Edited ... Or Eugenics Lulu and Nana will be like most other children, but with one key difference: They will be the first humans ever to have their genomes edited through a procedure know as CRISPR-Cas9. Rogue Chinese scientist He Jiankui deactivated their CCR5 gene, which the HIV virus uses as a gateway into the body. His actions were rightfully condemned around the world for endangering the twins’ health by using a procedure that has not yet been fully vetted in animal studies, let alone in human trials (Lulu and Nana’s father is HIV+ but it is debatable whether the children were at an elevated risk of infection). He Jiankui remains under house arrest at the university where he worked. But whatever his fate, the dam has been broken. For better or for worse, the era of personal eugenics has arrived. The Return Of The Silver Fox It is easier to delete a gene than to add one. It is even more difficult to swap out a large number of genes in a way that achieves a predictable outcome. Thus, the successful manipulation of highly polygenic traits such as intelligence — traits that are linked to hundreds of different genes – may still be decades away.28 Predicting a trait is much simpler than modifying it, however. The cost of sequencing a human genome has fallen by more than 99% since 2001 (Chart II-17). Start-up company Genomic Prediction has already developed a test for fertilized embryos for IVF users that predicts height within a few centimetres and IQ with a correlation of 0.3-to-0.4, roughly as accurate as standardized tests such as the SAT or ACT.29 Other companies are following suit.30 Some will recoil in horror at the prospect of selecting prospective children in this manner. They will argue that such technologies, beyond being simply immoral, will widen social inequality between those who can afford them and those who cannot. Others will counter that screening embryos for certain traits is not that dissimilar to what people already do with prospective romantic partners. They will also point out that mass usage of these technologies will drive down prices to the point that even poor people will be able to access them, thus giving low IQ parents the chance to have high IQ kids. They might also note that such technologies may be the only way to reverse the ongoing accumulation of deleterious mutations within the human germline that has been the unintended by-product of the proliferation of life-saving medicines.31 We will not wade into this thorny debate, other than to note that there will be huge incentives for people to avail themselves of these technologies. The Coming Eugenic Wars And not just individuals either – governments too. While the initial impact of eugenic technologies will be small, the effects will compound over time. Carl Shulman and Nick Bostrom estimate that genetic screening could boost average IQs by up to 65 points in five generations (Table II-2). China has been investing heavily in genetic technologies. As Geoffrey Miller has argued, China’s infatuation with eugenics spans into the modern day.32 Like most other countries, fertility in China is negatively correlated with IQ. Mingrui Wang, John Fuerst, and Jianjun Ren estimate that China is currently losing nearly one-third of a point in generalized intelligence per decade, with the loss having accelerated rapidly between the 1960s and mid-1980s.33 The decline in the genetic component of Chinese IQs is coming at a time when the population itself is about to shrink. According to the UN’s baseline forecast, China will lose 450 million working-age people by the end of the century (Chart II-18). Meanwhile, the country is saddled with debt, the result of an economic model that has, for decades, recycled copious household savings into debt-financed fixed-investment spending in an effort to shore up domestic demand. The authorities may be tempted to tackle all three problems simultaneously by adopting generous pro-natal measures – call it the “at least one-child policy”– which increasingly harnesses emerging eugenic technologies. The resulting baby boom would strengthen domestic demand, thus making the economy less dependent on exports, while ensuring China’s long-term geopolitical viability. The Eugenic Wars are coming, and they will be unlike anything the world has seen before. BOX II-1 The Diffusion Of Bourgeois Values: Culture Or Genes? Higher-income people had more surviving children in the centuries leading up to the Industrial Revolution. Real per capita income was broadly stable during this period. This implies that there must have been downward social mobility, with sons, on average, being less wealthy than their fathers. This downward mobility, in turn, spread the characteristics of higher-income people across the broad swathe of society. What were these characteristics? Cultural values that emphasized thrift, diligence, and literacy were undoubtedly part of what was passed on to future generations. But surprisingly, it also appears that genetic transmission played an important, and perhaps pivotal, role. Models of genetic transmission make very concrete predictions about the correlations in economic status that one would expect to see among relatives. Biological brothers share 50% of their genes, as do fathers and sons. Likewise, first cousins share 25% of their genes, the same as grandfathers and sons. These facts yield two testable predictions: The first is that the correlation coefficient on status measures such as wealth, occupation, and education should be the same for relatives that share the same fraction of genes such as sibling pairs and father-son pairs. Box Chart II-1 shows that this is borne out by the data. The second prediction is that the correlation between status and genetic distance should follow a linear trend so that, for example, the correlation in wealth among brothers is twice that of first cousins and four times that of second cousins. Box Chart II-2 shows that this is also borne out by the data.   Other evidence supports the importance of genes in the transmission of status across generations. The correlation in measures such as wealth, education, and occupation is much higher among identical twins than fraternal twins. Adopted children turn out to be more similar to their biological parents on these measures when they reach adulthood than their adopted parents, even when the children have never met their biological parents. The parent-child correlation also remains the same regardless of family size, suggesting that spreading the same resources over more children may not harm life outcomes to any discernible degree, at least on the measures listed above. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our tactical equity upgrade to overweight last month has still not been confirmed by most of our proprietary indicators. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. is falling fast. It is also eroding for Europe, although it has ticked higher in Japan. 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 have clearly moved funds away from the U.S. equity market and there is no sign yet that this is reversing. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continued to issue a ‘sell’ signal in January. 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. While the RPI is still cautious, value has improved significantly according to BCA’s composite valuation indicator. It is a composite of 11 different valuation measures. This indicator almost reached the fair value line in December. Moreover, our Monetary Indicator has suddenly shifted out of negative territory for stocks, rising to the neutral line in December. Calming words from the Fed has improved the monetary backdrop by removing expected rate hikes from the money market curve. Given the improvement in both value and the monetary backdrop, the RPI could generate a ‘buy’ signal next month. Our Composite Technical indicator for stocks broke down last month, providing a clear ‘sell’ signal, and has not yet delivered a ‘buy’. However, sentiment is now washed out and earnings expectations have been revised heavily downward. These signals are bullish from a contrary perspective.  The 10-year Treasury yield is in the neutral range according to our valuation model. Bonds are not overbought, despite the rally in December, because they were still working off oversold conditions. Contrary to the bond valuation model, the 10-year term premium moved further into negative territory in January, suggesting that yields are unsustainably low. Our bond-bearish bias is consistent with the view that the Fed rate hike cycle is not over. The U.S. dollar is somewhat 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   Footnotes 1       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis," dated October 25, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2       The amount of spread widening required for corporate returns to break-even with duration-matched U.S. Treasuries on a one-year horizon. 3       Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "Five Black Swans In 2019," dated January 16, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4       Xi Song, Cameron Campbell, and James Lee, "Descent Line Growth and Extinction From A Multigenerational Perspective, Extended Abstract," American Sociological Review 80:3, (April 21, 2015): 574-602. 5       Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution," Basic Books, (2009). 6       Mark Grinblatt, Matti Keloharju, and Juhani T. Linnainmaa, “IQ, Trading Behavior, and Performance,” Journal of Financial Economics, 104:2, (May 2012): 339-362. 