Equities

Special Report

Highlights So What? Investors should look to European assets for considerable upside. Why? In the Euro Area, investors have constantly overestimated the angst of the median voter towards the currency union. The European Parliament has few real powers, so a fractured European Parliament does not really matter. Europe’s high-beta economy should benefit from a Chinese and global rebound. Stronger European growth will translate into more credit demand and lower non-performing loans, which will boost bank earnings. Go long European banks as a tactical trade, and long European equities versus Chinese equities as a strategic play. We will also consider going long EUR/USD as a strategic play once we get clarity on potential tariffs. Feature Europe’s economy and asset markets continue to underperform in 2019 despite a global policy pivot away from tightening monetary policy and a solid quarter of Chinese credit growth. Investors are broadly unattracted to continental Europe, regularly voicing fears that it is beset by a combination of hazards: from a no-deal Brexit to the ballooning Target 2 imbalances. According to the latest Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey of fund managers, the most crowded trade remains “short European equities” (Chart 1). The doom and gloom are intriguing considering that China is stimulating its economy and will continue to do so as long as trade tensions are elevated. “Higher beta” equities, including Europe and EM, should benefit from this stimulus (Chart 2). Exports, a key growth engine for the currency union, are closely linked to Chinese credit growth (Chart 3). Chart 2Chinese Stimulus Good For "High Beta" Economies Chart 3Europe Will Benefit From Improving Chinese Growth And yet Europe remains unloved. Given that most client questions focus on the political situation – and that many ask about the upcoming May 23 European Parliament (EP) elections – we focus on both in this analysis. First, we review the latest survey data on the collective sentiment towards Europe and integration. Second, we give our insights regarding the upcoming EP elections. Our broad conclusion is simple. If our house view that global growth is about to bottom is correct, and barring a collapse in U.S.-China trade talks, European assets – primarily equities and the euro – should be the top performers this year.   What Does The European Median Voter Want? The Median Voter Theory is a critical concept for investors. At BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, we believe that the median voter – not the policymaker – is the price maker in the political market place. Politicians, especially in democracies, are price takers. They are bound by constraints, of which the preferences of the median voter are the most concrete impediments to action. This concept is simple to understand, but difficult to implement. It is far easier to get lost in rumor intelligence-driven analysis of political consultants and journalists who pass on the cocktail party chatter insights gathered through speaking with policymakers. These insights focus on the preferences of the people in power. But their preferences are secondary to those of the median voter. Trust in the EU remains below 50%, but this is in line with or better than the usual trust most governments achieve. Chart 4Support For The Euro Has Been Trending Upwards In the Euro Area, investors have constantly overestimated the angst of the median voter towards the currency union. This has led many investors to keep their money off the table, or take active short positions, even when it was prudent to remain invested. The prime example is the sentiment towards the common currency itself. Support for the euro hit a low in 2013 but has shot up since then across the continent (Chart 4). Even in Italy, the support for the euro is now at an eight-year high. Many investors have remained blind to this empirical fact. Not only has the support for the currency rebounded, but it has done so by converting doubters. Chart 5 shows that the increased support for the common currency – particularly in Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy – has occurred at the same time as the opposition has fallen. In other words, it is not the “undecideds” that are switching into supporters of the euro, rather it is the opponents who are relenting. Chart 5ASupport For The Common Currency Rising... Chart 5B...As Doubters Convert Chart 6Support For The EU Also On The Rise What of the support for the EU broadly defined? Latest Pew Research polling also shows a strong rebound in support among the public in the largest member states (Chart 6). The last time we published the data – in the summer of 2016 following Brexit – the figures were much lower. Given that for many Europeans the EU is merely another layer of bureaucracy and government, the support level is impressive when put in the international context. Chart 7 shows that the trust in the EU, compared to the trust Europeans have in their own governments, falls somewhere squarely in the middle. When compared to non-European countries, Europeans have considerably more trust in the EU than Americans have in their own government and in line with the sentiment of Japanese towards their own government. In other words, the trust in the EU remains below 50%, but this is in line with or better than the usual trust most governments achieve.   Why has the median voter remained supportive of European institutions despite mixed economic performance? For one, investors – particularly outside continental Europe – continue to overstate how much emphasis Europeans put on “economic prosperity” as a key goal of the integrationist process. Sure, everyone wants a humming economy, but Chart 8 shows that for most large European economies, “peace” and a “stronger say in the world” are more cogent explanations for the EU’s raison d’être than economic performance. Now, a skeptic might argue that this is because the EU has failed to deliver on the promise of prosperity. Nonetheless, the data suggest that Europeans today no longer expect European institutions to focus primarily on economic matters. Geopolitics, particularly security and foreign policy, are not just concerns of the shadowy elites and bureaucrats in Brussels. The median voter is concerned with these matters as well. The one worrying aspect of Chart 8 is that voters in Italy and Spain don’t think the EU means much to them at all. That level of nihilism might be compatible with continued European integration today. However, it also means that both countries, particularly Italy, remain a risk whenever a recession hits. The second reason for the improvement in median voter support of European institutions is that the migration crisis of 2015 – which peaked in October 2015, merely eight months ahead of the fateful referendum in the U.K. – is done and gone (Chart 9). Illegal immigration is an issue of concern, but it has been for over half a century. In fact, every decade has seen a turn against immigration, usually following a recession. It is a recurring problem that will remain a major policy issue for the rest of the century. The path from a “policy problem” to “the end of European integration” is neither direct nor immediate. Third, terrorism has abated as an existential threat to Europe. Chart 10 shows that we have seen the end of the “bull market in terror” in Europe. Unfortunately, the data for that chart only goes to 2017, otherwise it would show an even more jarring collapse in both attacks and casualties. Chart 9The Migration Crisis Is No Longer A Crisis Chart 10The "Bull Market In Terror" Is Over   The chart is also useful in putting the latest bout of terrorism – mainly of the radical Islamic variety – in its proper historical context. Europe has been riven with far left and nationalist terror (often both) since the late 1960s. The number of casualties per year in the 1970s was nearly two times greater than the peak of the recent bout of radical Islamic terror. This is largely the case even excluding the Troubles in Ireland and Northern Ireland. There is simply no evidence that the European median voter is moving towards Euroskepticism. Although it is difficult to make the connection, we would go on to posit that the abating of the migration crisis and bull market in radical Islamic terror has allowed the median voter in Europe to assess whether breaking apart the EU would truly resolve these crises. Elements of European integration, particularly the common labor market and Schengen Agreement – which is part and parcel of the integrationist evolution – definitely make it easier for migrants and terrorists to cross borders. However, the geopolitical forces that breed both are at least partly, if not completely, non-European in origin. As such, it is not clear how individual European countries that lack any hard power would deal with these events on their own. Thus European integration is not a policy born of strength but of weakness. Chart 11 illustrates this concept empirically. It shows the percent of respondents who think their country could better face the future outside the EU. The dotted line represents the pessimistic view. An astounding 87% of Dutch responders, for example, are pessimistic about the country’s future outside the EU. We pick on the Dutch because they have tended to vote for Euroskeptic parties. Similarly, a very high number of Germans, Finns, Swedes, French, and Spaniards are lacking confidence in “national sovereignty.” Only the Italians are flirting with “going it alone,” although even in their case the momentum for sovereignty appears to have stalled, as it has in traditionally Euroskeptic Austria. Chart 11AEuropeans Lack Confidence In National Sovereignty... Chart 11B...And Believe They Are Better Off Sticking Together Many investors approach European integration with an ideological slant. But charts don’t lie. Since we founded BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, we have used Euro Area perseverance as the premier example of how an empirically-driven approach to political analysis can generate alpha. There is simply no evidence that the European median voter is moving towards Euroskepticism. A broad trend has existed since 2013 of rising support for the common currency, the euro. And a mini up-cycle in support for broader European institutions appears to be present since 2016, probably due to the combination of Brexit, an abating migration crisis, and the end of the bull market in terror. Bottom Line: The median voter supports both the euro and broad European integration. This is an empirical fact. But … Euroskeptics Are Winning Seats! Chart 12Anti-Establishment Parties Are Gaining Seats Despite the comfort of our empirical data, the reality is that anti-establishment parties continue to increase their share of parliamentary seats across the continent (Chart 12). In the recent Spanish election, for example, the populist Vox managed to win 10.3% of the vote. Headlines immediately picked up on the extraordinary performance, noting that Euroskeptics have finally established a foothold in Spain. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, the leader of the victorious Socialist Party, has welcomed the characterization as a foil to his program, promising to build a pro-European bloc with other left-leaning parties. Sánchez is playing politics. He understands how broadly European integration is supported in Spain and is trying to paint his opponents – who disagree with him on many issues, but not on Spain’s membership in the EU and EMU – as being on the other side of the median voter’s preferences. In reality, Vox is not a hard Euroskeptic party. It is right wing on immigration, multiculturalism, and the centralization of the Spanish state, but on Europe Vox merely wants less integration from the current, already highly integrated level. Anti-establishment parties are realizing that the median voter does not want to abandon European integration. As such, the right-leaning anti-establishment parties are focusing on anti-immigrant and anti-multicultural policies, while the left-leaning are focusing on anti-austerity politics. But there appears to be an emerging truce on integration. We forecast this transition in our 2016 report titled “After Brexit, N-Exit?” We posited that anti-establishment parties would increasingly focus on anti-immigration policies, while reducing the emphasis on Euroskepticism, in order to remain competitive. We now have a number of examples of this process, from Italy’s Lega to Finland’s the Finns Party. Which brings us to the election at hand: the EP election on May 23. Ironically, the EP election gives Euroskeptics the best chance at winning seats. First, the turnout has been falling for decades (Chart 13) given the dubious relevance of the legislative body (more on that below). Second, Euroskeptic voters tend to be highly motivated during EP elections as they get to vote “against Europe.” Third, ironically, EP elections allow Euroskeptics to build pan-European coalitions with their fellow skeptics. Despite the hype, the latest seat projections give Euroskeptics merely 26% of the seat total in the body, or just under 200 seats in the 750-seat body (Diagram 1). Chart 14 shows that the support for Euroskeptics has actually taken a serious dip following the Brexit referendum, with the overall continent-wide support remaining around 20%. This is broadly the same level at which the support was five years ago, giving Euroskeptic parties no gain in half a decade. Diagram 1Euroskeptics Expected To Hold Only A Quarter Of The Seats All that said, if a fifth of Europe’s electorate is voting for anti-integrationist parties in the midst of the most important European-wide election, that must be a bad sign for Europe. Right? Wrong. The media rarely unpacks the Euroskeptics beyond citing their overall support figures. However, we have gone beyond merely citing the three leading Euroskeptic blocs. Instead, we have separated the individual Members of European Parliament (MEPs) from across the three Euroskeptic blocs into four camps: Eastern European Camp – These are MEPs from EU member states that are former members of the Warsaw Pact or former Republics of the Soviet Union. Hardcore Camp – These are committed Euroskeptics who genuinely want their countries to leave European institutions. The Dutch Party for Freedom wants to see the Netherlands leave both the EU and the EMU. However, parties such as the Swedish Democrats and the Finns Party are more nuanced. Nonetheless, we erred on the side of apocalypse and added them all to the hardcore camp. Classical Camp – These are MEPs who would have fit the Euroskeptic definition back in the 1990s. They generally do not have a problem with the EU, but tend to be skeptical of the EMU and definitely do not want to see any further integration (although some would welcome integration on the military front). Italy’s Lega belongs to this camp, at least since the 2017 election, given the reorientation of the party’s policy away from criticizing the EMU and toward anti-immigrant policies.  On The Way Out Camp – The U.K. MEPs will eventually be forced to exit the EP given the eventual departure of the U.K. from the EU. In this camp, we have thrown all the U.K. MEPs who sit in Euroskeptic groupings, which includes both UKIP MEPs and Conservative Party members – even those who are not actually anti-EU. Diagram 2Almost Three Quarters Of Euroskeptic MEPs Are Bluffing Diagram 2 shows the distribution of the currently 311 Euroskeptic MEPs. The largest portion, by far, are Eastern European MEPs. The second-largest portion are MEPs from the U.K., who are either on their way out or about to become the “lamest ducks” in the history of any legislature. What does this mean? First, that almost three quarters of the Euroskeptic MEPs are essentially bluffing. Eastern European Euroskepticism is a geopolitical oxymoron. Investors should ignore any Euroskeptic rhetoric from Eastern Europe for two reasons. First, many Eastern European economies remain highly dependent on the EU for structural funding (Chart 15). But even that crude measure does not illustrate the benefit of EU membership. If Eastern and Central European countries were to leave the EU, they would lose access to the common market, a huge economic cost given their close integration with the German manufacturing supply chain. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the EU is a critical geopolitical anchor for the former Warsaw Pact member states. As much as the Polish and Hungarian Euroskeptic MEPs like to speak of the “tyranny of Brussels,” they all remember all too clearly the actual tyranny of Moscow. As such, Eastern Europe’s Euroskepticism is a bluff, a rhetorical political tool to blame the ills of poor governance on Brussels for the sake of domestic political gains. It holds no actual threat to European integration or its institutions given that the alternative to Brussels is… Moscow. This is why the three Euroskeptic blocs will find it difficult to cooperate in the future. The Eastern European-heavy European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) are highly skeptical of Russia, as the largest party in the bloc is the Polish Law and Justice (PiS) Party. The PiS is highly critical of Moscow’s foreign policy and is the ruling party of Poland. Its rhetoric is on occasion illiberal and anti-EU, but it has also changed domestic policy when pressured by Brussels. The ECR is expected to be the smallest Euroskeptic party, with 55 MEPs. The genuinely hard-core Euroskeptic bloc is the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF). It is expected to win 58 MEPs and is dominated by genuine, long-time, anti-EU parties such as Marine Le Pen’s National Rally of France (formerly the National Front) and the Dutch Party for Freedom. However, its latest iteration is likely to be dominated by Matteo Salvini’s Lega, which is Italy’s ruling party and has taken a decided turn towards soft Euroskepticism. Finally, the moderately Euroskeptic Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) is expected to win 57 seats. However, its largest bloc are the ruling Italian Five Star Movement (M5S) and an assortment of Euroskeptic British MEPs, including Niger Farage. Italy’s M5S has already toned down its Euroskeptic rhetoric given that it now sits in Rome and runs the EMU’s third-largest economy. Meanwhile, U.K. MEPs will be largely irrelevant, raising the question of whether EFDD should even be classified as Euroskeptic in the next EP. Bottom Line: When all is said and done, the European Parliament election is a much-hyped non-event. By our count, only about 60 out of approximately 190 Euroskeptic MEPs will be actual hard-core Euroskeptics (or, just 8% of the entire EP). The rest are either reformed centrists – the two major Italian parties, Lega and M5S – on their way out – U.K. Euroskeptics – or are just bluffing – all Eastern European MEPs. That said, the EP seat distribution will reflect the polarization and fracturing observed in most national parliaments across of Europe. It is likely that neither the center-left nor the center-right will have enough seats to select the European Commission President. Does Any Of This Even Matter? Does the EP election even matter? To answer this question, we first have to assess whether the European Parliament itself matters. Both the proponents and opponents of the EU overstate the bloc’s supranational institutions: the EP and the Commission. A fractured European Parliament does not really matter ... In fact, the European Parliament has few real powers. The true power in the EU is vested in the European Council. The European Council could be conceived of as an upper chamber of a combined EU legislature, the Senate to the European Parliament’s House of Representatives (to put into U.S. context). It is comprised of the heads of government of EU member states and is therefore elected on the national, not supranational, level. It is, by far, where most power resides in the EU. The Commission, on the other hand, is the EU’s technocratic executive. Its members are not democratically elected, but are chosen by the European Council and approved by both the Council and the EP.1  The EU Commission President is elected according to the Spitzenkandidat system. The party grouping that secures a majority governing coalition in the EP gets to name their leader as the candidate for the European Commission President. This system is not enshrined in EU law, it is merely a convention. In fact, it was designed to try to boost the voting turnout for the EP elections. The idea being that Europe’s voters would turn out to vote if it meant that their votes would ultimately determine who gets to head the European Commission. At the end of the day, the European Council has to approve the Spitzenkandidat. And, according to the letter of the law, the European Council can ultimately even ignore the Spitzenkandidat suggestions of the European Parliament and propose their own head of the European Commission. As such, the fact that Diagram 1 suggests a fractured European Parliament does not really matter. The European Council could, in the end, simply find a consensus candidate and have national governments instruct their MEPs to vote for that candidate in the EP. In fact, the European Parliament has few real powers. It is one of the only legislatures in the world with no actual legislative initiative (i.e., it cannot produce laws!). It gets to hold a ceremonial vote on new EU treaties – the treaties that act as a constitution of the bloc – but cannot veto them. On most important matters – including the EU budget – the Parliament cannot overrule the European Council (the heads of national governments), which means that it cannot subvert the sovereignty of the EU member states. In the political construct that is the EU, it is the upper-chamber that holds all the power (if we are to extend the analogy of the European Council as the “Senate”). Another important thing to remember is that MEPs are rarely unaffiliated. The vast majority are members of national parties on the national level. Few, if any, are actual supranational agents. In fact, most MEPs fall into two categories. They are either young up-and-comers being groomed for a successful career on the national level – the level that actually matters – or they are past-their-expiration-date elders looking for a cushy retirement posting that includes frequent, taxpayer-funded, trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.  Bottom Line: The importance of the EP is vastly overstated by both Europhiles and Euroskeptics. Its role within the EU legislative process has been increasing through treaty evolution and convention. However, the true power in the EU still rests with the national governments and the EP can be sidelined if the European capitals so desire. Furthermore, while the EP is a supranational body with supranational powers, its soul is very much national. This is because most of its MEPs either have an eye on returning to domestic politics or are emeriti of domestic politics looking for one last bout of relevance. Investment Implications Given our sanguine view of European politics, and the BCA House View that global growth should bottom (Chart 16), investors should look to European assets for considerable upside. This is particularly the case if the U.S. and China overcome their cold feet and conclude a trade deal. Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Investment Strategist, has proposed that investors go long European banks as a tactical trade. Peter has pointed out that banks are now trading at distressed valuations (Chart 17).2  Given a Chinese and global rebound, and barring a total relapse into trade war, Europe’s high-beta economy should benefit, leading to higher bond yields in core European markets.This has tended to help European bank stocks in the past (Chart 18). Stronger economic growth will also translate into more credit demand and lower non-performing loans. This will boost bank earnings (Chart 19). Chart 16Growth Is Recovering In The U.S. And China Chart 17European Banks: A Good Value Play Chart 18Euro Area: Higher Bond Yields Bode Well For Bank Stocks Chart 19More Credit, Fatter Bank Earnings In addition, U.S. dollar outperformance is long-in-the-tooth. If global growth is truly bottoming, and assuming a trade deal is done,  then the policy divergence that has favored the greenback should be over (Chart 20). As such, we will consider going long EUR/USD as a strategic play once we get clarity on China tariffs and potential tariffs on U.S. auto imports (the latter risk is rising from 35% to 50% given Trump’s willingness to take risks this year). Chart 20If Trade War Subsides, Dollar May Fall Chart 21A Reversal In Tech Outperformance Supports Long Europe/China Finally, Dhaval Joshi, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, believes that Europe is a clear tactical overweight to China.3 Part of the reason is that the two markets are mirror opposites of each other in terms of sector skews. China is overweight technology and underweight healthcare, while Europe is overweight healthcare and underweight technology. The year-to-date outperformance by global technology stocks relative to healthcare is long in the tooth and ripe for a correction (Chart 21). Given our positive structural assessment of European political risk, we recommend going long European equities and short China as a strategic play.   Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      For the American context, the Commission would be what the various U.S. Departments would look like if they were serving at the pleasure of the U.S. Senate. While the analogy is not perfect, it does capture the fact that the EU’s executive is controlled by the European Council. 2      Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “King Dollar Is Due For A Breather,” dated April 26, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Suffering Market Vertigo,” dated May 2, 2019, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.  