7       Thomas Bouchard, "Genetic Influence On Human Psychological Traits - A Survey," Current Directions in Psychological Science 13:4, (August 2004): 148-151. 8      The tendency for the genetic contribution to IQ to increase until early adulthood and then to remain at high levels until old age is known as the Wilson Effect. There is no consensus on what causes it, but it probably reflects a number of factors: 1) It may take some children longer than normal to reach full intellectual maturity. Testing their IQs at a young age will result in scores that are lower than those expected based on their parents’ IQs. The opposite is true for children whose IQs increase relatively quickly in young age, but possibly top out earlier; 2) Environmental effects are probably more important in young age when a child’s brain is still quite malleable; 3) Self-reinforcing gene-environment interactions tend to increase with age. Children do not have much control over their environment, but as they get older, they will seek out activities that are more in keeping with their genetic predispositions. For example, a studious child may pursue a career that reinforces their love of learning. 9       "Cache Cab: Taxi Drivers' Brains Grow to Navigate London's Streets," Scientific American, (December 2011). 10       Atheendar Venkataramani, "Early Life Exposure to Malaria and Cognition in Adulthood: Evidence from Mexico," Journal of Health Economics 31:5, (July 2012): 767-780; Hoyt Bleakley, "Health, Human Capital and Development," Annual Review of Economics 2, (March 2010): 283-310; Hoyt Bleakley, "Malaria Eradication in the Americas: A Retrospective Analysis of Childhood Exposure," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2, (April 2010): 1-45. 11       "Anthropologists Find American Heads Are Getting Larger," ScienceDaily, (May 2012). 12       "British Teenagers Have Lower IQs Than Their Counterparts Did 30 Years Ago," The Telegraph, (February 2009). 13     Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Rogeberg, "Flynn Effect And Its Reversal Are Both Environmentally Caused," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115:26, (June 2018): 6674-6678. 14     On the face of it, artificial intelligence would appear to be a substitute for human intelligence. Many applications of AI would undoubtedly have this feature, especially those that allow computers to perform complex mental tasks that humans now must do. However, there are several ways that AI may eventually come to complement human intelligence. First, and most obviously, AI could be used to augment human capabilities either directly by hardwiring it into our brains, or indirectly through the development of drugs or genetic techniques which improve cognition. Second, looking further out, the benefits of highly intelligent AI systems would be limited if humans did not possess the requisite intelligence to understand certain concepts that are currently beyond our mental reach. No matter how well intentioned, trying to explain string theory to a mouse is not going to succeed. There are probably a multitude of ideas that AI could reveal that we simply cannot comprehend at current levels of human intelligence. 15     James Heckman and Paul La Fontaine, "The American High School Graduation Rate: Trends and Levels," The Review of Economics and Statistics 92:2, (May 2010): 244–262. 16     "Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools," The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), (May 2008). 17     E. von Mutius, F.D. Martinez, C. Fritzsch, T. Nicolai, G. Roell, and H. H. Thiemann, "Prevalence Of Asthma And Atopy In Two Areas Of West Germany And East Germany," American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 149:2, (February 1994): 358-64. 18     "Sperm Counts In The West Plunge By 60% In 40 Years As ‘Modern Life’ Damages Men’s Health," Independent, (July 2017). 19     Kaspar Sørensen, Annette Mouritsen, Lise Aksglaede, Casper P. Hagen, Signe Sloth Mogensen, and Anders Juul, "Recent Secular Trends in Pubertal Timing: Implications for Evaluation and Diagnosis of Precocious Puberty," Hormone Research in Paediatrics 77:3, (May 2012): 137-145. 20     “Results from the 2017 National Survey On Drug Use And Health: Detailed Tables,” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Rockville (Maryland), (September, 2018). 21     Laura A. Pratt, Debra J. Brody, and Qiuping Gu, "Antidepressant Use Among Persons Aged 12 and Over: United States, 2011–2014," NCHS Data Brief No. 283, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (August 2017). 22     Some, but not all, of the increase in reported rates of mental illness may be due to more aggressive diagnosis by health practitioners. For example, a recent study revealed that children born in August were 30% more likely to receive an ADHD diagnosis than those born in September, simply because they were less mature compared to other kids in the first few years of elementary school. See: Timothy J. Layton, Michael L. Barnett, Tanner R. Hicks, and Anupam B. Jena, "Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder and Month of School Enrollment," New England Journal of Medicine 379:22, (November 2018): 2122-2130. 23     Tamara C. Daley, Shannon E. Whaley, Marian D. Sigman, Michael P. Espinosa, and Charlotte Neumann, "IQ On The Rise: The Flynn Effect In Rural Kenyan Children," Psychological Science 14:3, (June 2003): 215-9; Jakob Pietschnig and Martin Voracek, "One Century of Global IQ Gains: A Formal Meta-Analysis of the Flynn Effect (1909-2013)," Perspectives on Psychological Science 10:3, (May 2015): 282-306. 24     N. Bleichrodt and M. P. Born, “Meta-Analysis of Research on Iodine and Its Relationship to Cognitive Development,” In: ed. J. B. Stanbury, "The Damaged Brain of Iodine Deficiency," Cognizant Communication Corporation, New York, (1994): 195-200; "Iodine status worldwide: WHO Global Database on Iodine Deficiency," World Health Organization, Geneva, (2004). 25     Mohd Fareed and Mohammad Afzal, "Estimating the Inbreeding Depression on Cognitive Behavior: A Population Based Study of Child Cohort," PLOS ONE 9:12, (October 2015): e109585. 26     H. de Wit, J. D. Flory, A. Acheson, M. McCloskey, and S. B. Manuck, "IQ And Nonplanning Impulsivity Are Independently Associated With Delay Discounting In Middle-Aged Adults," Personality and Individual Differences 42:1, (January 2007): 111-121; W. Mischel and R. Metzner, "Preference For Delayed Reward As A Function Of Age, Intelligence, And Length Of Delay Interval," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64:6, (July 1962): 425-31. 27     James Flynn, “IQ decline and Piaget: Does the rot start at the top?” Lifetime Achievement Award Address, 18th Annual meeting of ISIR, (July 2017). 28     For a good discussion of these issues, please see Richard J. Haier, “The Neuroscience of Intelligence,” Cambridge Fundamentals of Neuroscience in Psychology, (December 2016). 29     "The Future of In-Vitro Fertilization and Gene Editing," Psychology Today, (December 2018). 30     "DNA Tests For IQ Are Coming, But It Might Not Be Smart To Take One," MIT Technology Review, (April 2018). 31     Michael Lynch, "Rate, Molecular Spectrum, And Consequences Of Human Mutation," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:3, (January 2010): 961-968. 32     Geoffrey Miller, "What *Should* We Be Worried About?" Edge, (2013). 33     Mingrui Wang, John Fuerst, and Jianjun Ren, "Evidence Of Dysgenic Fertility In China," Intelligence 57, (April 2016): 15-24. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Our leading indicator for China’s “old economy” remains weak, and the beneficial trade front-running effect that has supported some of China’s macro data over the past year is beginning to wane. Our "earnings recession" model for Chinese investable stocks suggests that a trade deal alone is not enough to prevent a contraction in earnings growth over the coming year. A meaningful rebound in credit relative to GDP would also be required, one that would retrace roughly 50% of the decline that has occurred since late-2017. An overweight cyclical stance (i.e. over a 6-12 month period) towards Chinese stocks versus their global peers remains premature. The equity market is conceptually supported until the beginning of March if trade talks continue to make progress, but will face (potentially severe) headwinds thereafter until credit durably accelerates at some point in the second half of the year. Feature China’s macro data remains at the forefront of investor attention, and December’s updates did not provide market participants with much comfort. Our leading indicator for China’s “old economy” deteriorated anew in December after a shallow three-month rise (Chart 1), driven by a currency-driven retracement in monetary conditions, as well as slowing growth in both M3 and adjusted total social financing (TSF). The flow of adjusted TSF relative to GDP technically ticked higher in December, but only because of a material slowdown in nominal GDP growth from 9.6% in Q3 to 8.1% in Q4 (Chart 2). This decline in nominal GDP means that it has retraced 70% of its rise from 2015 to 2017. Chart 1A Relapse In Our Leading Indicator For China's Old Economy Chart 2A 70% Retracement In Chinese Nominal GDP Growth On the housing front, sales volume growth ticked slightly higher but remains negative (and well below the pace of construction growth), and pledged supplementary lending from the PBOC, a factor that we have identified as a core driver of China’s housing market since 2015,1 decelerated further. Finally, December’s trade data was uniformly negative, with import and export growth decelerating 6-7 percentage points even on a smoothed basis, depending on whether measured in U.S. dollars or local currency. Revisiting The Measurement Of China’s “Old Economy” One notable exception to the weak data was the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index (LKI) itself, which rose from 8.4 in November to 9.3 in December. Our alternative LKI rose to exactly the same level, closing the gap with Bloomberg’s measure that had existed earlier this year (Chart 3). Chart 3Our Coincident Measures Of The Old Economy Are Trending Higher... In fact, the LKI has been providing a different message than our LKI leading indicator for several months, and the apparent uptrend in the series raises the question of whether the Chinese economy is actually strengthening rather than weakening. With high conviction, our answer to this question is no. As we have highlighted in previous reports, our view is that the gap can be explained by the (anomalous and only temporary) positive impact that the trade war has had on economic activity since March last year, as Chinese exporters rushed to front-load the production and shipment of goods to the U.S. in advance of the imposition of tariffs. Panel 1 of Chart 4 makes this point explicitly, by showing the percentile rank of the two most cyclical components of the LKI. From 2010 to early-2018, electricity production and railway freight volume moved closely together, with the former leading the latter somewhat from 2017 to early-2018. While the trade war-driven bounce in electricity production has since rolled off, railway cargo volume remains elevated and is only now rolling over. December’s extremely poor trade data suggests that a material further decline is likely in Q1 of this year. Chart 4...Because Of A (Temporarily) Beneficial Trade War Effect Panel 2 shows that bank lending, the third component of the LKI, has begun to pick up over the past few months. However, this reflects, at least in part, the goal of policymakers to shrink the size of shadow banking in the economy and reorient the provision of credit back to traditional financial institutions (Chart 5). A sustainable rise in bank loan growth that overwhelms a shrinking shadow banking sector will almost certainly show up in our preferred measure of aggregate credit growth (adjusted total social financing), which for now remains in a clear downtrend. From a bigger picture perspective, it is worth revisiting why we focus on the LKI at all. Our use of the index to represent China’s investment-relevant economic activity dates back to a November 2017 Special Report,2 in which we noted that it correlated well with China’s nominal import growth and led the growth in earnings for the MSCI China index ex-technology. Real GDP growth, by contrast, has shown barely any cyclicality over the past four years in the face of large changes in Chinese import growth and the prices of China-related assets (Chart 6). This underscores that aggregate Chinese real GDP is not, by and large, investment-relevant. Chart 5A Stunning Collapse In Shadow Banking Activity Chart 6Chinese Real GDP Growth Is Not Relevant For Investors What can we infer about the trend in China’s old economy if the LKI is combined with other closely correlated measures of investment-relevant economic activity? Panel 1 of Chart 7 answers this question by presenting the standardized LKI alongside standardized nominal import growth and nominal manufacturing output, the measure of Chinese coincident activity preferred by BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service. Panel 2 of the chart shows an equally-weighted average of all three measures alongside our leading indicator for the LKI. We note four key observations from Chart 7: Chart 7China's Investment-Relevant Economic Activity Is Trending Lower Since 2010, the primary trend in the LKI, nominal import growth, and nominal manufacturing output has been the same The modest uptrend in the LKI since early-2018 is not corroborated by imports or manufacturing output Economic activity in China has been stronger over the past year than our leading indicator would have suggested, even after abstracting from the anomalous uptrend in the LKI The gap between our leading indicator and China’s actual economic activity is now beginning to close. These observations support the conclusion that we reached when analyzing the components of the LKI itself: a temporary boost from trade front-running has masked an underlying slowdown over the past year. But this boost has now begun to wane, implying that actual activity will continue to slow in the coming months. Is A Trade Deal Enough To Prevent An Earnings Contraction? While most global investors would acknowledge that China’s domestic economy is slowing, the performance of China-related assets over the past year highlights that the market views the trade war with the U.S. as being at least equally important as slowing Chinese money & credit growth. Chart 8 highlights that our market-based China growth indicator did not break down until the second quarter of 2018, when the threat of tariffs from the Trump administration became a reality. The indicator’s prior resilience was in contrast to a steady deterioration in our LKI leading indicator, which peaked at the beginning of 2017. Chart 8Investors Are Largely Focused On The U.S./China Trade War The surge in the indicator since early-December underscores that investor expectations of a trade deal with the U.S. have materially improved sentiment about China’s growth profile, despite the fact that Chinese money & credit growth have yet to meaningfully improve. Given that our geopolitical strategy team assigns odds as high as 45% of a framework deal emerging by the March 1 deadline,3 how can investors gauge the net impact of an improving external outlook and still-weak domestic demand? Chart 9 illustrates one method of approaching this question, using a model of Chinese investable earnings growth that we introduced in our January 16 Special Report.4 The model is designed to predict the likelihood of a serious investable earnings contraction over the coming 12-months, and includes data on credit, trade, and forward earnings momentum as predictors. The chart shows what would have to happen to the flow of adjusted total social financing as a share of GDP in a trade deal scenario, calibrated in a way that the odds of a major earnings contraction fall to 33% (the highest historical reading of the model that did not correspond to a major earnings decline). Chart 9A Trade Deal Is Not Enough To Avoid An Earnings Recession In China The chart shows that a meaningful rebound in credit flow to GDP would be required, one that would retrace roughly 50% of the decline that has occurred since late-2017. In short, our analysis shows that a trade deal alone is likely not enough to prevent a contraction in Chinese earnings growth over the coming year. Importantly, Chart 10 shows what this would imply for the volume of credit that would need to be created over the coming several months in order for the scenario shown in Chart 9 to come to pass (assuming an 8% growth rate in nominal GDP). The chart highlights that China would need to create approximately RMB 26 trillion in new credit over the coming 12 months (nearly US$ 4 trillion at current exchange rates), which would exceed the prior high set in late-2017 by a non-trivial amount. While this goal looks on its way to being achieved based on a 6-month annualized rate of change (panel 2), this largely reflects a one-month surge in local government bond issuance in September. Over the past 3-months, the annualized pace of credit creation has fallen well below the RMB 26 trillion mark, implying that either traditional credit growth, shadow credit, or local government bond issuance will have to pick up significantly over the coming several months in order for the domestic demand situation to stabilize. We expect this to occur, but it has not occurred yet. Chart 10China Needs To Create 26 Trillion RMB In Credit In 2019 Investment Conclusions The key conclusion of our analysis above is that an overweight cyclical stance (i.e. over a 6-12 month period) towards Chinese stocks versus their global peers remains premature. We noted in our December 5 weekly report that a tactical (0-3 month) overweight was probably warranted due to the prospect of a framework trade deal with the U.S. on March 1, but Chart 9 makes it clear that an improving external demand outlook is not a sufficient basis to expect that Chinese stocks will avoid an earnings recession. In this regard, investors should conceptualize the absence of a significant pickup in the volume of credit as a “gap” in a bridge representing the market support for Chinese stocks over the course of the calendar year (Chart 11). Assuming leaks from the negotiations continue and are consistent with the agreement of a framework deal, the market is conceptually supported until the beginning of March. However, following March 1, a gap in support emerges until credit durably accelerates at some point in the second half of the year. In our view, investors who go long Chinese stocks today with a 6-12 month time horizon are betting not only on the success of trade negotiations, but that this gap will close by the time that a deal is announced. This is a risky gamble given the still-relevant desire of policymakers to avoid another major credit overshoot, and as such our cyclical recommendation remains unchanged: wait. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?”, dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report “Is China Already Isolated?”, dated January 23, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Six Questions About Chinese Stocks”, dated January 16, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights So What? It is too soon to adopt a cyclical overweight position on Chinese equities. Remain overweight only tactically. Why? China is still maintaining a disciplined approach to economic stimulus. The US-China trade talks are making tentative progress, but there is still a 30% chance of tariff rate hikes this year. The House Democrats show that the US’s tougher approach to China is a bipartisan policy consensus. Feature China released preliminary 2018 GDP data on January 21. The annual real growth rate was recorded at 6.6%, a fall from the 6.9% of 2017, although the latter has now been revised down to 6.8% (Chart 1). The big picture in 2018 is the slowest credit growth on record, the slowest retail sales growth since 2003, the weakest manufacturing output since 2014, and a negative export shock due to trade war (Chart 2). Chart 1China’s Slowdown In Perspective Chart 2A Rocky Road For Beijing The immediate question for investors in 2019 is whether the downside risk has become so pressing that President Xi will shift the policy gear from growth stabilization to total reflation. So far the evidence suggests that the policy stance has not changed from last July. Official rhetoric continues to eschew opening the stimulus floodgates. This disciplined approach is clear when examining the most recent reflationary actions: Fiscal Easing: Local governments are allowed to start issuing 1.39 trillion RMB in new bonds from the beginning of the year, rather than waiting until April or May like usual (Chart 3). This will create a substantial new fiscal boost in the first half of the year that could help stabilize the economy in the second half.1 This 1.39 trillion RMB is not the full-year quota (last year’s was 2.18 trillion RMB). If the government had wanted to create a “big bang” effect, it would have announced a very large new quota for the full year all at once – something approaching 3.4 trillion RMB. This is what the year’s total would be if new issuance grew at the average 55% growth rate since 2015 (Chart 4). But so far the government is focusing on “frontloading” rather than “expanding” the amount of new bonds allowed to be issued. The full-year quota is important to watch in March. Anything above 2.9 trillion RMB would mean a looser fiscal stance from last year. Otherwise, fiscal easing is focusing on tax cuts for households, small businesses, and consumers rather than new loans to SOEs as in the past. The new tax cuts in 2019, for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), amount to about 200 billion RMB, according to government statements. This comes on top of a 1.3 trillion RMB tax cut that took effect at the end of last year. Therefore the minimum tax relief in 2019 is 1.5 trillion RMB or 2% of GDP. The impact is positive for consumer demand but unlikely to produce a rapid V-shaped turnaround in the growth rate, as was once the case with huge bursts of new loans to the corporate sector. Finally, depending on monetary policy, increases to fiscal spending will mostly serve to offset weak credit growth and the resulting drag on economic activity. Monetary Easing: The People’s Bank of China is, on balance, injecting liquidity into the system (net negative sterilization). Injections via the medium-term lending facility are also growing (Chart 5). However, the interbank rate had increased recently, so that recent central bank injections are mostly maintaining the easy conditions of H2 2018 (Chart 6). The extraordinary liquidity injections of January are preemptive attempts to ensure ample liquidity ahead of the Lunar New Year, when funds are tight. Chart 5PBoC Remains Supportive Chart 6Interbank Rates Pushed Back Down   Cuts in banks’ required reserve ratios (RRRs) have not yet triggered a clear revival in credit growth. The twelve-month credit impulse has not yet bottomed, even though broad money impulses are positive or moving into positive territory (Chart 7). Shadow financing remains weak. Regulatory tightening is suppressing non-bank lenders while private business sentiment remains troubled (Chart 8). Chart 7No Clear Bottom In Credit Impulse Yet Chart 8Shadow Financing Still Under Pressure​​​​​​​ Once the credit impulse bottoms and turns upward, there will likely be a 6-9 month lag before it lifts overall economic activity. In March at the National People’s Congress session, Premier Li Keqiang is expected to set the official GDP growth target at a range of 6%-6.5% for 2019, lower than 2018’s “around 6.5%.” Several of China’s provinces are downgrading their growth targets for this year (Chart 9). The various stimulus measures are apparently seen as limiting downside risks rather than creating a new upside risk. ​​​​​​​ As a result of the policy easing that is taking place, our Global Investment Strategy expects Chinese growth to stabilize and global growth to recover after H1.2 Bottom Line: The clear implication is that the Xi administration remains disciplined in its use of macroeconomic tools to ease fiscal and monetary conditions. We have not yet seen a “whatever it takes” moment. Nevertheless, the accumulation of easing measures suggests that the economy could stabilize by mid-year. A Sign Of Progress In The Trade Talks The most likely basis for a “whatever it takes” moment is either a sudden and sharp deterioration in the economy despite the various easing measures, or a renewed escalation of the trade war. For the moment we will assume that the economy will respond to stimulus measures, albeit with a lag, which would be conducive to a bottoming in mid-2019. In this case, what is the likelihood that the trade war will escalate again, with President Trump increasing the Section 301 tariffs from their current level of 10% on $200 billion worth of imports? We maintain that the odds of the two sides agreeing to a framework trade deal by the March 1 negotiation deadline are about 45%. We upgraded the odds of a deal in December given the tariff ceasefire reached on December 1. Since then the news flow has generally suggested that the two sides are making progress in the 90-day talks: a US delegation in Beijing went into an extra day of talks, and was attended by Vice Premier Liu He, the top economics adviser of President Xi Jinping. However, given the difficulty of the negotiations – the thorny issues like forced tech transfer – we also give 25% odds to an extension of negotiations, prolonging the tariff ceasefire beyond March 1. This adds up to a 70% chance that tariffs will not increase this year. The remaining 30% is the chance that the trade war escalates again (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities​​​​​​​ The key question going forward: How pragmatic are Donald Trump and Xi Jinping? We have evidence that President Trump is pragmatic. He rapidly shifted his approach to Iran, by issuing the waivers on oil sanctions in November, and to China, by agreeing to the tariff ceasefire. He softened his stance to avoid an oil price shock and equity bear market in Q4 last year. Equity bear markets tend to coincide with recessions (Chart 10). And a recession would dramatically reduce Trump’s chances of reelection in November 2020 (Chart 11). Hence Trump is pushing for a short-term trade deal. He is now reportedly even considering a rollback of some tariffs in return for Chinese concessions.3   Chart 11… And Presidents Lose Reelection Amid Recession What about Xi? We have argued that Xi is somewhat pragmatic – at least, more so than the consensus holds. It is undeniable that Xi is a hardliner who has reasserted his personal control, and Communist Party dominance, to a degree not seen in recent memory. He is also aggressive on foreign policy, unlike his predecessors. These trends are deeply concerning both for China’s governance and for relations with the West. They help to support our view that US-China relations are worsening on a secular basis. Nevertheless, as things currently stand, the weak domestic economy and negative sentiment seem to be encouraging Xi to play for time – which is, after all, the traditional Chinese play in trade tensions with the United States. His administration has offered a handful of concessions – on soybeans, auto tariffs, and goods imports – in order to push the negotiations along. The most important potential concession, however, is the new draft law on foreign investment. This is the one concession so far that addresses the US’s structural demands on technology transfer and intellectual property (the grievances that motivate the tariffs). China has one of the most restrictive environments for foreign investment in the world (Chart 12) and this is one of the US’s chief complaints: both because of the inherent denial of market access and because FDI restrictions are used as leverage to extract technology. The National People’s Congress released a new draft law on December 26, 2018, updating a draft law issued by the Ministry of Commerce in 2015 that was never passed.4 An extraordinary meeting of the Standing Committee occurred in January to speed this draft along. The law would ostensibly: Protect intellectual property rights of foreign firms; Prohibit forced technology transfers – including by replacing earlier laws that required