Special Report

Highlights Odds are that the recently improved access to financing will allow property developers to boost construction volumes modestly in the coming months. Yet, the outlook for new credit origination and government tolerance of another credit binge is highly uncertain. For now, the completion of previously launched projects will help construction-adjacent industries in the short run. However, these activities will consume real estate developers’ cash augmenting both their liquidity needs and financial vulnerability. That is a basis to underweight the Chinese real estate sectors within both the Chinese MSCI investable universe and the onshore A-share indexes. Feature The emergent divergence among Chinese property sales, starts and completions constitutes an exceptionally bizarre phenomenon. The gaps between these three indicators are currently unprecedented (Chart I-1). Understanding these divergences is critical to correctly gauging the outlook for the Chinese real estate market. This report aims to assess the growth outlook of these three variables. Odds are that these gaps will narrow going forward. Over the next three to six months, the Chinese property market is likely to be characterized by a contraction in floor space sold, a considerable relapse in floor space starts, and a rebound in floor space completions (Chart I-2). Chart I-1An Unprecedented Divergence… Chart I-2…But A Convergence Looms   In terms of the strength of construction activity in the Chinese property market, the real estate developers’ access to funding has been and remains the key. Over the next three to six months, the Chinese property market is likely to be characterized by a contraction in floor space sold, a considerable relapse in floor space starts, and a rebound in floor space completions. For now, we reckon the improved access to financing in recent months should help property developers to boost construction volumes modestly in the coming months (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Construction Activity Will Modestly Improve In The Coming Few Months That said, the current round of credit stimulus has probably been front-loaded in the first quarter, and property developers’ access to funding will begin to deteriorate again going forward. This will weigh on their ability to raise construction volumes materially. Understanding The Construction Cycle In China Floor space sold, starts and completions generally move in tandem. Specifically, strong sales lead rising starts, which then with a time lag result in increased completions. However, over the past 15 months, the growth rate of property starts has accelerated to over 20%, while sales have mildly contracted and floor space completions have been shrinking dramatically (Chart I-2). The key reason for these divergences has been the considerable financing difficulties facing property developers. Tighter monetary policy and credit beginning in late 2016 severely impaired developers’ ability to raise funds. This made Chinese real estate developers desperate for any source of possible revenue or financing. Launching new projects aggressively last year – i.e., more property starts – allowed real estate developers to pre-sell and get cash at a time when credit was tight.  Property developers were also aiming to conserve cash flow amid tight credit. After investing 25% of the total investment required for a property project (excluding the value of the land), they received a presale permit from the authorities. The permits allowed them to sell housing units in advance. Home-buyers had to pay at least 30% of the total property value at the time they signed the presale contract. This way, developers were able to obtain both deposits and advance payments1 (Chart I-4). This was a welcome addition to scarce financing last year. After this phase, property developers then slowed their investment in construction, installation and equipment purchases – because these would consume precious, limited cash. This depressed construction activity has resulted in a material contraction in floor space completed (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Developers’ Funding Has Improved Due To Deposits & Advanced Payments   Bottom Line: Launching new projects and pre-selling housing units while shrinking construction enabled Chinese real estate developers to stay afloat last year amid tight access to credit. What Does This Mean? There are two important implications related to this unprecedented divergence among property sales, starts and completions. The first is that raising funds via launching property starts along with shrinking completions has resulted in a significant increase in Chinese property developers’ liabilities. This is a form of borrowing money for property developers, and it has been occurring on top of very poor financial health. Specifically, Chinese real estate developers’ debt-to-equity ratio is currently above 4, and continues to surge (Chart I-6). Further, in 2018, 54 out of 131 Chinese property developers had negative free cash flow. This scheme of raising funding via new launches along with postponing building and completions is becoming unsustainable. The divergence between surging property starts and contracting completions suggests that real estate developers have raised funds through selling more uncompleted buildings instead of completed properties (Chart I-7, top panel). Chart I-6Chinese Property Developers Are Very Leveraged Chart I-7A Big Increase In Sales Of Uncompleted Buildings   Specifically, some 87% of total residential floor space sold in the past 12 months has been sold in advance, much higher than the approximate 77% total recorded in the years prior to 2018 (Chart I-7, bottom panel). The second important implication is that property developers’ ability to raise financing will determine the strength of property construction activities in China going forward. Chinese real estate developers are facing massive funding requirements this year. Developers need considerable amounts of funding this year to speed up their construction activities on delayed projects (launched but not completed ones). It generally takes about two years for real estate developers to complete a construction project and deliver the presold properties. Developers had already slowed their construction progress last year. They must accelerate the pace this year to ensure deliveries are made on time. Developers also need to roll over or repay significant amounts of debt coming due in 2019. On the whole, they have issued nearly RMB3.9 trillion of bonds so far, with most in the three- to five-year duration. Chart I-3 on page 2 shows that further improvements in credit flows in the economy will likely lead to ameliorating construction activity. Credit easing has allowed developers to raise funds through bank loans, bond issuances (both domestic and overseas) and other forms of borrowing (Chart I-8). Property developers’ ability to raise financing will determine the strength of property construction activities in China going forward. As a result, real estate investment in construction, installation and equipment purchases have all ameliorated in recent months (Chart I-9). This reflects a true pickup in real estate construction activities since the beginning of this year. Chart I-8Marginal Credit ##br##Easing   However, whether or not this latest improvement develops into full-fledged recovery is contingent on credit flows in the economy in general, and property developers’ access to financing in particular. If the overflow of credit decelerates after the massive binge that took place in the first quarter, it will weigh on construction activity. If the first-quarter credit binge persists, Chinese property developers will likely be able to raise sufficient funds to speed up property completions and roll over their maturing debt this year. In this scenario, construction activity will gather speed, facilitating a recovery in the overall economy.  At the current juncture, it is impossible to make a definite conclusion. The outlook for new credit flows and government tolerance of another credit binge is highly uncertain. On the one hand, the Politburo last month reiterated that China will push forward structural deleveraging and prevent speculation in the property market. Preliminary credit flow numbers for April appear to be very weak, not confirming blockbuster credit in the first quarter. Besides, the banking regulator has renewed pressure on banks to recognize non-performing loans and provision for them.2 This will curb banks’ ability to originate new loans and buy corporate bonds. On the other hand, an escalation of tensions between China and the U.S. and the uncertainty it is instilling in the economy and financial markets could lead the authorities to keep the credit taps open for longer, allowing credit to flow into the broader economy. Bottom Line: Real estate developers are extremely leveraged and lack cash to complete launched projects. Hence, property developers’ ability to raise financing holds the key in terms of the strength of property construction activities in China. Further easing in credit will likely lead to rebounding property completions and rising construction activity, and vice versa. What About Chinese Property Demand? Easy credit may alleviate the financing stress facing Chinese real estate developers and lift construction activity temporarily. However, the most important and sustainable source of funding for real estate developers is property sales. Chart I-10 shows that funding from property sales, including deposits, advance payments and mortgages assumed by property buyers, contributes nearly half of the sources of funds raised in that year. Self-raised funds are the second-largest component of the source of funds, with a share of 34%. One major component of self-raised funds – retained earnings – are also closely related to property sales. The other major component is equity and bond issuance. Bank loans and foreign investment (including direct equity injections, sales of bonds and equity, and borrowing from foreign banks) together account for only about 15%. Even though there has been some credit easing for Chinese real estate developers, the bad news is that property sales are still in a structural downtrend. Chart I-11Slower PSL Injections Will Negatively Impact Property Demand As discussed in our previous reports,3 China’s property market is currently facing structural impediments. Low affordability, slowing rural-to-urban migration, demographic changes, the promotion of the housing rental market and the government’s continuing emphasis on clamping down speculation are together generating strong structural headwinds for property demand in China. Importantly, surging property demand between late 2015 and 2017 was mainly driven by the Chinese central bank’s direct lending to the real estate sector, which is not sustainable. Our calculations indicate that about 20% of floor space sold (in volume terms) in 2017 was due to the Pledged Summary Lending (PSL) facility designed for slum area reconstruction.4 Indeed, the central bank’s PSL injections have already decelerated considerably since last year (Chart I-11). This has resulted in contracting overall property sales. Late last month, the authorities significantly cut their slum-area reconstruction target by more than one-half – from 6.4 million units last year to 2.85 million units this year. This suggests the amount of PSL injections will decline correspondingly (Chart I-12). Besides the diminishing PSL scheme, some other factors are also signaling a dismal outlook for Chinese property demand. A deep and long contraction in property demand in rich provinces indicates demand saturation (Chart I-13). Sales outside eastern provinces track PSL injections very closely, as per Chart I-11, and are facing headwinds. Chinese households are more leveraged than U.S. ones, with the former’s debt-to-disposable income ratio having surpassed that of the latter (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Demand Is Saturated In China’s (Richer) Eastern Provinces Chart I-14China’s Household Debt Burden Is Very Elevated   In addition, mortgage rates in China have not dropped much, despite monetary policy easing in the past 12 months. Recent data shows the average mortgage rate paid by first-time homebuyers has fallen from 5.71% last November to 5.56% this March, a still-high number. With respect to the ability to service mortgage payments, on a 90-square-meter house with a 30% down payment, our calculations show that annual interest costs account for about 27% of average household disposable income levels (Table I-1). Overall, poor affordability for Chinese homebuyers will constrain property demand in the coming years. Finally, the