companies to operate as “joint ventures,” often exposing them to forced tech transfer. Grant equal treatment to foreign-invested enterprises within China, compared to state-owned and state-controlled enterprises; Implement a negative investment list so that foreign investors could assume that they are free to invest in areas not explicitly proscribed; Allow foreign firms to raise funds, including through initial public offerings on China’s domestic equity market. This law confirms our view that the 90-day negotiation period is tied to the Trump administration’s emphasis on the implementation of any agreements: in early March, China’s National People’s Congress can enact new laws that will ostensibly address US concerns and thus put its concessions in ink. On paper this law would go some way in assuaging US and other foreign investor concerns. However, without a strong central government commitment to enforce the law, it is doubtful that it would reduce the trade and investment practices in China that offend the United States. After all, China’s methods of tech transfer and IP theft are mostly executive rather than legislative in nature – they stem from positive actions by central and local governments, and state-controlled companies, rather than from gaps or loopholes in the legal framework. Even taking the law at face value, its implementation – which is slated for a period of no fewer than five years – could be a mixed blessing for foreign investors.5 For instance, companies with a small foreign ownership stake will now be qualified as foreign-invested companies, which could bring difficulties if the new law is not implemented fairly or in good faith. Many foreign-invested enterprises would have to restructure their ownership and operations in order to fit into the new foreign investment framework (e.g. variable interest enterprises). While foreign enterprises are supposed to receive equal treatment even in government procurement, it is not clear whether they will in the quasi-government sector. Expropriation of foreign assets may still be justified very broadly. The law could also be used as a substitute for lifting the caps on foreign equity ownership in enterprises and for resolving problems with intellectual property licensing and payment of royalties. Moreover, the law is likely to enshrine a tougher regime for national security risk reviews. The US has tightened scrutiny of Chinese investments through the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) over the past year, and China may wish to toughen its own stance. Ultimately China does not need a law to strike down foreign investments that it believes jeopardize national security, but the law could provide justification for retaliation when the US strikes down Chinese investment on similar grounds. Nevertheless, in general, this law is an example of the kind of concession that is necessary for Trump to save face if he is determined to agree to a short-term framework trade deal to help prevent a bear market. Will the US accept this new law as a substantial concession, worthy of rolling back tariffs? So far the feedback is not encouraging. The chief US negotiator, Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, has reportedly told Senator Chuck Grassley that China has not made any “structural” concessions yet – which suggests that Lighthizer is not impressed by the mere rubber-stamping of a new law.6 Much will depend on the next round of negotiations, dated January 30-31, when Vice Premier Liu He will come to DC for the first time since his humiliation in May last year. At that time he negotiated a deal and the US and China released a joint statement, only to have Trump renege on it three days later. He would not be going back to the US if there were not a substantial commitment on both sides to seek progress. Ultimately Trump, not Lighthizer, will determine whether to pause or roll back the tariff rates. Trump may decide he needs a deal and therefore accept the new law as a sufficient concession. He would still have the possibility of disputing its implementation (or lack thereof) at a later date – for instance, just before the 2020 election. The durability of any framework deal will be measured in the irreversibility of China’s concessions and the extent to which Trump moderates the tariffs. At least some rollback would seem necessary to reciprocate China’s concessions if a framework deal is to be done. The tariffs were imposed in separate tranches with adjustable rates, so Trump can reduce the tariffs in various ways. Bottom Line: There is room for a short-term, tactical trade deal that allows for some tariff rollback, given that China is tentatively making concessions on core US demands. Talks could also be extended, with tariff rates remaining at their current levels. These two possibilities mean that a hike in tariff rates is not the likeliest scenario for most of 2019. However, the new law on foreign investment only tentatively answers what the US is really demanding. We continue to believe that US-China relations are getting worse on a secular basis and that improvements will be tactical (or at best cyclical) in nature. Democrats Are Not Pro-China One of the main reasons for thinking that Xi may offer short-term concessions to get a deal with Trump is also one of the main reasons for thinking that long-term concessions are out of reach: there is an across-the-board policy consensus taking shape in Washington demanding tougher policy on China. We have emphasized that this policy consensus is apparent not only from Trump’s election – as an avowed protectionist and China-basher within the Republican Party – but also from the hardening position of the US defense establishment, and the disillusionment of the corporate lobby, over the past decade (Chart 13). ​​​​​​​ It is also a bipartisan consensus in Congress. For instance, last year, the House draft of the aforementioned FIRRMA Act, tightening foreign investment scrutiny on China, passed by a 398-vote margin in June. The final version passed by a large margin in the House (359-54) and Senate (87-10) in the form of the John S. McCain Defense Authorization Act. The Taiwan Travel Act and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, which offended Beijing, both passed with unanimous consent in the Senate (and voice vote in the House). Now the new Democrat majority in the House is confirming that tougher rules on China are something that everyone can agree on. For example, the new Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Richard Neal (D, MA), has struck a hawkish tone on the 90-day trade talks. He has warned that the US Trade Representative has “an obligation to look beyond the political pressures of the moment and the easy, one-off transactions, and secure real and lasting change to China’s anti-competitive behavior.”7 Furthermore, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D, MD) and Representative Ruben Gallego (D, AZ) have joined with Republicans Tom Cotton (R, AR) and Mike Gallagher (R, WI) to propose legislation that would give “the death penalty” to Chinese tech companies such as Huawei and ZTE if they violate US sanctions laws or export controls.8 This is an extremely aggressive piece of legislation that President Trump will have to contain if he is to keep a deal with President Xi. This bipartisan effort should come as no surprise. The Democrats were the more skeptical party about both global free trade and China in recent decades. This is because they positioned themselves as the defenders of workers, wages, and manufacturing, notably in the Midwestern Rustbelt States. Democrats have also always criticized China’s human rights record, with President Bill Clinton famously calling China’s leaders “the Butchers of Beijing” during the 1992 presidential campaign (Chart 14). In the post-Cold War context, this protectionist strain was subdued as the free market consensus prevailed across the political spectrum. It was President Clinton who negotiated for China to enter the World Trade Organization – despite the opposition of many within his party, including current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – in order to smooth the process of globalization underway. This context began to change after the Great Recession, as the US debt supercycle ended, China emerged as a major competitor, and the Barack Obama administration attempted to develop a Democrat response to new challenges. President Obama supported “Buy America” provisions in the crisis-era stimulus package and engaged in tit-for-tat tariffs with China. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) multilateral trade deal deliberately excluded China, particularly if it could not embrace the liberal reforms, and trade and cyber-security standards, included in the TPP’s provisions. Finally, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initiated the “Pivot to Asia,” an attempt to reduce US military commitments in the Middle East and reposition for a long-term strategic competition with China in the Asia Pacific. The Trump administration has continued the pivot to Asia in all but the TPP. Trump reportedly even considered naming Jim Webb, a Democratic former navy secretary and China hawk, as his new Secretary of Defense, to replace Secretary James Mattis. But the new policy consensus is best encapsulated by Mattis’s interim replacement, Pat Shanahan, who began his job as acting Defense Secretary this month by telling his staff to focus on “China, China, China.”9 Trump is now considering keeping Shanahan for a “long time.” Now, with Democrats coming back into power in the House, it is becoming even clearer that China faces hawkish trade policies from the Left as well as the Right. This has important implications. In the short term, this process suggests that President Xi may be incentivized to offer some concessions to President Trump, who wants to protect the business cycle and position himself as a successful dealmaker before 2020, rather than stonewalling and fueling the rise of the new anti-China consensus. In the long term, however, this process also suggests that Xi is unlikely to offer deep structural concessions, given that either Trump or a new Democratic administration could ultimately reject the terms of the deal. After all, if the stock market avoids a bear market and the economy strengthens, Trump could turn his back on the deal. In particular, the fired-up US economy is likely to widen the deficit, forcing Trump to give an explanation on the campaign trail (Chart 15).10 But if the economy goes into recession, Trump may have no other policy option to rally voters other than aggressive foreign policy – which could mean aggressive trade policy against China. Chart 15Trump Will Have To Explain This In 2020​​​​​​​ Subsequent to 2020, Trump will either have a renewed election mandate to pursue trade war – in which he is less vulnerable to recession timing – or a new Democratic administration will pick up where President Obama left off, with the Pivot to Asia … including the TPP and other multilateral initiatives. It is also entirely likely that the US and China could adhere to a framework trade deal and yet heighten their strategic standoff in other areas. First, the US is making progress in forming a coalition of nations against Huawei’s participation in 5G networks – China’s relations with Canada are deteriorating rapidly and now Germany, a critical swing player, is even considering a ban on Huawei.11 Second, Taiwan and the South China Sea could see more saber-rattling or incidents even as trade tensions stagnate. (North Korean diplomacy, by contrast, is continuing to progress as long as the US-China trade talks are progressing – Trump and Kim Jong Un are set to hold a second summit in late February.) Bottom Line: The “anti-China” turn in US policy is not limited to Trump. Rather, Trump was the catalyst for a new policy consensus that was already emerging in the Obama years. Democrats will likely take a tough stance on China trade, including pressuring Trump if he strikes a deal with Xi Jinping, in order to woo voters in the Midwest. Any future Democratic White House should be expected to continue pressing China on issues ranging from national security to cyber-security to human rights, while likely pursuing a more multilateral diplomatic approach than the current White House. Investment Implications BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy is tactically overweight Chinese equities ex-tech relative to emerging markets. We are closing our short China-exposed US companies relative to the S&P 500 for a gain of 1.7%. Meanwhile China Investment Strategy is tactically overweight Chinese equities relative to the MSCI World index. Tariffs remaining at their current level now appears to be the most likely scenario for this year. Holding all else constant, this scenario is positive for Chinese growth and China-related assets. But beyond a near-term pop for financial markets, we still need to see hard evidence that the accumulation of China’s easing measures will indeed stabilize its domestic economy. This suggests that it is too soon to give the “all clear” sign from a cyclical perspective. On the other hand, a verified failure of the current, substantive US-China attempt to negotiate a truce would have a deeper negative impact on sentiment and trade than the original outbreak of trade war in 2018, as there will no longer be a basis for optimism. The market will have to price an ultimate 25% tariff on $500 billion worth of goods. This will likely cause the CNY-USD exchange rate to plummet (Chart 16). This would, at least at first, send a deflationary impact across emerging markets and the world, causing another negative hit to global trade and hence a flight to quality. Chart 16A Trade War Escalation Will Send The Yuan Reeling​​​​​​​ The PBoC would most likely have to stage a defense of the currency while the State Council, judging by its actions in July 2018, would likely launch a large stimulus package of the sort that it has thus far avoided for fear of credit excesses. This would come at the cost of a still larger debt burden and misallocation of capital – undoing overnight the work that President Xi has put into mitigating these structural imbalances – but it would prevent a precipitous slowdown for the time being. A trade war-induced stimulus would ostensibly help reaccelerate the Chinese economy and global growth, but in our view financial markets would not respond all that happily to such a huge dose of volatility, trade uncertainty, and policy uncertainty at a time when the cycle will be very late anyway. The risk premium would go up sharply, at least for a time, raising the odds of a very sizeable earnings contraction before the economy begins to recover.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting China’s Stimulus,” January 17, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Patient Jay,” January 18, 2019, and “Low Odds Of An FCI Doom Loop,” January 4, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Steve Holland, Tom Brown, and Leslie Adler, “Trump says deal ‘could very well happen’ with China,” Reuters, January 19, 2019, available at af.reuters.com. 4 Please see “Foreign Investment Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft) for comments,” National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, December 26, 2018, available at www.npc.gov.cn. See also “Public Comments Sought on the Foreign Investment Law of the People’s Republic of China,” Ministry of Commerce, January 19, 2015, available at www.troutman.com. 5 Please see Lester Ross, Kenneth Zhou, and Tingting Liu, “China Rolls Out New Draft Foreign Investment Law,” January 10, 2019, available at www.wilmerhale.com. See also Manuel Torres and Diego D’Alma, “China Publishes New Draft Of Foreign Investment Law,” Garrigues, Commentary: Corporate China, January 17, 2019, available at www.garrigues.com. 6 Please see Humeyra Pamuk, “U.S. trade chief saw no progress on key issues in China talks: Senator,” Reuters, January 15, 2019, available at www.reuters.com. 7 Please see James Politi, “Washington’s China hawks fear Trump will yield in trade war,” Financial Times, January 12, 2019, available at www.ft.com. 8 Please see Diane Bartz and Christian Shepherd, “U.S. legislation steps up pressure on Huawei and ZTE, China calls it ‘hysteria,’” Reuters, January 16, 2019, available at ca.reuters.com. Note that Democrats have also joined proposals “to condemn gross human rights violations of ethnic Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang” and to restore Taiwan’s observer status in the World Health Organization in the first month of the congressional session. 9 Please see Robert Burns, “New Pentagon leader Shanahan says he is focusing on China,” Associated Press, January 2, 2019, available at www.pbs.org. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Next U.S. Recession: Waiting For Godot?” dated October 5, 2018, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Elizabeth Schulze, “Huawei could be banned from 5G in Germany,” CNBC, January 18, 2019, available at www.cnbc.com.  

Highlights EM equity and credit outperformance versus the U.S. in the past three months was an aberration in the cyclical and structural downtrend. Hence, the recent outperformance of EM assets provides a good entry point for investors to short EM/China assets against their U.S. counterparts. In our opinion, this strategy will work in the coming months regardless of whether global risk assets rebound or sell off – i.e., they are not dependent on market direction. Feature The fourth quarter of 2018 was marked by a precipitous plunge in global equities, led by the U.S. In the meantime, EM stocks have outperformed the global equity benchmark in the past three months. Will EM and U.S. stocks trade places again, or will EM continue to outperform U.S. and DM equities? By the end of December, global share prices had become extremely oversold, and investor sentiment was downbeat. A trifecta of confidence-boosting developments – the rapprochement between the U.S. and China in trade negotiations, the announcement of more policy stimulus in China and reassurances from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell that monetary policy tightening is not predetermined – have since led to a rebound in global stocks. A key question for asset allocators heading into 2019 is: Will EM continue to outperform the global equity index in this rebound? We do not think so. The odds are considerable that EM will resume its underperformance versus DM in general and the U.S. in particular. The fundamental rationale for staying bearish on EM is that global trade and manufacturing remain on a downward trajectory. Chart I-1 illustrates that EM risk assets sell off when global trade is slowing, especially when the weakness stems from China. Chart I-1EM Selloff Has Been Due To Slowdown In China Chinese policymakers are easing both fiscal and monetary policies, but the impact of their efforts on the economy is yet to be seen. Declining interest rates in China do not constitute