government is quite determined to implement its property tax in a few years. Local governments’ financing needs will become more acute as revenue from land sales decline substantially. China’s property market is on the way to becoming the market dominated by second-hand properties instead of new buildings – similar to many developed countries. Critically, the progress in establishing property tax laws in China seems to be accelerating. There have been more high-level meetings and discussions about the property tax law, and these meetings/discussions are becoming more detailed and concrete. Bottom Line: Chinese housing demand will be in a structural downtrend, weighing on construction activity beyond any near-term rebound. Investment Implications Based on the above findings, we draw the following investment strategy conclusions: It is reasonable to expect a slight pickup in real estate construction activity in China over the next few months. This will be marginally positive for construction-related commodities demand. Consequently, construction-related commodities markets (steel, cement, and glass) may be supported in the near term (Chart I-15). However, over the longer term, we remain fundamentally negative on construction activity within China’s property markets, as property sales will be in a structural downtrend. BCA’s Emerging Market Strategy service recommends equity investors underweight Chinese property developers within the Chinese equity indexes (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Construction-Related Commodities May Marginally Benefit From A Pickup In Activity Chart I-16Underweight Real Estate Stocks Relative To The Domestic And Investable Benchmarks   The completion of previously launched projects will help construction-related industries. Yet, these activities will consume real estate developers’ cash augmenting their liquidity needs and amplifying their financial vulnerability. This is a basis for our recommendation to underweight property stocks, especially following their significant outperformance in the past six months.  Further, property stocks respond to marginal changes in financing conditions rather than housing sales or construction activities. The basis is that they are extremely leveraged, and access to funding is key. In the coming months, if credit conditions tighten at a time when real estate developers must commit cash to complete previously launched projects, their cash flow will deteriorate. This will be reflected in their share prices, which will underperform the Chinese broader onshore and offshore indexes. This is likely to occur regardless of the absolute performance of Chinese stocks. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Chinese real estate developers could also slow the construction activity after completing 50% of a property project, which allows them to receive at least 60% of the presold property value from house buyers. 2      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-06/china-is-said-to-imp… 3      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report “China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?” dated April 6, 2018 and China Investment Strategy Special Report “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?” dated September 13, 2018. 4      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?” dated September 13, 2018. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Feature In lieu of our regular Weekly Report this week, tomorrow we will be publishing a joint Special Report on the Chinese housing market with our Emerging Markets Strategy service, authored by my colleague Ellen JingYuan He. Ellen’s previous housing report was extremely well received,1 and clients should look forward to tomorrow’s update. Chart 1A Full Trade War: Clear Near-Term Risk, But An Uncertain Cyclical Outlook Turning to the financial markets, investors have been squarely focused this week on the sudden escalation in tension between the U.S. and China, caused by President Trump’s renewed threat on May 5 to heighten tariffs on Chinese imports at the end of this week. Specifically, President Trump has claimed that he would increase the current 10% tariff rate on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports to 25%, a move that was originally due on March 1, but was delayed to extend the talks and seek a better agreement. Trump also threatened to raise tariffs on the remaining $325 billion of Chinese imports that are so far untouched. This is the most significant escalation in rhetoric since before the tariff truce agreed on December 1 between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires. The financial market reaction was swift: Chinese A shares fell nearly 6% on Monday, and USD-CNY surged nearly half a percent (Chart 1). Chinese stocks fared better on Tuesday, but may come under pressure again later in the week as China’s trade delegation returns to the U.S. for talks on Thursday & Friday. Despite this week’s volatility, we would not yet recommend any portfolio strategy changes to investors who are positioned in favor of Chinese stocks or China-related assets more generally. First, we still see the combined odds of a deal or a further extension in talks as being as high as 60%, and investors would view an agreement to extend the negotiations in a positive light after this week’s selloff. At a minimum, investors are likely to get a better chance to sell in such a scenario. Second, over that past year we have steadfastly maintained that China’s economy and its earnings cycle are driven by monetary conditions, money, and credit growth, and two of these three drivers are clearly now pointing to improving economic activity over the coming year. Certainly, the imposition of a 25% import tariff on all Chinese goods would represent a new, negative shock to the Chinese economy, but in this scenario Chinese policymakers would also substantially dial up their reflationary response. As such, while the near-term response in the equity market is likely to be very negative if President Trump follows through with his threat, the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month outlook) for Chinese relative equity performance is not yet clear. This is only true in local currency (i.e. hedged) terms, however, as we agree that there is meaningful downside potential for the RMB in a full tariff scenario. So while we are likely to advise investors to wait and assess the likely reflationary response if a 25% “second round” tariff rate is imposed this week before changing their equity stance, we would recommend a long USD-CNY/CNH position in the interim as a hedge against a potentially substantial decline in the RMB. Stay tuned.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?,” published September 13, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com.   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

President Trump’s recent tweet on tariffs opened the floodgates of uncertainty on the U.S. / China trade front and caused a massive spike in volatility and risk premia (policy uncertainty shown inverted, bottom panel) as investors have been extremely complacent, something we have been flagging of late at U.S. Equity Strategy. Likely the near-three percentage point swing in U.S. net export contribution to real GDP growth over the past two quarters emboldened the President to up the ante in the trade negotiations. While cooler heads should prevail and a deal is in the best interest of both countries, this uncertainty surge suggests that, at least from a tactical perspective, some caution is warranted in the SPX.              

Special Report

Highlights Since AQR rebranded its flagship “Risk Parity” mutual fund late last year, many clients have asked about risk parity and its potential impact on financial markets if interest rates rise. The key to a “risk-based” approach is “risk diversification” and the use of leverage. Like any investment tool, it has its advantages and limitations. “Risk parity” portfolios differ greatly, depending on the choice of assets and the portfolio construction method. There are many ways to construct a risk-based portfolio. We highlight three: fixed weights; variable weights with inverse volatility; and variable weights with optimization. Fixed-weight risk-parity portfolios are not “risk diversified” ex post. Variable-weight risk-parity portfolios constructed using inverse volatility do not guarantee equal risk allocations. “Truly risk-diversified” portfolios constructed using our proprietary optimization algorithm have consistently outperformed those constructed with inverse volatility. Our approach not only achieves better risk diversification, but can also be used as an alpha overlay strategy. Risk parity does not always outperform in the long run, but always outperforms in recessions. Rising yields alone do not necessarily hurt risk parity. The worst environment for risk parity is the combination of rising yields and the underperformance of bonds relative to both cash and stocks – because both leverage and interest-rate movements work against risk parity. Worryingly, the past three years have been like this, similar to the 1949-1969 period when risk parity would not have performed. Feature Beautiful Simulation! Ugly Reality? Ray Dalio’s Bridgewater Associates created in the 1990s “The All Weather Investment Strategy,” which is known as the foundation of the “Risk Parity” movement.1, 2 Both back-testing and real-life performance from Bridgewater show that the “All Weather” portfolio did live up to its purpose as a low-beta, long-term portfolio that weathers through different economic cycles.2 The term “Risk Parity,” however, was coined by Edward Qian in 2005, and Qian even went as far as saying that risk parity is a way to the “New Holy Grail In Investing” – i.e. “upside participation and downside protection.”3 Only after the 2008 financial crisis did risk parity gain real traction, because investors were hungry for alternative tactics after traditional asset allocation approaches all failed miserably. Invesco began offering a risk parity strategy mutual fund in June 2009, and AQR launched its risk parity mutual fund in September 2010. According to the IMF, risk parity funds had AUM of US$150 billion to $175 billion at the end of 2017,4 while Bridgewater estimated in 2016 that there were about US$400 billion AUM dedicated to risk parity strategies globally, of which about US$150 billion was managed by external managers – with Bridgewater accounting for about half of the externally managed assets.2  While most risk parity believers dedicate a portion of their assets to risk parity strategies, some investors have gone in full-heartedly. For example, in 2016, Danish pension fund ATP completed its transition to a risk-based multi-factor approach by adopting a “four-factor building-block portfolio approach” that is “…in part inspired by Bridgewater’s All Weather” yet “owes more to the thinking of investment manager AQR and the academic field of ‘financial economics’ more generally.”5 At the end of 2018, ATP’s risk allocation to the four risk factors – interest-rate factor, inflation factor, equity factor and other factors – is shown in Chart 1.6 On the other hand, in September 2014, the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association board decided to fire its outsourced CIO from Houston-based Salient Partners, who had favored leverage-heavy (up to five times) risk-parity investments and had been given the reins of the US$10 billion pension fund.7 In fact, the growing popularity of risk parity has been accompanied by growing criticism, especially when risk-parity funds did not do well. In December 2018, AQR re-branded its flagship risk-parity mutual fund by dropping “Risk Parity” out of its name and tweaking the strategy for more flexibility after having suffered heavy outflows.8 Even though the change in the US$344 million fund did not reflect a shift in AQR’s views on the merits of risk-parity strategies (which accounted for about US$30 billion out of AQR’s US$226 billion in assets), Cliff Asness, the co-founder of AQR, did write a long blog discussing sticking with factor investing in general. “If sticking with them were easy, the threat of them being ‘arbitraged away’ would indeed be much greater, and nobody would take the other side,” he wrote.9 Chart 2Beautiful Simulation, Ugly Reality It is easy to say “stick with it for the long run,” especially when back-tests show robust results from well-respected asset managers and researchers.10,11,12 Our own simulations also show beautiful results even for the recent period not covered by most published papers (Chart 2, top panel).  In reality, however, publicly available information shows that risk parity funds have encountered some unpleasant underperformance since 2013 compared to conventional global 60/40 stock-bond portfolios (Chart 2, bottom three panels). Seven years of underperformance is a tough pill to swallow for any investor; it is little wonder we have received client requests on this subject more frequently of late. In this Special Report, we attempt not to take sides to argue for or against risk parity strategies. Instead, we focus our efforts on sorting through the jungle of confusing ways that risk-parity portfolios are defined and constructed, and highlight three typical ways used by many risk parity managers. We present simulated results using these different methods and our own proprietary optimization algorithm, aiming to answer the following questions often asked by our clients: What is risk parity?  How is a risk parity portfolio constructed? What are the key differences among the various ways of constructing risk parity portfolios? Is it true that risk parity outperforms in the long run? Is it true that risk parity can outperform even if yields rise? How should asset allocators use risk-parity strategies? Risk Parity Basics There is no widely agreed-upon definition of risk parity, nor on how to construct a risk-parity portfolio. However, the “risk-based” allocation principle is the same, while differences among different managers lie largely in the process of portfolio construction, especially when the number of assets in consideration is more than two – because correlation does not matter when there are just two assets in a risk-based allocation approach. The Risk-Parity Principle: According to Bridgewater: “Risk parity is the means of adjusting the expected risks and returns of assets to make them more comparable.”13 If so, then a “better diversified portfolio” can be created by equally weighting those adjusted assets with low or no correlation with one another. This way, a portfolio with a higher Sharpe ratio can be achieved than would otherwise be possible using the conventional capital-based approach. Then, different degrees of leverage can be used to achieve desirable levels of risk and return. In terms of risk, investors need to consider not only the volatility of a portfolio, but also the risk of large portfolio drawdowns due to wrong assumptions. Since one does not know for sure in advance how each asset will perform, Bridgewater characterizes the investment regimes using growth and inflation, identifying which asset classes do well in each regime and allocating 25% weight in each of the four growth-inflation regimes.14 Despite robust back-test results from asset managers and researchers, risk parity funds have not lived up to their promise since 2013. So, one key to risk parity is to diversify across asset classes that behave differently across different economic regimes such that each asset contributes equally to portfolio risk. In general, equities do well in rising growth and falling inflation regimes, nominal bonds do well in deflationary or recessionary regimes, and commodities do well in rising inflation regimes.  While Bridgewater includes corporate and EM credits and inflation-linked bonds in its universe of asset classes, not all risk-parity strategies include the exact same breadth of assets. For example, it can be argued that corporate and EM credits share more of the “equity factor,” since they have a high degree of sensitivity to rising growth as do equities, while inflation-linked bonds are a hybrid of nominal bonds and inflation. The Risk-Parity Portfolio Construction: There are many different ways to construct a risk-based diversified portfolio. The key differences are: 1) how the weights of assets are determined for the unlevered risk-parity portfolio, and 2) how leverage is determined to reach the desired return/risk profile. Based on these two key aspects, there are generally three different ways to construct a risk-parity portfolio, as shown in Table 1. The one represented by Bridgewater is more qualitative, while the other two are more quantitatively defined. Table 1Risk Parity Implementation Summary When there are only two assets, it is easy to show that all three methods produce exactly the same allocations for the basic risk-parity portfolio without leverage. When there are more than two assets, however, the two approaches represented by Bridgewater15 and AQR16,17 are easy to compute, but the optimization approach based on equal contribution to risk (either in the sense of marginal contribution to risk or contribution to total risk18) has high demand in computing power. Also, it is not true that risk-parity does not need return estimates. Return estimates are not needed to determine a basic risk-parity portfolio, but they are needed to determine leverage when the target is a specific return other than volatility. Does Strategic Risk Parity Outperform In The Long Run? The pioneering “All Weather” fund was launched by Bridgewater in 1996, and has been used as a “strategic asset allocation mix” that is rebalanced to keep “constant” asset weights.19 To try to understand the early thinking behind risk parity, we used Bridgewater’s method to simulate a simple two-factor constant-weight risk-parity portfolio using global stocks20 and global bonds21 in two steps: First, we used monthly return data of stocks and bonds from January 1970 to December 1995 to estimate stock volatility (Vs ) and bond volatility (Vb ). The stock and bond weights in the unlevered risk parity portfolio (RP1) are determined as follows: Wb = Vs / (Vs +Vb), and Ws = 1- Wb......................(1) Depending on the required target, leverage will be applied to RP1. The leverage ratio is simply the target volatility (or return) divided by the volatility (or return) of the unlevered risk parity portfolio. Table 2 shows the simulated results with seven different targets, which appear to support the following claims of risk-parity supporters: A risk parity portfolio is better than a 60/40 portfolio because it achieves a higher Sharpe ratio; Equities and bonds contribute equally to total portfolio risk in a risk-parity portfolio, while a 60/40 portfolio risk is dominated by equities (85% in the stated period); With the use of proper leverage, risk parity achieves higher return with the same volatility or the same return with lower volatility. The statistics in Table 2, however, are based on “in sample” data with “perfect foresight.” In reality, no portfolio manager has the luxury of going back in time to implement any portfolio. Table 2Global Stock-Bond Risk Parity Portfolios (In Sample) So, the second step of our simulation is to test how these portfolios would have performed going forward if they were rebalanced monthly to the same weights as those in December 1995. Table 3 shows the simulated ex post results for the “out of sample” period between January 1996 and March 2019. Table 3Global Stock-Bond Risk Parity Portfolios (Out Of Sample) Comparing Table 3 to Table 2, several observations are worth highlighting: It is not true that assets have similar Sharpe ratios over longer time frames. Bonds generated higher returns with significantly lower volatility, resulting in a Sharpe ratio of 1.05 in the 1996-2019 period, compared to 0.28 between 1970 and 1995. The Sharpe ratios of stocks in both periods were similar. It is true that RP1 (no leverage) is a better portfolio than 60/40, with a higher Sharpe ratio, even though both portfolios’ Sharpe ratios increased due to the improvement in bonds. More impressively, RP2 (with the same return as 60/40) not only generated 30 basis points of annual outperformance compared to 60/40, it achieved such outperformance with significantly lower volatility. And RP4 (with the same volatility as stocks), also sharply outperformed stocks in terms of both return and volatility. So, the simulated risk-parity portfolios constructed using data from 1970 to 1995 have done well ex post. Upon closer examination, however, two issues arise: Table 4Risk Contribution* Comparison First, as shown in Table 4, the risk-parity portfolio constructed using information as of 1995 turned out not to be risk parity in the subsequent period – because only 12% of the portfolio risk came from bonds, compared to the intended 50%. Granted, 88% from stocks is still less concentrated than the 60/40 portfolio which had 99% risk from equities in the same period, but the ex post risk-parity performance violates the very foundation of the risk-parity principle: true risk diversification. Second, as shown in Chart 3, even though risk-parity portfolios have outperformed their reference portfolios since 1970, the outperformance has not been consistent, with long periods of under- and over-performance. The only consistent observation is that risk parity outperforms in recessions, which is not surprising given its consistently large overweight in bonds. Chart 3Does Risk Parity Outperform In The Long Run? Also, it seems that most of the outperformance came from the period after bond yields peaked in September 1981. Risk parity did poorly during the period from 1978 to 1982, when bond yields increased sharply, while it performed slightly better than the reference portfolios between 1970 and 1978, when rates increased gradually. In reality, even strategic asset allocators do not keep weights constant for such long periods of time. How do variable-weight risk-parity strategies do in different interest-rate environments? Do Rising Yields Hurt Risk Parity? To assess how risk-parity portfolios constructed based on different weighting schemes behave in different interest-rate environments, the simulations in this section use U.S. stocks22 and government bonds23 – only because of their long history that includes both secular rising and falling rate environments.  Variable weights are determined based on moving volatility with different lookback windows. Statistically, the shorter the window length and the more frequent the return measured, the more volatile the volatility estimate is. AQR uses both 1-year24,25 and 3-year26 monthly moving windows, while S&P Dow Jones Risk Parity Indexes are based on a 5-15 year period of a monthly moving window.27 The worst combination for risk parity is rising yields and the underperformance of bonds relative to both cash and stocks. Worryingly, the past three years have been like this. Our research shows that a 1-year monthly moving window is too short, even though it produces higher total returns than longer windows. Chart 4A and 4B show the simulated results of three different moving windows – 36 months, 180 months and 360 months – for two risk-parity portfolios. RP1 is leveraged to have the same volatility as a monthly rebalanced 60/40 U.S. stock-bond portfolio, and RP2 is leveraged to have the same volatility as U.S. stocks. The weights calculated using formula (1) change monthly, based on the corresponding moving window. The following observations are true concerning the choices of our lookback period: Chart 4AU.S. Risk Parity* Vs. 60/40 Chart 4BU.S. Risk Parity* Vs. Stocks The longer the lookback period, the more stable the asset weightings and leverage ratios, and vice versa (bottom three panels in Charts 4A and 4B). This is not specific for risk parity, though. Any approach using historical mean-variance-correlation estimates share this feature. The leverage ratio spikes more often when the window length gets shorter, which may be too uncomfortable for some investors. RP2 has equity weight consistently over 60%, no matter what lookback period is used (this is also true for fixed-weight risk parity). In comparison, the less-leveraged RP1 only briefly assigns higher than 60% to equities when the lookback period is very short (panel 4 in 4A and 4B). In terms of absolute performance from March 1933 to March 2019, the shorter the window length, the better the overall full-period total return (panel 1 in 4A and 4B). However, this outperformance comes with much higher leverage ratios, which may be too high for the majority of investors (panel 5 in 4A and 4B).  In terms of relative performance versus the corresponding reference portfolio, longer window options have not done well overall. Only the shorter window option produced a marginally better relative performance for the full 86-year period (panel 2 in 4A and 4B). However, there are three stages of relative performance: a secular underperformance period from 1950 to 1970, a secular outperformance window from 2000 to July 2016, and a cyclical under- / over-performance period from 1970 to 1999. For the 36-month window, which has a longer history dating back to 1933, it also has a long period of outperformance from 1933 to 1949, as shown in Chart 5. Chart 5Does A Rising Bond Yield Hurt Risk Parity? Risk parity has a heavy weighting in bonds. It is natural to think that underperformance occurs only when rates rise, and vice versa. As shown in Table 5, however, this is true only for three periods. Risk-parity portfolios outperformed from March 1933 to July 1941, and from January 2000 to July 2016 when rates dropped (Table 5 rows 1 and 6). They underperformed from January 1950 to December 1969 when yields rose (row 3). Table 5What Drives Risk Parity Performance? What is puzzling is how risk parity performed in the following three periods: From August 1941 to December 1949, when rates rose slightly yet risk parity outperformed significantly (row 2); From January 1970 to September 1981, when interest rates rose even more than the previous period from 1949 to 1969, but risk parity did not underperform significantly (row 4); From October 1981 to December 1999, when yields dropped more than 900 basis points, yet risk parity did not outperform at all (row 5). Other than interest rates, what are the other forces driving risk parity performance?  A closer examination of Table 5 reveals that the direction of interest-rate movements alone does not fully explain the performance of risk parity relative to its reference portfolio. It is the reason why rates rise or fall, combined with how assets react to those reasons, that determine how risk parity performs. This makes sense because risk parity not only overweights bonds in general, but uses leverage. The worst combination for risk parity is when interest rates rise such that bonds underperform both cash and stocks, as in the period from January 1950 to December 1969 (Table 5 row 3) – because leverage and interest-rate movements both worked against risk parity. This may not sound very encouraging for risk parity going forward, because the current period from July 2016 to March 2019, albeit very short in length, has so far shared similar characteristics to the period from 1949 to 1969 in terms of annualized excess return of stocks and bonds as well as relative performance between stocks and bonds. Table 5 also shows that during the hyper-inflationary period from 1970 to 1981, both stocks and bonds underperformed cash, which also underperformed inflation. Even though risk-parity portfolios performed in line with their reference portfolios, this period was actually the worst for investors because real returns were negative for all three assets. The key to risk parity is to diversify across asset classes that behave differently across different economic regimes such that each asset contributes equally to portfolio risk. So how does diversification across asset classes and geographic regions impact risk parity performance? How To Achieve True Risk Diversification? Commodities outperformed inflation during the hyper-inflationary period from 1970 to 1981. Intuitively, adding commodities to the asset mix would have been beneficial for that period. How about other periods? To assess the impact, we add commodities28 to our two-factor U.S. risk parity and two-factor global risk-parity portfolios to simulate three-factor risk-parity portfolios with two different lookback periods (36 months and 180 months) and three different volatility targets (10%, 12% and 15%). The weight of each asset for the unlevered risk parity portfolio is calculated using the inverse of the volatility (V) of each asset: Wi = (1/Vi) / ((1/Vs +1/Vb +1/Vc)...................(2) Where i stands for s (stocks), b (bonds) and c (commodities). The volatility of the unlevered risk-parity portfolio (URP) in each window period is then calculated as Vurp and the leverage ratio is calculated as Vtarget / Vurp. Chart 6A and 6B compare how the addition of commodities to the asset universe changes the performance of risk parity. For a longer history of performance, we show the simulations with the 36-month moving window. Chart 6ACommodity Impact On U.S. Risk Parity Chart 6BCommodity Impact On Global Risk Parity Overall the addition of commodities has performed in line with the two-asset risk parity portfolios. However, the three-factor risk parity portfolio did significantly outperform the two-factor portfolio before 1990. After more than a decade of ups and downs, relative performance made a strong rebound during the GFC, only to give up all the gains in the next seven years (Charts 6A and 6B, panel 1), coinciding with a sharp change in commodities-stocks correlations (panel 5). A “truly risk-diversified” portfolio constructed using our proprietary optimization algorithm outperforms consistently a risk-parity portfolio based on inverse of volatility. Chart 7Risk Contributions It is worth noting that diversification across asset classes and geographies is not exclusive to risk parity. It is a well-accepted practice in the asset management industry. Panel 4 in both 6A and 6B show that a 50/40/10 stock-bond-commodity portfolio also outperforms or underperforms a 60/40 equity-bond portfolio in line with the movement of relative asset performance. Risk parity, however, amplifies the upside by using leverage and slightly limits downside risk by allocating risk in a more diversified fashion (Chart 7). Chart 7 shows that a conventional portfolio, despite a 50% weight in equities, is dominated by equity risk, while the risk-parity portfolio has much less concentrated risk allocations.  However, the three assets in the risk-parity portfolio do not have an equal share of risk contribution. Why? Because we constructed the risk-parity portfolio using the inverse of volatility according to formula (2). It assigns a higher weight to a lower volatility asset, but does not guarantee equal allocation of risk. How will a more precisely equal risk allocation improve risk-parity performance? We ran another simulation using the same three global assets and a 180-month moving window. However, asset weights were optimized using a proprietary optimization procedure such that each asset contributed equally to total portfolio risk. Chart 8, shows that the optimized risk-parity portfolios have outperformed those constructed by using formula (2), i.e. inverse volatility. Impressively, the outperformances are consistent through time in terms of both returns and Sharpe Ratios (panels 1 and 2). The optimized risk contributions are equally distributed (panel 4) as intended. By contrast, when the weights were constructed using inverse volatility, each asset's contribution to total risk varied considerably (panel 3). This makes sense because the optimization procedure takes into consideration not only volatility but also correlations between assets. Correlation between stocks and bonds, and correlation between stocks and commodities, have both gone through significant changes over time, especially since 2006 when the directions reversed. (Chart 9, panel 5). Consequently, on an unlevered basis, ex ante volatility of the optimized portfolio has turned lower since 2006, resulting in a higher Sharpe ratio (Chart 9, panels 3 and 4). Chart 8True Risk Diversification Works Better Chart 9Why Does True Risk Diversification Work Better?   Even though the returns of the two unlevered portfolios are similar, the optimized portfolio’s lower volatility permits a higher leverage ratio at any given target portfolio volatility, which in turn drives much better returns of the leveraged portfolios (panels 1 and 2). The bottom line is that a “truly risk-diversified” portfolio constructed using our proprietary optimization algorithm does produce better results than a risk-parity portfolio constructed using less risk-diversified approaches, such as the inverse of volatility. It does require more computing power, but this will become much less an issue with technological advancement. Our finding can also be used as a pure alpha overlay strategy. The implementation, though, is out of the scope of this report. Conclusions The key features of a “risk-based” approach is “risk diversification” and the use of leverage. The risk parity approach is one of many investment tools. Like any other investment tool, it has its advantages and limitations. Because of choices in the universe of assets and also portfolio construction methods, not all “risk parity” portfolios are equal. Investors should apply rigorous due diligence before choosing a risk-parity manager. Based on our simulations, we find: Risk parity outperforms in recessions due to its large allocation to bonds. The direction of interest-rate movements alone does not fully determine how risk parity performs. The worst environment for risk parity is the combination of rising yields and the underperformance of bonds relative to both cash and stocks – because both leverage and interest-rate movements work against risk parity. Worryingly, the past three years have been like this, similar to the 1949-1969 period when risk parity would not have performed. Fixed-weight risk-parity portfolios are not truly risk diversified ex post. An inverse volatility approach generates less concentrated risk allocation, but not necessarily equal risk contribution. Risk-parity portfolios constructed with shorter lookback periods outperform those with longer lookback periods if historical volatility estimates are used. Risk-parity portfolios constructed using our proprietary optimization algorithm that truly allocates risks equally to all assets, consistently outperform those constructed using approximation, such as inverse volatility. This finding not only proves that “true risk diversification” works, it can also be used as an alpha overlay strategy for asset allocators.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Bridgewater Associates, “The All Weather Story” 2      Bridgewater Associates, “Our Thoughts about Risk Parity and All Weather,” Daily Observations, September 16, 2016. 3      Edward E. Qian, “Risk Parity Fundamentals,” CRC Press, 2016. 4      Sergei Antoshin, Fabio Cortes, Will Kerry and Thomas Piontek, “Volatilities Strike Back,” IMF Blog, dated May 3, 2018. 5      Rachel Fixsen, ”ATP: Rebalancing the risk diet,” IPE Magazine, July/August 2016. 6      “Annual Announcement of Financial Statements 2018,” ATP Group. 7      Jeff Macdonald, “Pension board to consider firing CIO,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 18, 2014.   8      Miles Weiss, “AQR Strips ‘Risk Parity’ Name From Mutual Fund After Redemptions,” Bloomberg, December 7, 2018. 9      Cliff Asness, “Liquid Alt Ragnarök?” AQR Alternative Investing, September 7, 2018. 10     Bridgewater Associates, “Our Thoughts about Risk Parity and All Weather,” Daily Observations, September 16, 2016. 11     Edward E. Qian, “Risk Parity Fundamentals,” CRC Press, 2016. 12     Clifford S. Asness, Andrea Frazzini, and Lasse H. Pedersen, “Leverage Aversion and Risk Parity,” Financial Analyst Journal, Jan/Feb 2012. 13    Bridgewater Associates, “Our Thoughts about Risk Parity and All Weather,” Daily Observations, September 16, 2016. 14     Bridgewater Associates, “The All Weather Story” 15     Bridgewater Associates, “The All Weather Story” 16     Clifford S. Asness, Andrea Frazzini, and Lasse H. Pedersen, “Leverage Aversion and Risk Parity,” Financial Analyst Journal, Jan/Feb 2012. 17     Brian Hurst, Bryan Johnson, Yao Hua Ooi, “Understanding Risk Parity,” AQR, Fall 2010. 18     Edward E. Qian, “Risk Parity Fundamentals,” CRC Press, 2016. 19     Bridgewater Associates, “Our Thoughts about Risk Parity and All Weather,” Daily Observations, September 16, 2016. 20       MSCI All Country World Total Return Index in U.S. dollars, unhedged, from December 1987 to now. For back history, we used the MSCI World from December 1969. Prior to December 1969 we used the S&P 500. 21     Bloomberg Barclays (BB) Global Aggregate hedged total return in U.S. dollar from January 1990 to the present. For back history, we used the BB Global Treasury hedged total return in U.S. dollar from January 198, the BB U.S. aggregate total return from January 1976, and the BB U.S. Treasury total return from December 1972. Prior to December 1972 we used our own calculations based on U.S. 10-year government bond yield. 22     MSCI U.S. Total Return Index from December 1969 to the present. Back history was the S&P 500 Total Return Index. 23     Bloomberg Barclays (BB) U.S. Treasury Total Return Index from December 1972. Back history was calculated based on U.S. 10-year government bond yield. 24     Brian Hurst, Bryan Johnson, Yao Hua Ooi, “Understanding Risk Parity,” AQR, Fall 2010. 25     Brian Hurst, Michael, Yao Hua Ooi, “Can Risk Parity Outperform If Yields Rise?,” AQR, July 2013. 26     Clifford S. Asness, Andrea Frazzini, and Lasse H. Pedersen, “Leverage Aversion and Risk Parity,” Financial Analyst Journal, Jan/Feb 2012. 27     https://eu.spindices.com/indices/strategy/sp-risk-parity-index-12-target-volatility-tr 28     GSCI Commodities Total Return Index from December 1969, before which the total return index of the Bloomberg Commodities Index was used.  

The Fed that has adopted an abruptly dovish stance and a recently inverted 10-year/fed funds rate yield curve indicates the market’s expectation that the next Fed move will be a cut, corroborated by elevated probabilities of a cut by December. This has driven a marked increase in client requests on positioning if rates are falling. Accordingly, we have updated our research to answer the question: what sectors perform best when the Fed eases? The results of our analysis of the seven Fed loosening cycles since 1965 are presented in the table below. The sector results are telling: defensives lead the pack in advance of a rate cut as market participants smell trouble and a defensive rotation occurs. The key source of funds in this defensive rotation in advance of a loosening cycle is S&P tech which underperforms early and continues to underperform dramatically through the initial stages of the loosening cycle. While we are not forecasting a cut and BCA’s view remains one of no recession for the coming 12 months, the production of this report may well be early. Nevertheless, its use as a sector positioning/return road map is evergreen; please see Monday’s Special Report for more details. ​​​​​​​

Special Report

Feature Leading indicators of inflation, and hence a hawkish Fed, remain biased to the upside. The S&P 500 is close to all-time highs, the U.S. dollar has been strong this year, and wage growth has been resilient. Almost exactly eight years ago, we published a report examining historical sector performance across the various Fed tightening cycles.1 We now find ourselves on the other side with a Fed that has adopted an abruptly dovish stance and a recently inverted 10-year/fed funds rate yield curve indicating the market’s expectation that the next Fed move will be a cut. Accordingly, we have updated our research to analyze the opposite perspective when rates are falling and answer the question: what sectors perform best when the Fed eases? Such an exercise may seem ill-timed; leading indicators of inflation, and hence a hawkish Fed, remain biased to the upside. The S&P 500 is close to all-time highs, the U.S. dollar has been strong this year, and wage growth has been resilient (Chart 1). Nevertheless, we have been inundated by client requests on this topic and, while we may well be early in its production, its use as a sector positioning/return road map is evergreen and not necessarily to forecast that a Fed cut is nearing. Chart 1Inflation Indicators Still Don’t Point To A Cut The results of our analysis of the seven Fed loosening cycles since 1965 are presented in Table 1. While we highlight the May 1980 iteration as an easing cycle, we have excluded it from our analysis owing to its returns overlap with the March 1981 iteration less than a year later, which offers a cleaner analysis. Table 1Sector Relative Performance And Seven Fed Easing Cycles Still, the sector results are telling: defensives lead the pack in advance of a rate cut as market participants smell trouble and a defensive rotation occurs. Some of the results should be taken with a grain of salt. As shown in Table 1, the broad market delivers significant returns 24 months after an easing cycle begins. However, the last two easing cycles (January 2001 and September 2007) witnessed the S&P returning -37% and -31%, respectively, two years post rate cut. Thus, a rate cut does not signal with certainty a positive two year return. The key source of funds in this defensive rotation in advance of a loosening cycle is S&P tech which underperforms early and continues to underperform dramatically through the initial stages of the loosening cycle. Still, the sector results are telling: defensives lead the pack in advance of a rate cut as market participants smell trouble and a defensive rotation occurs (Chart 2). However, the results are not unambiguous as the rate-sensitive defensive S&P utilities and S&P telecoms indexes both underperform early while S&P consumer staples and S&P health care are the top performers of all sectors prior to, and both one and two years post rate cut (Charts 4 & 5). The key source of funds in this defensive rotation in advance of a loosening cycle is S&P tech which underperforms early and continues to underperform dramatically through the initial stages of the loosening cycle (Chart 3). This is an excellent and consistent leading signal that we are monitoring closely. S&P tech’s deep cyclical peer S&P industrials surprisingly does not show advance warning of a loosening cycle, though persistently underperform once the cycle is underway. Also surprising is S&P energy’s outperformance in the early stages of a lower rate environment. The current implied fed funds probabilities are roughly 50-50 for a rate cut at the Fed’s December 2019 meeting and move increasingly towards a rate cut thereafter. While we are not forecasting a cut and BCA’s view remains one of no recession for the coming 12 months, were a Fed cut to materialize, our barbell portfolio approach will likely be able to absorb the Fed shock. We highlight our overweight recommendation on S&P consumer staples and S&P energy along with our neutral recommendation on S&P health care as sector winners in an easing cycle and our underweight recommendation for S&P consumer discretionary as a sector laggard as rates fall. We further note our neutral recommendation on S&P tech. The reference charts below show individual sector relative performance charts along with the fed funds rate (shaded areas depict the initial Fed rate cut).   Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy ChrisB@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Chart 6 Chart 7 Chart 8 Chart 9 Chart 10 Chart 11 Chart 12 Chart 13 Chart 14 Chart 15   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, “Sector Performance And Fed Tightening Cycles: An Historical Roadmap” dated April 25, 2011, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Feature The U.S.-China trade talks have not yet collapsed but they appear to be reaching a “make it or break it” moment. President Donald Trump renewed his threat of heightening tariffs on Chinese imports on May 5, in the interim between two weeks of shuttle diplomacy in Beijing and next in Washington that have been billed as the final round of negotiations. Chinese officials responded to Trump’s new tariff remarks by threatening to pull out of the talks. The status of the Chinese delegation due in Washington this week is unclear as we go to press. Specifically, President Trump has claimed that he would increase the current 10% tariff rate on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports to 25%, a move that was originally due on March 1, but was delayed to extend the talks and seek a better agreement. Trump also threatened to raise tariffs on the remaining $325 billion of Chinese imports that are so far untouched. This is the most significant escalation in rhetoric since before the tariff truce agreed on December 1 between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires. True, the threat to increase the tariffs is a last-minute pressure tactic tied to the administration’s attempt to make this week “the final week” of the talks. American advisers have said that at the end of these two weeks they would make a recommendation to the president either to sign a deal or walk away. For this reason, it is not certain that Trump will follow through with the increase. However, we consider the threat credible. The costs of trade war are not prohibitive to the U.S. or China considering the strategic interests at stake in their great power competition (Chart 1). And since December 1, we have argued that a relapse into trade war and rising tariffs was a substantial risk at 30% odds; this threat increases those odds. Chart 1The Era Of U.S.-China Detente Is Over Talks have been deteriorating for the past month at least. First, the trade grievances at the root of the trade war with China – namely corporate espionage, hacking, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and the American-allied restrictions on Chinese telecoms firm Huawei – were always going to be extremely difficult to settle. These are apparently weighing on the ability of Washington and Beijing to close an agreement. Second, tensions have recently flared across the entire range of U.S.-China strategic disagreements, including most importantly North Korea and Iran. In late April, the U.S. demanded that China halt all imports of Iranian oil by the end of May in order to avoid secondary sanctions that, in theory, could affect China’s central bank and other banks. Meanwhile North Korea has conducted two minor but provocative weapon tests (including short-range missiles on May 4) since the failed summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un in Hanoi. Washington expects Beijing to keep North Korea in check and involved in diplomacy as part of the broader strategic negotiation. Taiwan and the South China Sea are also simmering due to U.S.-Taiwan diplomacy and arms sales, Chinese military drills, and the U.S. decision to treat China’s “maritime militia” like its navy. Trump’s latest threat reduces the chances of an extension of the talks beyond June to 10%, while raising the odds of a collapse in talks and escalation of trade war to 40%. As a result of these developments, and the dragging on of talks, we put the odds of a trade deal by the end of June at 50% in our April 10 report. Trump’s latest threat reduces the chances of an extension of the talks beyond June to 10%, while raising the odds of a collapse in talks and escalation of trade war to 40% (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities (May 2019) From the Chinese point of view, Trump’s threat makes it harder to clinch a deal. Trump’s use of sweeping, unilateral tariffs on national security grounds has forced China into an awkward position. It is politically and ideologically toxic for Beijing to appear to capitulate to coercion, i.e. nineteenth-century-style tactics of gunboat diplomacy and western imperialism. The tariff truce in Buenos Aires minimized the appearance that China is negotiating under duress, giving Xi Jinping the ability to negotiate and make concessions without losing face. While China is in the weaker position economically, and therefore would prefer a deal, it will batten down the hatches and fight a trade war if forced to do so. The risk of other executive decisions disruptive to markets is going up. The implication for investors is threefold. First, the USD and U.S. equities will continue to outperform global counterparts as trade policy uncertainty shoots back up (Chart 2). The American economy is more insulated from global trade and the dollar is counter-cyclical. But as U.S. equities have rallied and volatility will go up, U.S. equities may simply fall less rapidly than Chinese and others. Chart 2U.S. Will Outperform On Rising Trade Uncertainty Second, our view that China’s economic stimulus will surprise to the upside is reinforced by this development, as Beijing cannot afford to withdraw or pause stimulus when it still faces such a severe external risk to its manufacturing sector and employment (Chart 3). This will counteract the negative impact to global sentiment and manufacturing expected from any additional tariffs, creating more volatility in commodity and emerging market assets. Third, as we recognized in the case of Trump’s renewed “maximum pressure” tactic on Iran, the president is apparently not concerned with minimizing risks to the economy ahead of the 2020 election. His risk appetite remains voracious. Therefore the risk of other executive decisions disruptive to markets is going up. For instance, our 35% chance that Trump will impose Section 232 tariffs on auto and auto part imports, particularly from Europe, is rising toward 50% (Chart 4). Chart 3China Cannot Afford to Withhold Stimulus   Bottom Line: The odds of a re-escalation of the trade war have risen to 40%. American equities should outperform global, while safe-haven assets, such as a portfolio hedge of Swiss bonds and gold, should catch a bid. We are closing out our long copper trade for a loss of 3.58% as well as our long Chinese equities ex-tech trade for a gain of 6.59%. Matt Gertken, Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Feature The U.S.-China trade talks have not yet collapsed but they appear to be reaching a “make it or break it” moment. President Donald Trump renewed his threat of heightening tariffs on Chinese imports on May 5, in the interim between two weeks of shuttle diplomacy in Beijing and next in Washington that have been billed as the final round of negotiations. Chinese officials responded to Trump’s new tariff remarks by threatening to pull out of the talks. The status of the Chinese delegation due in Washington this week is unclear as we go to press. Specifically, President Trump has claimed that he would increase the current 10% tariff rate on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports to 25%, a move that was originally due on March 1, but was delayed to extend the talks and seek a better agreement. Trump also threatened to raise tariffs on the remaining $325 billion of Chinese imports that are so far untouched. This is the most significant escalation in rhetoric since before the tariff truce agreed on December 1 between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires. True, the threat to increase the tariffs is a last-minute pressure tactic tied to the administration’s attempt to make this week “the final week” of the talks. American advisers have said that at the end of these two weeks they would make a recommendation to the president either to sign a deal or walk away. For this reason, it is not certain that Trump will follow through with the increase. However, we consider the threat credible. The costs of trade war are not prohibitive to the U.S. or China considering the strategic interests at stake in their great power competition (Chart 1). And since December 1, we have argued that a relapse into trade war and rising tariffs was a substantial risk at 30% odds; this threat increases those odds. Chart 1The Era Of U.S.-China Detente Is Over Talks have been deteriorating for the past month at least. First, the trade grievances at the root of the trade war with China – namely corporate espionage, hacking, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and the American-allied restrictions on Chinese telecoms firm Huawei – were always going to be extremely difficult to settle. These are apparently weighing on the ability of Washington and Beijing to close an agreement. Second, tensions have recently flared across the entire range of U.S.-China strategic disagreements, including most importantly North Korea and Iran. In late April, the U.S. demanded that China halt all imports of Iranian oil by the end of May in order to avoid secondary sanctions that, in theory, could affect China’s central bank and other banks. Meanwhile North Korea has conducted two minor but provocative weapon tests (including short-range missiles on May 4) since the failed summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un in Hanoi. Washington expects Beijing to keep North Korea in check and involved in diplomacy as part of the broader strategic negotiation. Taiwan and the South China Sea are also simmering due to U.S.-Taiwan diplomacy and arms sales, Chinese military drills, and the U.S. decision to treat China’s “maritime militia” like its navy. Trump’s latest threat reduces the chances of an extension of the talks beyond June to 10%, while raising the odds of a collapse in talks and escalation of trade war to 40%. As a result of these developments, and the dragging on of talks, we put the odds of a trade deal by the end of June at 50% in our April 10 report. Trump’s latest threat reduces the chances of an extension of the talks beyond June to 10%, while raising the odds of a collapse in talks and escalation of trade war to 40% (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities (May 2019) From the Chinese point of view, Trump’s threat makes it harder to clinch a deal. Trump’s use of sweeping, unilateral tariffs on national security grounds has forced China into an awkward position. It is politically and ideologically toxic for Beijing to appear to capitulate to coercion, i.e. nineteenth-century-style tactics of gunboat diplomacy and western imperialism. The tariff truce in Buenos Aires minimized the appearance that China is negotiating under duress, giving Xi Jinping the ability to negotiate and make concessions without losing face. While China is in the weaker position economically, and therefore would prefer a deal, it will batten down the hatches and fight a trade war if forced to do so. The risk of other executive decisions disruptive to markets is going up. The implication for investors is threefold. First, the USD and U.S. equities will continue to outperform global counterparts as trade policy uncertainty shoots back up (Chart 2). The American economy is more insulated from global trade and the dollar is counter-cyclical. But as U.S. equities have rallied and volatility will go up, U.S. equities may simply fall less rapidly than Chinese and others. Chart 2U.S. Will Outperform On Rising Trade Uncertainty Second, our view that China’s economic stimulus will surprise to the upside is reinforced by this development, as Beijing cannot afford to withdraw or pause stimulus when it still faces such a severe external risk to its manufacturing sector and employment (Chart 3). This will counteract the negative impact to global sentiment and manufacturing expected from any additional tariffs, creating more volatility in commodity and emerging market assets. Third, as we recognized in the case of Trump’s renewed “maximum pressure” tactic on Iran, the president is apparently not concerned with minimizing risks to the economy ahead of the 2020 election. His risk appetite remains voracious. Therefore the risk of other executive decisions disruptive to markets is going up. For instance, our 35% chance that Trump will impose Section 232 tariffs on auto and auto part imports, particularly from Europe, is rising toward 50% (Chart 4). Chart 3China Cannot Afford to Withhold Stimulus   Bottom Line: The odds of a re-escalation of the trade war have risen to 40%. American equities should outperform global, while safe-haven assets, such as a portfolio hedge of Swiss bonds and gold, should catch a bid. We are closing out our long copper trade for a loss of 3.58% as well as our long Chinese equities ex-tech trade for a gain of 6.59%. Matt Gertken, Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Indonesian financial assets have benefited from the Federal Reserve’s dovish turn and corresponding fall in U.S. bond yields (Chart I-1, top panel). Moreover, the market is cheering President Joko Widodo’s lead in the presidential vote tally. Yet investors are ignoring the budding weakness in industrial metals prices, which has historically been an important driver of Indonesia’s exchange rate (Chart I-1, middle panel). Going forward, the Indonesian currency, equities and local currency bonds all remain vulnerable: Falling global growth in general and Chinese imports in particular will intensify Indonesia’s exports contraction and worsen the country’s already wide current account deficit. In turn, the latter will induce currency depreciation, which will then lead to higher interbank rates (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Global Growth Matters For Indonesian Markets Chart I-2Falling Current Account Deficit = Higher Local Rates Upward pressure on local interbank rates will cause a slowdown in domestic private loan growth.   The Indonesian central bank – Bank Indonesia (BI) – has been attempting to lower interbank rates, which have been hovering above the central bank's policy rate (Chart I-3). To achieve this, the central bank has substantially increased excess reserves in the banking system (Chart I-4). It has done so by purchasing central bank certificates from commercial banks, conducting foreign exchange swaps and providing repo lending. Chart I-3A Sign Of Liquidity Strains Chart I-4Bank Indonesia Is Injecting Liquidity   Yet by expanding banking system liquidity so aggressively, BI risks renewed currency depreciation. Like any central bank in a country with an open capital account, BI cannot expect to have full control over the exchange rate while simultaneously targeting local interest rates. The Impossibly Trinity dilemma dictates that a central bank needs to choose between controlling the two. Therefore, if BI continues to inject local currency liquidity to cap or bring down interest rates (interbank rates), the resulting excess liquidity could encourage and facilitate speculation against the rupiah. Scratching below the surface, the recent strong outperformance of Indonesian equities has been entirely due to the surge in the country’s bank share prices (Chart I-5, top panel). Remarkably, the performance of Indonesian non-financial as well as small-cap stocks has been especially dismal (Chart I-5, middle and bottom panels). This is an upshot of poor profitability among Indonesia’s non-financial listed companies (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Indonesian Bank Stocks Are The Only Outperformers Chart I-6Falling Non-Financial Corporate Profitability Furthermore, deteriorating financial health of non-financial corporates, especially small companies, will lead to higher NPLs on banks’ books. Notably, Indonesian banks are more heavily exposed to businesses than to households. As NPLs rise anew, Indonesian commercial banks will need to lift their bad-loan provisioning levels, generating a major profit relapse (Chart I-7). Importantly, Indonesian commercial banks have been boosting their profits by reducing NPL provisions since early 2018. Reversing this will materially affect their earnings. Chart I-7Indonesian Bank Share Prices Are Vulnerable Additionally, bank stocks are vulnerable due to falling net interest income margins. Moreover, their share prices are overbought and not cheap. To be clear, we are not negative on Indonesia’s structural outlook. The above-mentioned alarms are more near-to-medium terms issues. Still, foreign ownership of local currency bonds and stocks – at 38% each – are high, and could be a major source of potential outflows if the rupiah depreciates. This would cause Indonesian stocks and local currency bonds to sell off severely. Bottom Line: The global growth slowdown/commodities downturn and the U.S. dollar upturn are not yet over. Consequently, foreign flows into EM will diminish, which will be particularly negative for Indonesian financial markets. We recommend investors continue underweighting Indonesian equities and avoid Indonesian local currency bonds for now. We continue to recommend a short position in the IDR versus USD. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com