a sufficient condition to buy EM risk assets. Importantly, EM stocks often drop when Chinese interest rates are falling, as that reflects a deteriorating growth outlook (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Lower Interest Rates In China Is Not A Reason To Buy EM In short, monetary and fiscal stimulus in China are not yet sufficient to revive the mainland’s business cycle. The latter is critical to the performance of EM risk assets. We will explore China’s fiscal and credit stimulus efforts in much more detail in the coming weeks. Finally, EM equity valuations are no better than those in the U.S. In particular, our EM/U.S. relative stock valuation indicator based on a 20% trimmed mean is currently neutral (Chart I-3). This valuation measure strips out the top and bottom 10% for EM as well as U.S. sub-sectors and computes an equally weighted average of the other 80%. Hence, it eliminates the outliers that for structural or industry specific reasons trade at much lower or higher multiples. Consequently, contrary to the common narrative in the investment industry, EM equities are not cheap versus U.S. ones. Chart I-3EM Equities Are Not Cheaper Than U.S. Ones Given our high conviction on the view that U.S. will outperform EM over the coming several months, we are reiterating a few of our long-standing strategic recommendations/pair trades: Short EM stocks / long the S&P 500; Short EM banks / long U.S. banks; Short EM high-yield corporate credit / long U.S. high-yield corporate credit; Short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders. In all four cases, the recent outperformance of EM assets provides a good entry point for investors who do not yet have these positions. In our opinion, these recommendations will work in the coming months regardless of whether global risk assets rebound or sell off – i.e., they are not dependent on market direction. No Turnaround In Global Trade/Manufacturing Global cyclical equity sectors have plunged significantly and their prices may be recovering/stabilizing due to oversold conditions. Yet there are few signs of improvement in global trade and manufacturing, and no indication of a significant turnaround in financial markets that are most sensitive to global trade and Chinese growth. Our Risk-On-to-Safe-Haven (RSH) currency ratio1 has relapsed again following a failed rebound attempt (Chart I-4, top panel). Interestingly, this ratio seems to be forming a head-and-shoulders pattern, suggesting the next big move could be to the downside. As we have shown in past reports, EM share prices correlate strongly with this indicator, and a major downleg in this indicator would be consistent with a major drop in EM stocks. Chart I-4No Buy Signal For EM From The Global Currency Markets Furthermore, the annual rate of change on this currency ratio leads the EM manufacturing PMI, and it presently foreshadows more downside in the latter (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Korean and Taiwanese exports contracted slightly in December from a year ago. As frontloading from U.S. import tariffs wanes, their exports will shrink further. Chips prices are falling, signaling that the slump of the global tech hardware sector is not yet over (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Chip Prices Are Still Plunging Continued deterioration in global trade and manufacturing is bad news for emerging Asia. The technical profile of Asian stock markets is also poor, raising the odds of a meltdown as cyclical economic conditions in the region deteriorate further. The region’s relative equity performance versus global and Latin American indexes is relapsing, having failed to break above long-term moving averages (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Underweight Emerging Asian Stocks Versus Both World And Latin America Odds are that emerging Asian stocks will drop in absolute terms, underperforming both the EM and global equity benchmarks. This will drag the EM index down further. We continue to recommend the following strategy: long Latin American stocks / short emerging Asian equities. The U.S. manufacturing leading indicator – the ISM manufacturing new orders-to-inventory ratio – remains in a downtrend (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The U.S. Selloff Has Been Partially Due To Manufacturing Slowdown The average of new and backlog orders from the Chinese manufacturing PMI survey has plunged to its previous lows (Chart I-8, top panel). The domestic orders component of the People’s Bank of China’s latest 5000 industrial enterprise survey is also in a free fall (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-8China: No Sign Of Bottom In Industrial Sectors Meanwhile, the impact of Chinese domestic demand on the rest of the world occurs via mainland imports. The leading indicator for imports – the manufacturing PMI import sub-component – has plunged to 46, well below the 50 boom-bust line (see Chart I-1, bottom panel on page 1). Within the investable Chinese equity universe, cyclical sectors exposed to capital spending are making new lows in absolute terms (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). At the same time property stocks are relapsing again (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Chart I-9China: Not Much Rebound In Cyclical Equity Sectors While the authorities are once again boosting infrastructure spending by allowing local governments to issue more special bonds, the mainland’s real estate market has ground to a halt. The latter will likely offset the former. Finally, the MSCI China All Shares index – which incorporates all Chinese stocks trading inside and outside the country – has not rebounded much, despite being oversold (Chart I-10, top panel). Chart I-10China All Share Index: Poor Performance Continues Notably, this index’s relative performance versus both DM and EM equity indexes has failed to break above its 200-day moving average, despite the announced policy stimulus (Chart I-10, middle and bottom panels). These are negative technical signposts that bode ill for the outlook for Chinese share prices. Bottom Line: Odds are high that the global trade/manufacturing or related equity sectors/segments will continue struggling in the months ahead. What About The U.S. Dollar? The trade-weighted U.S. dollar has been going sideways for several months. While lower U.S. interest rate expectations have weighed on the greenback, the global manufacturing slowdown and risk-off sentiment in financial markets have put a floor under its value. The dollar is a countercyclical currency, and it does well when global growth is weakening, and vice versa (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The U.S. Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency It is impossible to know how long this standstill phase in the currency markets will last. What we do know is that when it breaks one way or another, the move will be violent and large. We believe risks to the U.S. currency are to the upside. First, U.S. consumer spending growth remains robust, and the labor market is very tight. Unless the rest of the world plunges into a major growth slump, pulling the U.S. down with it, U.S. interest rate expectations should recover, lifting the dollar. Second, a further downshift in U.S. interest rate expectations will likely occur only if the global economic slowdown is so severe that it leads the market to price in Fed rate cuts. In this scenario, the greenback will rally violently as well. The basis is that the dollar tends to appreciate during global slumps and sell off amid global growth recoveries, as illustrated in Chart I-11. Third, the only scenario where the dollar could plunge is where global trade recovers briskly, driven by growth outside the U.S. in general and in China/EM in particular. This is the least-likely scenario at the current juncture, in our opinion. The trend in the dollar is critical to the relative performance between EM and U.S. stocks. Chart I-12 demonstrates that periods of EM equity underperformance versus the U.S. typically coincide with an appreciation in the trade-weighted greenback, and vice versa. Chart I-12When EM Stocks Outperform The Global Benchmark, U.S. Underperforms And Dollar Weakens And Vice Versa Bottom Line: The next big move in the U.S. dollar will likely be up, not down. Investment Considerations Global equity prices are already reflecting a lot of bad news; they are oversold, and investor sentiment on global growth has become downbeat (Chart I-13). This could create a window for global equities to rebound on a tactical basis. Chart I-13U.S./Global Stocks Are Oversold The majority of our colleagues at BCA believe global equities are primed for a cyclical rally. We within BCA’s EM team agree with the equity rebound narrative but on a tactical basis and believe that any rebound will be led by U.S. stocks – and that EM will lag. We are not convinced that global equities are in a cyclical bull market yet. The main difference between BCA’s house view and the EM team’s outlook is the risks related to China’s economy and their impact on global cyclical equity sectors. The U.S. is relatively unexposed to Chinese growth, EM economies, commodities producers, Japan and Germany. Therefore, U.S. stocks will outperform and the dollar will do well if Chinese growth continues disappointing. Ongoing trade talks between China and the U.S. may bring about some positive results, and the Fed may continue to sound more dovish. However, we contend that the main culprit behind the global equity selloff in 2018 was neither the trade war nor the Fed, but the slowdown in global trade/manufacturing (please refer to Chart 1 and 7 on pages 1 and 6, respectively). On this front, we do not foresee an imminent reversal, as argued above. The latest underperformance of the U.S. has created a good entry point for our relative strategies/trades to be short EM / long U.S. We reiterate the following strategies/trades (Chart I-14): Chart I-14Reiterating Four EM Vs. U.S. Strategies/Trades Short EM stocks / long the S&P 500; Short EM banks / long U.S. banks; Short EM HY corporate credit / long U.S. HY corporate credit; Short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders. Within the EM equity space, we continue to recommend underweighting emerging Asia while overweighting Latin America, Russia and Central Europe. In particular, we are reiterating our long Latin America / short Emerging Asian equities trade initiated on October 11, 2018 (please refer to Chart I-6 on page 5). The complete list of our country equity allocations is presented on page 12. Finally, the path of least resistance for the dollar is up. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies against the dollar: ZAR, IDR, MYR, KRW, COP and CLP. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      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

Highlights Our leading indicator for China’s old economy continues to point to slower growth over the coming months, which is consistent with the bearish message from China’s housing market and forward-looking export indicators. We would caution investors against interpreting the recent relative outperformance of Chinese stocks as a basis to become cyclically bullish, as it has largely reflected a “catchup” selloff in global stocks. We remain tactically overweight, in recognition of the fact that investors may bid up Chinese stocks on positive signs that a trade deal may be in sight. Onshore corporate bond spreads remain wide relative to pre-2017 levels, suggesting that it is too early to expect easier liquidity conditions to significantly improve domestic economic conditions. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, the primary trend for China’s old economy remains down, although measures of freight remain supported by trade front-running activity (which will wane over the coming months). Our Li Keqiang leading indicator continues to suggest that economic activity will slow from current levels, a conclusion that is reinforced by recent developments in the housing market and December’s PMI release. Table 1The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Remains Negative   Table 2Financial Market Performance Summary From an investment strategy perspective, we remain tactically overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the global benchmark in recognition of the fact that investors may bid up Chinese stocks on positive signs that a trade deal may be in sight. However, China’s recent outperformance has been passive in nature (i.e. reflecting declining global stocks), suggesting that Chinese stocks have simply been the winner of an “ugly contest” over the past few months. This is hardly a basis to be cyclically long, and we continue to recommend that investors remain neutral for now. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data below: Bloomberg’s measure of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) fell in November for the third month in a row, although our Alternative LKI has risen due to a pickup in freight transport turnover. We showed in our December 5 Weekly Report that trade front-running has clearly boosted economic activity since Q1 of 2018,1 implying that freight volume growth is set to decelerate in the months ahead. Our Li Keqiang leading indicator ticked lower in December, after having risen non-trivially in the third quarter of 2018 (Chart 1). The December decline was caused by a pullback in the monetary conditions components of the indicator, which in turn was caused by the recent rise in CNY-USD. This echoes a point that we have made in previous reports, that the improvement in our leading indicator last year was not broad-based and that it does not yet herald a positive turning point for China’s old economy. Chart 1The Q3 Rise In Our Leading Indicator Was Not Broad-Based The October housing market slowdown that we highlighted in our November 21 Weekly Report continued into December,2 with floor space started and sold decelerating further (Chart 2). The latter, which typically leads the former, has returned to negative territory which, in conjunction with weaker Pledged Supplementary Lending from the PBOC, does not bode well for housing over the coming few months. House price appreciation remains strong outside of tier 1 cities, but a peak in our price diffusion indexes signals slower price gains are likely over the coming months. Chart 2China's Housing Market Activity Continues To Weaken On the trade front, nominal Chinese US$ import and export growth is now trending lower, confirming the negative signal provided by China’s manufacturing PMIs over the past few months. Notably, the new export orders components of both the official and Caixin PMIs declined in December, despite the tariff ceasefire that emerged during the G20 meeting at the end of November, suggesting that export growth is set to slow further in the first quarter of 2019. In relative US$ terms, Chinese investable stocks rose nearly 10% versus the global benchmark from mid-October until the end of 2018. However, as Chart 3 shows, this outperformance was entirely passive in nature, as Chinese stocks have not been trending higher in absolute terms. Chart 3Recent Equity Outperformance Has Been Passive, Not Active We remain tactically overweight Chinese investable stocks; the Chinese market remains deeply oversold in absolute terms, and signs of a potential trade deal over the coming few weeks may significantly improve global investor sentiment towards the country’s bourse. However, we would caution investors against interpreting the recent relative outperformance as a basis to become cyclically bullish, as it has largely reflected a “catchup” selloff in global stocks. The underperformance of Chinese health care stocks over the past two months has been stunning, with investable health care having fallen nearly 30% in relative terms since mid-November (Chart 4). However, this decline appears to have been caused by a sector-specific event (a massive profit margin squeeze due to a new government generic drug procurement program), and does not seem to imply anything about the outlook for Chinese consumers. Chart 4A Stunning, Idiosyncratic, Collapse In Health Care Stocks Despite the recent collapse in the health care sector, Chinese consumer discretionary (CD) stocks remain the largest losers within the investable universe, having declined over 40% in US$ terms over the past 12 months. The next twelve months may look quite different for CD, especially if China’s efforts to stimulate consumer spending succeed. The recent changes to the global industrial classification system (GICS) mean that Alibaba (China’s largest e-commerce retailer) is now included in the sector with a significant weight, overwhelming the heavy influence that auto producers used to wield. Auto stocks have struggled in the past due to China’s pollution controls, weak auto sales, and pledges to open up the auto sector (which would be negative for the market share of domestic firms). We will be watching over the coming several months for a pickup in retail goods spending combined with a technical breakout in relative performance as a sign to overweight Chinese consumer discretionary stocks relative to the investable index. Chinese interbank rates have fallen substantially over the past month (Chart 5), in response to additional efforts by the PBOC to boost liquidity in the financial system. Whether the additional liquidity (and lower borrowing rates) will feed into materially stronger credit growth remains to be seen, as we have presented evidence in past reports showing that China’s monetary policy transmission mechanism is impaired.2 Chart 5More Liquidity Has Lowered Interbank Rates Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads have creeped modestly higher since early-November, although by a small magnitude. While we remain optimistic that onshore defaults over the coming year will be less intense than many investors believe, onshore corporate bond spreads have been one of the more successful leading indicators of economic growth in China over the past two years, and remain wide by historical standards. This suggests that it is too early to expect easier liquidity conditions to significantly improve domestic economic conditions. While it is too early to call a durable bottom, the gap between CNY-USD and its 200-day moving average is steadily closing (Chart 6). The recent (modest) uptrend has been caused by two factors: 1) cautious optimism about the possibility of a durable trade deal with the U.S., and 2) retreating U.S. interest rate expectations. We would expect further weakness if the trade ceasefire collapses and President Trump moves forward with the previously-announced tariffs, but also a sizeable rally if a deal is negotiated. Chart 6A Tentative, But Noteworthy Improvement   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please 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. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Trade Is Not China's Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations