Sectors

Overweight After reaching their post-GFC highs in the middle of 2017, the S&P homebuilders index put in a seven-year bottom in October, though has since recovered to roughly the level where we upgraded to overweight.1 The fall came as homebuilder sentiment gave up some of its optimism (second panel), driven largely by higher mortgage rates and the resulting lower affordability (third panel). However, we believe the market priced in faltering homebuilder optimism well before the industry itself. Anecdotally, Toll Brothers (TOL, notably not a member of the S&P homebuilders index but a major homebuilder nonetheless) recently delivered quarterly results where new orders fell for the first time in four years, including a precipitous 39% decline in California, their biggest market, and offered guidance below analyst expectations. This glum news was met by a market that took the stock higher that day. Our inference is that negativity is fully priced in to this index and with the overall housing market index squarely above the 50 boom/bust line (second panel) and earnings growth expectations coming back to reality (bottom panel), the S&P homebuilders index is set to continue its recovery. We reiterate our overweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME - DHI, LEN, PHM.   1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Indurated” dated September 24, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights So What? The tech war will continue to disrupt the trade truce. Why? The U.S. and China have legitimate national security concerns about each other’s tech policies. The 90-day trade talks cannot succeed without some compromises on tech issues. Chinese structural reforms could also reduce U.S. concerns over tech transfer. Feature The fanfare over President Donald Trump’s tariff ceasefire, agreed at the G20 summit on December 1, has already proved short-lived. We know now that on the same day President Trump sat down with Chinese President Xi Jinping to negotiate the truce, Canadian authorities arrested Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei, under a U.S. warrant. Huawei is the world’s biggest telecoms equipment maker, second-biggest smartphone maker, and one of China’s high-tech champions. So far the controversial arrest – which prompted Beijing to make representations to the U.S. ambassador – has not derailed the trade truce. China’s Commerce Ministry has announced that tariffs will be eased and imports of American goods will increase. The CNY-USD has climbed upwards despite a rocky global backdrop in financial markets (Chart 1). Chart 1Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Nevertheless, Meng’s arrest calls attention to our chief reason for skepticism about the ability of the U.S. and China to conclude a substantive trade deal. In essence, “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance. Trade War? Tech War! The historian Paul Kennedy, in his bestselling The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, argued that the history of competition between nations is determined by economic and technologically advanced industrial production.1 Eighteenth-century Britain defeated France; Ulysses S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee; and the U.S., the allies, and Russia defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This thesis helps to explain why China’s recent technological acceleration has provoked a more aggressive reaction from the U.S. than its general economic rise over the past four decades. For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart 2). If it comes to match the U.S.’s ratio then it will overwhelm it in real R&D investment, at least in dollar value. And R&D is just one of many factors showing that China is eroding the U.S.’s global dominance. Chart 2The U.S. Has Some Competition In September, an inter-agency U.S. government task force initiated by President Trump’s Executive Order 13806 sought to assess the strength of the U.S. defense industrial base and resilience of its supply chains.2 The conclusion was that the U.S.’s military-industrial base is suffering from a series of macro headwinds that need to be addressed urgently. The report cited key domestic issues, such as the erosion of the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 3). It argued that the country is rapidly losing the ability to source its defense needs from home, develop human capital for future needs, and surge capabilities in a national emergency. Chart 3Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base However, foreign competition, specifically “Chinese economic aggression,” also holds a central place in the report. The obvious risk is U.S. overreliance on singular Chinese sources for critical inputs, as highlighted during the 2010 rare earth embargo, when Beijing halted exports of these metals to Japan during a flare-up of their maritime-territorial dispute in the East China Sea (Chart 4). Chart 4China’s Rare Earth Supply Chain Leverage The authors’ point is not simply that China’s near-monopoly of rare earths remains a threat to the U.S. supply chain, but that Beijing’s willingness to leverage its advantageous position in the supply chain to coerce its neighbors could be used in other areas. After all, Washington’s reliance on China is rapidly extending to industrial goods that are critical for U.S. defense supply chains, such as munitions for missiles. But Washington’s greatest fear is China’s move into higher-end manufacturing and information technology – and hence the flare-up in tensions over ZTE and Huawei this year. Bottom Line: Technological sophistication and economic output determine which nations rise and which fall over the course of history. While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Semiconductors: The Next Battlefront While the U.S. lacks a national industrial policy, Beijing has made a concerted effort to promote indigenous production and innovation. The obvious example is Beijing’s state-backed ascent to the top of the global solar panel market. More broadly, China’s export growth has been fastest in the categories of goods where the U.S. has the greatest competitive advantage (Chart 5). Again, the U.S. concern is not market share in itself, but China’s ability to compete as an economically advanced “great power.” Chart 5China’s Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share Semiconductors are rapidly becoming the next major battleground, as China is trying to build its domestic industry and the U.S. is considering a new slate of export controls that could constrict the flow of computer chips to China.3 Semiconductors are critical as the building blocks of the next generation of technologies. The semiconductor content of the world’s electronic systems is ever rising. Breakthroughs such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things (IoT) promise to create a huge boost in demand for chips in the coming decades. China’s predicament is that the U.S. and its allies control 95% of the global semiconductor market (Chart 6), and yet China is the world’s largest importer, making up about a third of all imports, and its largest consumer (Chart 7). This is a dangerous vulnerability that China has been working to mitigate. Back in 2014 Beijing launched a $100-$150 billion semiconductor development program and has more or less stuck with it. The Made in China 2025 program projects that China will produce 70% of its demand for integrated circuits by 2030 (Chart 8). Chart 6China’s Chip Makers Are Still Small FryChart 7China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand While China-domiciled chip companies have a long way to go, they are rising rapidly, and China has already become a big player in global semiconductor equipment manufacturing (18% market share to the U.S.’s 11%). Chart 8Made In China 2025 Targets The problem for the U.S. is that semiconductors are one area where China runs a large trade deficit. Indeed, the U.S.’s share of China’s market is somewhat larger than the U.S. share of the global market, suggesting that the U.S. has not yet gotten shut out of the market (Chart 9). Chart 9U.S. Chips Still Have An Edge In China Moreover, 60% of U.S. semi imports from China and 70% of exports are with “related parties,” i.e. U.S. corporate subsidiaries operating in China. The U.S.’s highly competitive semiconductor industry is the most exposed to the imposition of tariffs (Chart 10). This may explain why so many exemptions were granted to the U.S. Trade Representative’s third tariff schedule: out of $37 billion in semi-related Chinese imports to face tariffs, $22.9 billion were given waivers.4 Chart 10Tariffs Are Harmful To U.S. Chip Makers The Barack Obama administration, initially faced with China’s disruptive entrance into this sector, determined that the U.S.’s best response would be to “win the race by running faster.” A council on science and technology warned that the U.S. would have to make extensive investments in STEM education, job retraining, manufacturing upgrades, research and development, international collaboration, and export promotion in order to stay ahead.5 However, these initiatives proved to be either too rhetorical (due to policy priorities and gridlock in Washington) or too slow-in-coming to make a difference in light of China’s rapid state-directed investments under the Xi Jinping administration. The Trump administration has obviously taken a more punitive approach. Trump originally focused on China’s alleged currency manipulation and criticized its large trade surpluses with the United States, but his focus has evolved since taking office. Under the influence of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer – who is now heading up the 90-day talks – Trump’s complaints have given way to a Section 301 investigation into forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and indigenous innovation. This investigation eventually provided the justification for imposing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports. Over this time period, it has become clear that there is considerable consensus across the U.S. government, on both sides of the aisle, to take a more aggressive approach with China that includes tariffs, sanctions, foreign investment reviews, and potentially new export controls. Significantly, the high-tech conflict has escalated separately from the trade war: it operates on a different timeline and according to a different set of interests. For example: The ZTE affair: The Commerce Department’s denial order against telecoms equipment maker ZTE came on April 15, even as the U.S. and China were trying (ultimately failing) to negotiate a trade deal to head off the Section 301 tariffs. CFIUS reforms: The U.S. Congress proceeded throughout the summer on its efforts to modernize the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, culminating in the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The Treasury Department released its implementing rules for the law in October, which will take effect even as trade negotiations get underway. The secretive body’s major actions have always been to block deals with China or related to China (Table 1). Table 1U.S. Foreign Investment Reviews Usually Hit China Chipmaker sanctions: The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Chinese chipmaker Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit despite the November diplomatic “thaw” between the two countries in preparation for the G20 summit.6 This action occurred even as top American and Chinese diplomats and generals engaged in talks intended to simmer down strategic tensions in the South China Sea and elsewhere. New export controls: Despite the 90-day trade talks scheduled through March 1, the U.S. government is currently holding public hearings on whether to expand U.S. export controls to cover a range of emerging technologies. These hearings, to conclude on December 19, are being held pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act signed into law in August along with the CFIUS reform. Most recently, the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, falls into this trend – casting doubt on the viability of the tariff ceasefire and forthcoming trade talks. The incident highlights how the pace, scale, and momentum of the tech conflict are substantial and will be difficult to reverse. Furthermore, the U.S. is building alliances with like-minded Western countries in order to encourage a unified embargo of Huawei, ZTE, and potentially other Chinese tech companies. In particular the U.S. and its allies are trying to block Chinese companies out of their upcoming 5G networks. The U.S. banned Huawei back in 2012, but it fears that allied countries – particularly those that host U.S. military bases – will have their commercial networks compromised by Huawei.7 5G will enable superfast connections that form the basis of the Internet of Things. If Huawei is embedded in 5G networks, it could theoretically gain unprecedented penetration into Western society and industry. Since China’s Communist Party has prioritized the “fusion” of civilian capabilities with military,8 and since the country’s security forces and cyber regulators are authorized to have access to Chinese companies’ critical infrastructures and data at will, American government departments have been soliciting allied embassies not to adopt Huawei as a supplier despite its competitive pricing and customizability. Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have effectively banned Huawei from 5G for their own reasons; the U.K. and others are considering doing the same. The expansion of this coalition creates a difficult backdrop for negotiating a final trade deal by March 1. And yet the G20 ceasefire clearly improved the odds of such a deal. So what will break first, the tech war or the trade ceasefire? Bottom Line: The tech war is intensifying even as the trade war takes a pause. The large-scale U.S. mobilization of a coalition of states opposed to China’s growing presence is a bad sign for the 90-day talks, though so far they are intact. What A Deal Might Look Like To get a sense of whether the tech war will upend the trade talks, or vice versa, we need to consider what a final trade deal that includes the U.S.’s technological demands would look like. It is significant that on November 20, the eve of the G20 summit, U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer released a report updating the findings of his Section 301 investigation.9 Lighthizer’s position matters because he is leading the 90-day talks and a critical swing player within the administration.3 Lighthizer’s report is essentially the guideline for the U.S. position in the 90-day talks. It makes the following key claims: China has not altered its abusive and discriminatory trade practices since the Section 301 investigation was concluded. These practices include grave accusations of cyber-theft and industrial espionage. The report also argues that China’s state-driven campaign to acquire tech through mergers and acquisitions is ongoing, despite the drop in Chinese mergers and acquisitions in the United States over 2017-18 (Chart 11). The reason, the USTR alleges, is that China tightened controls on investment in real estate and other non-strategic sectors (essentially capital flight from China), whereas Chinese investment to acquire sensitive technology in Silicon Valley is still intense and is being carried out increasingly through venture capital deals (Chart 12). Chart 11M&A No Longer China’s Best Way To Get Tech...Chart 12...Now Venture Capital Deals Offer A Better Way China’s concessions so far are “incremental” and in some cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program, as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies, but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 13). Other concessions, such as on foreign investment equity caps, are similarly unsatisfactory thus far, according to the USTR. For instance, China’s pledge gradually to allow foreigners to operate wholly owned foreign ventures in the auto sector is said to arrive too late to benefit foreign car manufacturers, who have already spent decades building relationships under required joint ventures. Chart 13The Opposite Of U.S.-China Compromise Trade partners share the U.S.’s concerns and are taking actions to address the same problems. In addition to the aforementioned actions on the 5G, the EU is developing foreign investment review procedures for the first time. Foreign industry groups share the U.S. business lobby’s fear of China’s forced tech transfers. Ultimately, Lighthizer’s report shows both that a trade deal is possible and that it will be extremely difficult to achieve: Possible, because while the report touches on deep structural factors underlying China’s practices, it emphasizes technical issues. Since these issues can often be adjusted by degree, there is ostensibly room to bargain. Difficult, because the main takeaway of the report is that the U.S. is giving China an ultimatum to stop cyber theft and industrial espionage. At minimum, the U.S. will demand assurances that China’s military, intelligence, and cyber agencies will rein in their hacking, spying, and tech acquisition campaigns. Other disputes are more susceptible to tradeoffs, but it will be hard for the U.S. to compromise on a list of grievances that so plainly enumerates national security violations. Can China really compromise on aspects of its Made in China 2025 industrial plan? Possibly. What China cannot compromise on is technological advancement in general, since its future economic sustainability and prosperity depend on it. So China may not accept getting shut out of investment opportunities in Silicon Valley. But if the 2025 plan provokes foreign sanctions, then it interferes with China’s technological advance, and hence can be compromised in order to achieve China’s true end. It makes sense for China and the U.S. to focus on the above tech issues – that is, for the “structural” part of the trade talks – as opposed to any macroeconomic structural demands that are more difficult to pull off at a time when China’s credit cycle is exceedingly weak and the economy is slowing. For instance, on China’s currency, while the U.S. will have to have some kind of agreement, and China has already shown it will allow some appreciation to appease the U.S., China is highly unlikely to agree to a dramatic, Plaza Accord-style currency appreciation. Therefore the negotiators will have to accept a nominal agreement on currency practices, perhaps as an addendum as was done with the U.S.-Korea trade renegotiation. As for other strategic tensions, China is continuing to support the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts with North Korea. Therefore the U.S. is unlikely to get much traction on its demand that China remove missiles from the South China Sea. But unlike cyber theft and corporate hacking, the South China Sea could conceivably be set aside for the purposes of a short-term trade deal and left for later rounds of negotiations, much as Trump’s border wall with Mexico was set aside during the NAFTA renegotiation. Bottom Line: The U.S. is demanding that China (1) rein in its hacking and spying (2) shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors (3) adjust its Made in China targets to allow for more foreign competition (4) lower foreign investment equity restrictions. Our sense, from looking at these demands, is that a trade deal is possible. But given the underlying strategic rivalry, and the intensity of the tech conflict, we think it is more likely that the tech war will ultimately derail the trade talks than vice versa. China’s Reform And Opening Up Turns 40 Finally, a word about China’s reforms, which are no longer discussed much by investors, given that many of the ambitious pro-market reforms outlined at the 2013 Third Plenum flopped. This month marks the 40th anniversary of China’s “Reform and Opening Up” policies under Deng Xiaoping. The original Third Plenum, the third meeting of the 11th Central Committee at which Deng launched his sweeping policy changes, occurred on December 18-22, 1978. In the coming days, General Secretary Xi Jinping will commemorate the anniversary with a speech. Various party media outlets have been celebrating reform and opening up over the past few months. We have no interest in adding to the hype. But we do wish to highlight the interesting overlap in the deadline for the trade talks, March 1, with the annual meeting of China’s legislature, when new policy initiatives are rolled out. To conclude a substantive trade deal, China needs to make at least a few structural concessions. And to satisfy the Trump administration, these concessions will have to be implemented, not merely promised, since the administration has argued consistently that past dialogues have gone on forever without tangible results. The surest way to achieve such a compromise would be to strike a trade deal and then begin implementation at the appropriate time in China’s own political calendar, which would be the March NPC session – right after the 90-day negotiation period ends. What kind of structural changes might China make? Of the four points outlined above, the one that is likely to get the most traction is lifting foreign venture equity caps (Table 2). This would be substantive because it would remove an outstanding structural barrier to foreign market access – China’s prohibitive FDI environment – while depriving China of a means of pressuring firms into conducting technology transfers. It would also have the added benefit of attracting investment that could push up the renminbi. Table 2China’s Foreign Investment Equity Caps In this context, we will watch very carefully both for progress in the 90-day talks and for any new and concrete proposals within President Xi’s upcoming economic statements. This includes the annual Central Economic Work Conference as well as the 40th anniversary of the historic Third Plenum. Bottom Line: The basis for a substantial U.S.-China trade deal would be Chinese structural changes to grant the U.S. (and others) greater market access for investment and a safer operating environment for foreign intellectual property. While we remain pessimistic, the reform agenda is important to watch. Investment Conclusions We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China is not likely forthcoming – at least not in the 90-day timeframe. The difficulty of working out a deal with the tech issues above should support this baseline view. Nevertheless, given that there is a possible path forward, and given that Chinese tech stocks are heavily oversold, is now a good time for investors to buy? Our view is no, on a cyclical 6-12 month horizon. Relative to the MSCI China investable index, tech stocks are not so badly beaten down as they first appear (Chart 14). The incredible earnings performance of this sector over the past five years has rolled over lately, as reflected in trailing earnings-per-share. This is true relative to U.S. tech stocks and the global equity market as well (Chart 15). Chart 14China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market Chart 15Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Since this is a decline in trailing earnings, it does not stem from the trade war, but rather from internal factors like consumer sentiment and retail sales (given the large weights of consumer-related firms like Alibaba and Tencent in this sector). Relative to global tech stocks, Chinese tech has definitely become less expensive after the recent selloff. But they are still not cheap (Chart 16). Given the headwinds outlined above – the fact that the tech war is more likely to derail the trade talks than the trade talks are likely to resolve the tech war – we think it is too early to bottom-feed. Chart 16Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap In short, U.S.-China tensions are rising when looked at from the perspective of, first, China’s aggressive state-backed industrial programs and technological acquisition and, second, the U.S.’s emerging technological protectionism and alliance formation. Two long-term implications can be drawn: First, many of the United States’ complaints stem not only from China taking advantage of its economic openness, but also from the U.S.’s low-regulation environment and opposition to state-driven industrial policy. The U.S. will not have much luck demanding that China stop pouring billions of dollars of government funds into its nascent industries; it will deprive its own emerging sectors of funds if it prevents Chinese investment into Silicon Valley. In other words, the U.S. will have to become less open and more heavily regulated. The CFIUS reforms and the proposed export controls highlight this trend. In addition, any escalation of tensions will likely result in Chinese reprisals against U.S. companies. The U.S. tech sector is the marginal loser (Table 3). Table 3S&P Tech Companies With Large China Exposure Second, while it is often believed that China is playing “the long game,” the government’s technological acquisition policies suggest a very short-term modus operandi. The allegations of widespread and flagrant use of tech company employees by intelligence agencies, and gross cyber intrusions, if true, imply that China is making a mad dash for technology even at the risk of alienating its trading partners and driving them into a coalition against it. Since no government can overlook the national security implications of such practices, China will continue to suffer from foreign sanctions and embargoes, until it convinces foreign competitors it has changed its ways. As a result, China’s tech and industrial sectors are the marginal losers. The big picture is that the U.S. is setting up a “firewall” of rules and regulations to protect its knowledge and innovation, and China is frantically “downloading” as much data as possible before the firewall is fully operational. This dynamic will be difficult to reverse given that the overall context is one of rising suspicion and strategic distrust.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500-2000 (Random House, 1988). 2      Please see “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” Interagency Task Force in Fulfillment of Executive Order 13806, September 2018, available at media.defense.gov. 3      Please see U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Department of Commerce, November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 4      Please see Dan Kim, "Semiconductor Supply Chains and International Trade,” SEMI ITPC, November 5, 2018. 5      Please see President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership In Semiconductors,” Report to the President, January 2017, available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. 6      Please see Department of Justice, “PRC State-Owned Company, Taiwan Company, and Three Individuals Charged With Economic Espionage,” Office of Public Affairs, November 1, 2018, available at www.justice.gov. 7      Please see Stu Woo and Kate O’Keeffe, “Washington Asks Allies To Drop Huawei,” Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2018, available at www.wsj.com. 8      Please see Lorand Laskai, “Civil-Military Fusion and the PLA’s Pursuit of Dominance in Emerging Technologies,” China Brief 18:6, April 9, 2018, available at Jamestown.org. 9      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at ustr.gov.

Highlights Downside risks to EM assets remain substantial. Stay put. EM stocks, credit and currencies will underperform their DM counterparts in the first half of 2019. The key and necessary condition for a new secular EM bull market to emerge is the end of abundant financing. The latter is imperative to compel corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization as well as structural reforms. The cyclical EM outlook hinges on China’s business cycle. The slowdown in China is broad-based and will deepen. The slowdown in China/EM will likely lead to global trade contraction. The latter is negative for global cyclicals yet bullish for the U.S. dollar. Feature As we head into 2019, the past decade is shaping up to be a lost one for emerging markets (EM) assets. In particular: EM stocks have underperformed DM markets substantially since the end of 2010 (Chart I-1). In absolute terms, EM share prices are at the same level as they were in early 2010. Chart I-1EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM For Eight Years EM currencies have depreciated substantially since 2011, and the EM local currency bond index (GBI-EM) on a total-return basis has produced zero return in U.S. dollar terms since 2010 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A Lost Decade For Investors In EM Local Currency Bonds? Finally, EM sovereign and corporate high-yield bonds have not outperformed U.S. high-yield corporate bonds on an excess-return basis. Will 2019 witness a major reversal of such dismal EM performance? And if so, will it be a structural or cyclical bottom? The roots underneath this lost decade for EM stem neither from trade wars nor from Federal Reserve tightening. Therefore, a structural bottom in EM financial markets is contingent neither on the end of Fed tightening nor the resolution of current trade tussles. We address the issues of Fed tightening and trade wars below. A Lost Decade: Causes And Remedies What led to a lost decade for EM was cheap and plentiful financing. When the price of money is low and financing is abundant, companies and households typically rush to borrow and spend unwisely. Capital is misallocated and, consequently, productivity and real income growth disappoint – and debtors’ ability to service their debts worsens. This is exactly what has happened in EM, as easy money splashed all over developing economies since early 2009. There have been three major sources of financing for EM: Source 1: Chinese Banks Chinese banks have expanded their balance sheets by RMB 198 trillion to RMB 262 trillion (or the equivalent of $28.8 trillion) over the past 10 years (Chart I-3, top panel). When commercial banks expand their balance sheets by lending to or buying an asset from non-banks, they create deposits (money). Consistently, the broad money supply has expanded by RMB 175 trillion to RMB 234 trillion (or the equivalent of $25.5 trillion). Chart I-3Enormous Boom In Chinese Banks' Assets And Money Supply Notably, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) has increased commercial banks’ excess reserves by RMB 1.5 trillion to RMB 2.8 trillion (or the equivalent of $0.22 trillion) (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Hence, the meaningful portion of money supply expansion has been due to the money multiplier – money created by mainland banks – not a provision of excess reserves by the PBoC (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Attribution Of Rise In Money Supply To Excess Reserves And Money Multiplier Not only has such enormous money creation by commercial banks generated purchasing power domestically, but it has also boosted Chinese companies’ and households’ purchases of foreign goods and services. The Middle Kingdom’s imports of goods and services have grown to $2.5 trillion compared with $3.2 trillion for the U.S. (Chart I-5). China’s spending has boosted growth considerably in many Asian, Latin American, African, Middle Eastern, and even select advanced economies. Chart I-5Imports Of Goods And Services: China And The U.S. Source 2: DM Central Banks’ QE By conducting quantitative easing, the central banks of several advanced economies have crowded out investors from fixed-income markets, incentivizing them to search for yield in EM. The Fed, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have in aggregate expanded their balance sheets by $10 trillion (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Quantitative Easing In DM This has led to massive inflows of foreign portfolio capital into EM, and reflated asset prices well beyond what was warranted by their fundamentals. Specifically, since January 2009, foreign investors have poured $1.5 trillion on a net basis into the largest 15 developing countries excluding China, Taiwan and Korea (Chart I-7, top panel). For China, net foreign portfolio inflows amounted to $560 billion since January 2009 (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Chart I-7Cumulative Foreign Portfolio Inflows Into EM And China Source 3: EM Ex-China Banks EM ex-China began expanding their balance sheets aggressively in early 2009, originating new money (local currency) and thereby creating purchasing power. This was especially the case between 2009 and 2011. Since that time, money creation by EM ex-China banks has decelerated substantially due to periodic capital outflows triggering currency weakness and higher borrowing costs. Out of these three sources, China’s money/credit cycles remain the primary driver of EM. The mainland’s imports from developing economies serves as the main nexus between China and the rest of EM. Essentially, Chinese money and credit drive imports, influencing growth and corporate profits in the EM universe (Chart I-8). Chart I-8China's Credit Cycle Leads Its Imports In turn, EM business cycle upturns attract international capital. Meanwhile, credit creation by local banks in EM ex-China – primarily in economies with high inflation or current account deficits – is a residual factor. In these countries, domestic credit creation is contingent on a healthy balance of payments and a stable exchange rate. The latter two, in turn, transpire when exports to China and international portfolio capital inflows are improving. The outcome of easy financing is over-borrowing and capital misallocation. The upshot of the latter is usually lower efficiency and productivity growth. Not surprisingly, productivity growth in both China and EM ex-China has decelerated considerably since 2009 (Chart I-9). EM return on assets has dropped a lot in the past 10 years and is now on par with levels last seen during the 2008 global recession (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Falling Productivity Growth In EM And China =... Chart I-10... = Low Profit Margins And Low Return On Capital Accordingly, the ability to service debt by EM companies has deteriorated considerably in the past decade – the ratios of cash flows from operations to both interest expenses and net debt have dropped (Chart I-11). Chart I-11EM: Deteriorating Ability To Service Debt These observations offer unambiguous confirmation that money has been spent inefficiently – i.e., misallocated. Credit booms and capital misallocations warrant a period of corporate restructuring and banking sector recapitalization. Without this, a new cycle cannot emerge. A secular bull market in equities and exchange rates arises when productivity growth and hence income-per-capita growth accelerates, and return on capital begins to climb. This is not yet the case for most developing economies. The end of cheap and abundant financing is imperative to compel corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization as well as structural reforms. These are necessary conditions to create the foundation for a new secular bull market. Ironically, the best remedy for an addiction to easy money is a period of tight money. For example, U.S. share prices would not be as high as they currently are if the U.S. did not go through the Lehman crisis. This 10-year bull market in U.S. equities was born from the ashes of the Lehman crisis. Vanished financing and the private sector’s tight budgets in 2008-‘09 compelled corporate restructuring as well as a focus on efficiency and return on equity. Has EM financing become scarce and tight? Cyclically, China’s money creation and credit flows have slowed, pointing to a cyclical downturn in EM share prices and commodities (please see below for a more detailed discussion). International portfolio flows to EM have also subsided since early this year. There has been selective corporate restructuring post the 2015 commodities downturn, including in the global/EM mining and energy sectors, China steel and coal industries as well as among Russian and Brazilian companies. However, there are many economies and industries where corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms have not been undertaken. Yet from a structural perspective, China’s money and credit growth remain elevated and excesses have not been purged. Besides, international portfolio flows to EM have had periodic “stop-and-gos” but have not yet retrenched meaningfully (refer to Chart I-7 on page 4). Consequently, structural overhauls and corporate restructuring in China/EM have by and large not yet occurred – in turn negating the start of a new secular bull market. Bottom Line: Conditions for a structural bull market in EM/China are not yet present. EM/China: A Cyclical Bottom Is Not In Place From a cyclical perspective, China is an important driving force for the majority of EM economies, and its deepening growth slowdown will continue to weigh on EM growth and global trade. In fact, odds are that global trade will contract in the first half of 2019: In China, tightening of both monetary policy as well as bank and non-bank regulation from late 2016 has led to a deceleration in money and credit growth. The latter has, with a time, lag depressed growth since early this year. Policymakers have undertaken some stimulus since the middle of this year, but it has so far been limited. Stimulus also works with a time lag. Besides, even though the broad money impulse has improved, the credit and fiscal spending impulse remains in a downtrend (Chart I-12). Therefore, there are presently mixed signals from money and credit. Chart I-12China's Stimulus Leads EM And Commodities As illustrated in Chart I-12, the bottoms in the money and combined credit and fiscal spending impulses, in July 2015, preceded the bottom in EM and commodities by six months and their peak led the top in financial markets by about 15 months in January 2018. Besides, in 2012-‘13, the rise in the money and credit impulses did not do much to help EM stocks or industrial commodities prices. Hence, even if the money as well as credit and fiscal impulses bottom today, it could take several more months before the selloff in EM financial markets and commodities prices abates. Additionally, the ongoing regulatory tightening of banks and non-bank financial institutions will hinder these institutions' willingness and ability to extend credit, despite lower interest rates. We discussed in a recent report that both the effectiveness of the monetary transmission mechanism and the time lag between policy easing and a bottom in the business cycle are contingent on the money multiplier (creditors' willingness to lend, and borrowers' readiness to borrow) and the velocity of money (the marginal propensity to spend among households and companies). Growth in capital spending in general and construction in particular have ground to a halt (Chart I-13). Chart I-13China: Weak Capital Spending Not only has capital spending decelerated but household consumption has also slowed since early this year, as demonstrated in the top panel of Chart I-14. Chart I-14China: A Broad-Based Slowdown Finally, mainland imports are the main channel in terms of how China’s growth slowdown transmits to the rest of the world. Not surprisingly, EM share prices and industrial metals prices correlate extremely well with the import component of Chinese manufacturing PMI (Chart I-15). Chart I-15China's Imports And EM And Commodities Bottom Line: The slowdown in China is broad-based, and our proxies for marginal propensity to spend by households and companies both point to further weakness (Chart I-14, middle and bottom panels). Constraints And Chinese Policymakers’ Dilemma Given the ongoing slowdown in the economy, why are Chinese policymakers not rushing to the rescue with another round of massive stimulus? First, policymakers in China realize that the stimulus measures of 2009-‘10, 2012-‘13 and 2015-‘16 led to massive misallocations of capital and fostered both inefficiencies and speculative excesses in many parts of the economy – the property markets being among the main culprits. Indeed, policymakers recognize that easy money does not foster productivity growth, which is critical to the long-term prosperity of any nation. For China to grow and prosper in the long run, the economy’s addiction to easy financing should be curtailed. Second, policymakers are currently facing a dilemma. The real economy is saddled with enormous debt and is slowing. This warrants lower interest rates – probably justifying bringing down short-term rates close to zero. Yet, despite enforcing capital controls, it seems the exchange rate has been correlated with China’s interest rate differential with the U.S. since early 2010 (Chart I-16). Given the ongoing growth slowdown and declining return on capital in China, there are rising pressures for capital to exit the country. Notably, the PBoC’s foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion are only equivalent to 10-14% of broad money supply (i.e., all deposits in the banking system) (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Chinese Currency And Interest Rates Chart I-17China: Foreign Currency Reserves Are Very Low Compared To Money Supply/Deposits The current interest rate differential is only 33 basis points. If the PBoC guides short-term rates lower and the Fed stays on hold or hikes a few more times, the spread will drop to zero or turn negative. Based on the past nine-year correlation, the narrowing interest rate spread suggests yuan depreciation. This will weigh on EM and probably even global risk assets. In a scenario where policymakers prioritize defending the yuan’s value, they may not be able to reduce borrowing costs and assist indebted companies and households. As a result, the downtrend in the real economy would likely worsen. Consequently, EM and global growth-sensitive assets will drop further. Given the constraints Chinese policymakers are facing, reducing interest rates and allowing the yuan to depreciate further is the least-bad outcome. Yet this will rattle Asian and EM currencies and risk assets. What About The Fed And Trade Wars? The Fed and EM: Fed policy and U.S. interest rates are relevant to EM, but they are of secondary importance. The primary driver of EM economies are their own domestic fundamentals as well as global trade – not just U.S. growth. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the fed funds rate has been mixed, albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-18). On this chart, we have shaded the five periods over the past 38 years when EM stocks rallied despite a rising fed funds rate. Chart I-18The Fed And EM Share Prices: A Historical Perspective There were only two episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates: the 1982 Latin American debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet it is vital to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals – elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-1998. However, these late-1990s crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields. Trade Wars: China’s current growth slowdown has not originated from a decline in its exports. In fact, Chinese aggregate exports and those to the U.S. have been growing at a double-digit pace, largely due to the front running ahead of U.S. import tariffs. More importantly, China’s exports to the U.S. and EU account for 3.8% and 3.2% of its GDP, respectively (Chart I-19). Total exports amount to 20% of GDP, with almost two-thirds of that being shipments to developing economies. This compares with capital spending that makes up 42% of GDP and household consumption of 38% of GDP. Hence, capital expenditures and household spending are significantly larger than shipments to the U.S. Chart I-19Structure Of Chinese Economy There is little doubt that the U.S.-China confrontation has affected consumer and business sentiment in China. Nevertheless, the slowdown in China has - until recently - stemmed from domestic demand, not exports. Investment Recommendations It is difficult to forecast whether the current EM down leg will end with a bang or a whimper. Whatever it is, the near-term path of least resistance for EM is to the downside. “A bang” scenario – where financial conditions tighten substantially and for an extended period – would likely compel corporate and bank restructuring as well as structural reforms. Therefore, it is more likely to mark a structural bottom in EM financial markets. “A whimper” scenario would probably entail only moderate tightening in financial conditions. Thereby, it would not foster meaningful corporate restructuring and structural reforms. Hence, such a scenario might not mark a secular bottom in EM stocks and currencies. In turn, the EM cyclical outlook hinges on China’s business cycle. If and when Chinese policymakers reflate aggressively, the mainland business cycle will revive, producing a cyclical rally in EM risk assets. At the moment, Chinese policymakers are behind the curve. With respect to investment strategy, we continue to recommend: Downside risks to EM assets remain substantial. Stay put. EM stocks, credit and currencies will underperform their DM counterparts in the first half of 2019. The slowdown in China/EM will likely lead to global trade contraction. The latter is negative for global cyclicals yet bullish for the U.S. dollar. For dedicated EM equity portfolios, our overweights are: Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Russia, central Europe, Korea and Thailand. Our underweights are: South Africa, Peru, Indonesia, India, the Philippines and Hong Kong stocks. We are neutral on the remaining bourses. In the currency space, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, IDR, MYR and KRW. The latter is a play on RMB depreciation. The full list of our recommendation across EM equity, fixed-income, currency and credit markets is available on pages 14-15. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

  Underweight (High-Conviction) In our initiation of coverage on the S&P interactive media & services index,1 we highlighted a renewed regulatory focus as a key risk that offset the revenue & profit growth vigor of this group, comprised almost entirely of Alphabet (Google) and Facebook. Tack on the inverse correlation these growth stocks have with interest rates (top panel) and that caused us to lower our recommendation on Monday. Increasing regulatory efforts on technology will be a key theme next year, one we explored this past summer. Our conclusion was that both antitrust (particularly in the case of Alphabet) and privacy regulation (particularly in the case of Facebook) added significant risk to these near monopolies; calls for legislating both have dramatically amplified. This communication services sub-index is particularly prone to such a risk when it already trades at close to a 40% valuation premium to the broad market (middle panel). Adding insult to injury is the PEG ratio that is trading at a 60% premium to the broad market (bottom panel). In the face of the Fed’s sustained tightening cycle these extreme growth stocks are vulnerable to massive gravitational pull. Net, we have downgraded our recommendation to underweight and include this index in the high-conviction underweight list for 2019; please see Monday’s Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols in the stocks in this index are: S5INMS – GOOGL, GOOG, FB, TWTR and TRIP.   1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, “New Lines Of Communication,” dated October 1, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.    

Special Report

Feature The European stock market has a hidden gem: its clothing and accessories sector. Since the turn of the millennium, the sector’s profits are up by a thousand percent (Feature Chart). In this Special Report we propose that the megatrend has further to run, as its principle driver is still very much in place. Consumption patterns are becoming more female. Feature ChartEuropean Clothes Profits Are Up A Thousand Percent! One of Europe’s major, and largely neglected, success stories is the dramatic rise in the percentage of the working-age population in employment. This major success story stems from another success story: the structural and broad-based increase in the female labour participation rate – which has surged from 57 percent in 1995 to 68 percent today (Chart I-2-Chart I-4). Yet the story is far from over.1 Chart I-2European Male Labour Participation Is Flat...   Chart I-3...But European Female Labour Participation Is Surging   Chart I-4...So The Percentage Of The European Population In Work Is Surging Why Job Creation Favours Women Two things are driving the megatrend in female participation. One is a paradoxical feature of the current technological revolution. As we explained in The Superstar Economy: Part 2, Artificial Intelligence (AI) excels at tasks that we perceive as difficult: those requiring the application of complex algorithms and pattern recognition to a narrowly defined goal, such as making a highly-engineered product or managing a stock portfolio. This poses a big threat to jobs in manufacturing and finance, employment sectors which happen to be male-dominated.2 Conversely, AI still struggles at tasks that we perceive as easy: those requiring adaptable movements, or reading and responding to people’s emotions and intentions. If you are good at controlling a disruptive class of 7-year olds, or calming a nervous patient before giving him an injection, your human skills are still in big demand. But education, healthcare, and social care – the employment sectors that are creating the most jobs – employ three times as many women as men. With AI still in its infancy, the established pattern of job destruction and creation will continue to favour women over men (Table I-1). Table I-1AI Is A Greater Threat To Men The other driver of the megatrend in female participation is a raft of European legislation designed to make work more family friendly: flexible working time, generous paid maternity and paternity leave, and subsidised childcare (Table I-2-Table I-4). Sharing the responsibility of childcare between mothers, fathers and external helpers has allowed tens of millions of European women to enter and remain in the labour force. Table I-2Generous Maternity Pay In Europe And Japan   Table I-3Improving Paternity Pay In Europe And Japan   Table I-4Affordable Childcare In Europe And Japan Nevertheless, the megatrend has a lot further to run. For the ultimate end-point, look at the Scandinavian countries which started legislating such policies in the early 1970s, around twenty years before the rest of Europe. As a result, in Sweden, labour force participation rates for women and men have now converged to almost identical: 81 versus 84 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5In Sweden, Labour Force Participation For Women And Men Is Almost Identical The combination of the two drivers – employment growth favouring female-dominated sectors and employment becoming more family friendly – means that net job creation in Europe will be mostly due to more women joining the workforce. An important consequence is that consumption patterns will continue to become more female. But what does that mean? How Women’s Spending Differs From Men’s Spending In the main spending categories of housing, food and healthcare, women and men tend to show near-identical spending behaviours. But there are three sub-categories where there are significant differences. Men considerably outspend women on vehicle purchases: cars account for around 8 percent of disposable income for men versus 4 percent for women. Against this, women spend more on personal care products and services: 2 percent versus 0.5 percent. This is the reason behind our long-standing successful overweight recommendation in the European personal products sector which we maintain (Chart I-6). However, the sub-category in which women outspend men by even more is clothes and accessories: estimates average around 6.5 percent for women versus 2.5 percent for men.3 Chart I-6Personal Product Profits Set To Grow Very Strongly It follows that as consumption patterns become more female, we should expect to see a steady rise in spending on clothes and accessories as a share of total consumer spending. Has this been the case? In the U.K. – where the data is easily available – the answer is yes (Chart I-7). Having said that, other factors are also at play. A generalised deflation in clothes prices (Chart I-8) is also generating a strong tailwind to sales volumes (rather than values). More about this later. Chart I-7More Real Spending On Clothes... Chart I-8Partly Because Clothes Prices Are Falling... Of course, the more compelling evidence is the thousand percent growth in the European clothes sector’s profits since the turn of the millennium. However, with the sector dominated by top brands such as LVMH and Hermes, could a more plausible explanation come from strong economic growth, until recently, in the emerging markets such as China? The answer is yes to the extent that many of the emerging economies are experiencing the same structural uptrends in female participation, and this supports our investment thesis. Still, this cannot be the main driver, because in recent years the connection between the fortunes of the emerging economies and the European clothes sector has been weak (Chart I-9).   Chart I-9The Connection Between Emerging Markets And European Clothes Is Weak There is another obvious question: is the market already aware of, and fully priced for, the megatrend? We think not, as most investors we meet are surprised by the structural uptrend in female participation, the on-going dynamics behind it, and the implications for consumer spending patterns. Understandably, the European clothes sector does trade at a valuation premium to the market (Chart I-10). But for many companies, the recent market hiccup has pulled down their valuation premiums to close to, or below, the long-term average from which the price has previously outperformed very strongly. Chart I-10The Valuation Premium On European Clothes Is Close To Its Long-Term Average What Is In The Clothes Basket? Pulling all of this together, the companies in our European clothes and accessories basket need to meet several criteria: A dominant or significant exposure to women’s clothes and/or accessories. A top-end brand (or brands) giving the company pricing power, and mitigating the very strong deflation in clothes prices. Avoid ‘fast fashion’. A reputation for sustainable development. A track-record of profit growth during the past decade. A forward price to earnings (PE) multiple of less than 25. A market capitalisation of at least €5 billion. On the basis of these criteria, our European clothes and accessories basket contains four names: LVMH, Kering, Luxottica, and Burberry (Table I-5). Hermes meets most of the criteria but, trading on a forward PE close to 35 is very richly valued. Table I-5The European Clothes Basket To be clear, this is not a short-term trade. Investors who buy the clothes basket outright need to have a multi-year investment horizon. Those investors who must also protect short-term performance should instead overweight the clothes basket relative to the broad market. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Female Participation: Another Mega-Trend” published on April 6, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Superstar Economy: Part 2”, January 19, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey 2016 via SmartAsset, and Paymentsense.

Special Report

Highlights The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) may consider a rate hike in 2019 if additional tightening of labor markets leads to higher wage inflation, which would help lift core inflation back to the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band.  Reflation in China could also embolden the RBA to tighten monetary policy – though the odds of a more aggressive stimulus package will decline as long as China’s overall economy remains stable and the U.S. maintains its tariff ceasefire. The Labor Party is favored to win the federal election, which is most likely to occur in May. This is a low-conviction view, as polls are tight and economic improvement will help the ruling Liberal-National Coalition. Feature 2018 has been a challenging year for global financial markets, as investors have had to deal with greater economic uncertainty, less dovish central banks and more volatile asset prices. One country that has bucked the trend to some degree is Australia. The nation has famously avoided a recession since 1991 and last saw a tightening of monetary policy in 2010. While the recession streak is unlikely to be broken in 2019, there are growing risks that the era of interest rate tranquility will soon end. In this Special Report, jointly published with our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we update our views on Australia for 2019 – a year when the investment backdrop has the potential to become far more interesting, and volatile, due to election year uncertainty and a potential shift to a more hawkish bias for monetary policy. The Bond Outlook: What To Watch To Turn Bearish BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy has maintained an overweight stance on Australian government bonds since the end of 2017. That high-conviction view stemmed from our expectation that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) would keep policy rates on hold for longer due to sluggish economic growth and underwhelming inflation. This recommendation has performed well, with Australian government bonds returning 2.4% (currency-hedged into U.S. dollars) in 2018 year-to-date, beating the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index by 190bps. The benchmark 10-year Australian government is now yielding 36bps below the equivalent 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, the tightest spread since 1980 (Chart 1). Chart 1Australian Bonds Have Outperformed Looking ahead, we still have a positive opinion on Australian debt relative to its global peers over the next six months. The RBA is unlikely to make any adjustments to the Cash Rate - which remains at a highly-accommodative level of 1.5% - without seeing some signs of accelerating inflation in both the Q4 2018 and Q1 2019 CPI reports. This is especially true given the political uncertainty with another federal election due by May 18,1 which could change the outlook for fiscal policy (as we discuss later in this report) and impact the RBA’s economic projections. In our view, the RBA will only be able to seriously consider an interest rate hike, warranting a downgrade of our recommended overweight stance, if all three of the following conditions occur: Australia’s underemployment rate falls below 8% China’s economy shows convincing evidence of reacceleration, especially in commodity-intensive industries like construction Core CPI inflation rises back to at least the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band We will now discuss each of these in turn. Underemployment Australia is a fairly open economy with a large export sector, but consumer spending is still the largest share of GDP (60%) so it matters most for growth. On that front, real consumption has grown in a narrow and uninspiring range between 2-3% over the past five years. Anemic wages and disposable incomes have been the problem, with the growth of both (in nominal terms) struggling to grow faster than low realized inflation, which now sits below the RBA’s inflation target range of 2-3% (Chart 2). Households have been forced to deploy a greater share of that modest income growth just to maintain spending, with the savings rate plunging from 8% at the end of 2014 to 1% this year and consumer debt piling up. Chart 2An Income-Fueled Pickup In Consumer Spending The dynamics may be changing in a more positive direction, however. Growth rates of nominal wage (+2.3%) and disposable income (+3.1%) have accelerated this year to a pace faster than inflation. With real incomes perking up, the year-over-year growth rate of real consumer spending growth accelerated to 3% in Q3/2018, driving real GDP growth to similar levels. A sustained pickup in wage growth is necessary before the RBA would even contemplate a rate hike. For that to occur, there must be decisive evidence of a tightening Australian labor market and increased resource utilization. While the headline unemployment rate of 5.0% is below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU for Australia (5.3%), broader measures of labor market slack are still at elevated levels. Specifically, the “underemployment” rate, which includes workers who are working fewer hours than they would like or at jobs below their skill levels, is still at an elevated 8.3% (Chart 3). That is down from the peak of just below 9% seen in early 2017, but well above the 2012 trough near 7% (when wage growth was close to 4%).  Chart 3UNDERemployment Rate Matters More For Australian Wages Australian wage growth tends to correlate more with the underemployment rate than the traditional unemployment rate (middle panel). This suggests that the recent blip higher in wage growth could be the beginning of a new trend, given that it has occurred alongside the recent drop in underemployment. Already, underemployment is back below the levels that prevailed when the RBA did its last interest rate cut back in 2016 (bottom panel).  A further dip lower in the underemployment rate to below the 8% threshold would likely confirm that wage growth has more upside. That outcome would give the RBA greater confidence that consumer spending will gain more strength even with a low savings rate, and that CPI inflation will return back into the target range – both outcomes that would justify some removal of the RBA’s highly stimulative monetary accommodation. China Stimulus The main connection from China’s economy to Australia is through Chinese demand for Australian exports. There is also an indirect, but very important, link between Chinese demand boosting industrial commodity prices. The latter boosts Australian growth through positive terms-of-trade effects and increased capital spending in commodity-related sectors like mining. Iron ore is the most important of those commodities, representing 18% of total Australian goods exports, with 85% of those iron ore exports going to China. Australian export growth has decelerated during 2018 from the very robust 15% year-over-year pace to a still solid 10% rate. This has mirrored the trends seen in many other economies, where exports have slowed alongside diminished demand from China. If Chinese authorities change their current policy trajectory, and embrace more aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus, then they will reaccelerate the country’s flagging demand, which should benefit Australian exporters. If the increase in spending occurs in commodity-intensive parts of China’s economy, like construction, then Australia can also benefit from a terms-of-trade impact if commodity prices rise. However, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy remain skeptical that China will launch a major economic stimulus package along the lines of what occurred in 2015-16. That surge not only boosted Chinese GDP and import demand but also triggered a boost to global industrial commodity prices that benefitted many commodity exporters, including Australia. In recent months, there has been a pickup in overall Chinese import growth, as well as some acceleration of higher frequency growth indicators like the Li Keqiang index (Chart 4). Australian exports to China have not picked up though, and Chinese iron ore imports are contracting. Part of that is due to the elevated levels of Chinese iron ore inventories. More likely, there is little demand for additional iron ore given China’s reform agenda and the struggles of its construction sector (which accounts for roughly 35% of Chinese steel demand). Chart 4China Stimulus Not Helping Australia...Yet? Our colleagues at BCA China Investment Strategy2 have noted that both weakening sales and tighter funding sources for real estate developers point to declining growth in property starts and construction. This will be negative for construction-related commodity markets and construction-related machinery. This is coming at a time when the Chinese government is trying specifically to address over-indebted industries like construction. As for the U.S.-China trade truce, a permanent de-escalation of tensions – which has not yet occurred – could provide a boost to Australian export demand, as with other export-focused countries. But the negative impact of bilateral U.S.-China tariffs on the global economy is much smaller than that of China’s attempt to limit indebtedness. Moreover, a trade truce will remove China’s primary incentive to adopt more aggressive stimulus. Nevertheless, from the RBA’s perspective, any boost to China’s construction-related activity would have a big impact on Australia’s economy and would strengthen the case for a rate hike in 2019.  Core Inflation Australia’s headline CPI inflation has struggled to hit even the bottom end of the RBA’s 2-3% target band since 2015, reaching only 1.9% in Q3 of this year (Chart 5). The story is even worse for inflation excluding food and energy, with core CPI inflation now only at 1.2% after having drifted lower in two consecutive quarters. Both market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations are also hovering near 2%. Chart 5Australian Inflation Well Below RBA Target When breaking down the CPI into tradeables (i.e. more globally-focused) and non-tradeables (i.e. more domestically-focused), the two types of inflation have not been accelerating at the same time since the 2009-11 period. Since then, faster tradeables inflation has occurred alongside slowing non-tradeables inflation, and vice versa.  While volatility on the tradeables side should be expected given the correlation to swings in commodity prices and the Australian dollar, the weakness in non-tradeables is more directly related to the spare capacity in the domestic economy. Therefore, if wage growth continues to pick up as the labor market tightens, then non-tradeables inflation should follow suit and boost Australian CPI inflation back towards the RBA target range. The implication for the RBA is that a move in core CPI inflation back towards 2.5% (the midpoint of the RBA band), occurring after an acceleration in wage growth as described above, would give the central bank confidence that a higher Cash Rate is required. Bottom Line: The RBA has kept interest rates on hold for over two years, but may consider a rate hike in 2019 if additional tightening of labor markets leads to higher wage inflation, which would help lift core inflation back to the midpoint of the RBA’s 2-3% target band. A more aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus package in China, while not our base case, would also embolden the RBA to tighten monetary policy. Risks From Australian Banks? Throughout 2018, the Australian financial industry has had to endure the slings and arrows of a government inquiry into its questionable business practices and misconduct. Revelations of bribery, fraud, the charging of fees for no service and from the accounts of deceased people, as well as board-level deception of regulators, have roiled Australia's financial sector since the explosive inquiry began in February. The final report of the Australian Financial Services Royal Commission will be published in February, but the impact is already being felt throughout the industry. Bank CEOs have been publically shamed, while other senior financial sector executives have been forced from their jobs. The chairman of National Australia Bank stated before the inquiry that customers’ trust in lenders had been “pretty well eroded to zero”, and that it could take as long as a decade to successfully overhaul the culture within the banks. The biggest impacts from the Commission will come through hits to banks’ earnings and funding costs, as well as the potential impact on lending standards for new loans. Australian banks will be less profitable because of fines, customer refunds, setting aside provisions for potential misconduct penalties and the government wanting increased competition. If banks also choose to be more conservative with the marking of loans, then higher loan-loss provisions could be an additional drag on bank earnings. Already, Australian bank stocks have severely underperformed the overall domestic market, and there has been some slowing of domestic credit growth (Chart 6). There are also signs of bank funding stresses from contracting bank deposit growth (second panel) and wider offshore funding costs like relatively elevated LIBOR-OIS spreads (bottom panel). Considering how heavily Australian banks rely on offshore funding, any squeeze in those markets could severely influence the availability of credit within the Australian economy. Chart 6Australian Banks Under Some Stress... Looking ahead, if banks do tighten up their lending standards in response to the criticism and findings of the Commission, that will be from a starting point of very accommodative levels. In other words, getting a loan will likely still be “easy”, rather than “incredibly easy”. The reason is that Australian bank balance sheets remain in excellent condition. Credit crunches begin when banks are undercapitalized and are forced to retrench new loan activity as losses on existing loans pile up. That is not the case in Australia, where the major banks have Tier 1 capital ratios in the 10-12% range and non-performing loans are a tiny share of total lending. In our view, a true credit crunch would likely only occur after the Australian housing bubble bursts and the economy enters a severe downturn. That outcome would most likely be triggered by monetary policy tightening via multiple RBA rate hikes. Importantly, some of the steam has already been taken out of Australian house prices thanks to changes in regulations on new lending (Chart 7), potentially reducing some of the immediate risks to growth from a sharp plunge in home values.  Chart 7...But No Credit Crunch Expected Bottom Line: In 2019, the Australian government and its key financial regulators will have to work together to enforce responsible lending without triggering a catastrophic property market unwind. RBA policymakers are less likely to hike rates given their desire to maintain financial stability in the aftermath of the Commission – or at least until the inflation story forces their hand, as outlined in this report. The Federal Election: Polling Slightly Favors Labor Scandals in the financial sector are of utmost importance to the other major factor that could make 2019 a year of significant change in Australia: the federal election that looms most likely in the spring. Parliament is balanced on a knife’s edge, with the Australian Liberal Party’s loss of former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s parliamentary seat in a Sydney by-election on October 20. The ruling Liberal-National Coalition no longer has a majority and must rely on independent MPs to survive any no-confidence vote. This precarious situation suggests that the election could come even sooner than May and that the slightest twist in the campaign could deliver at least a small majority to either of the top two parties. Indeed, at this early stage, a high-conviction view on the election outcome is not warranted. After all, the 2016 election was decided in the Coalition’s favor only after a shift in opinion in the final month! Chart 8Labor Party Narrowly Leads All-Party Opinion Polls Nevertheless, with all due caveats, our baseline case is for a Labor majority in 2019, however slim it may be.3 Labor is slightly ahead of the Coalition in the primary opinion polling, which includes all parties (Chart 8). In two-party preference polling, Labor has gradually widened its general lead since the July 2016 election and now holds a 10% advantage in the federal polls – albeit only a 6% lead when a moving average is taken (Chart 9). Labor is also winning or tied in every major state. Chart 9Labor Has Large Lead In Two-Party Preference Polls The dramatic shift in polling since August is significant because that is when the knives came out and the Coalition ousted Turnbull in favor of the current Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The purpose of this move was to give the party a facelift ahead of the election. It is true that public opinion views Morrison as the preferred prime minister to Labor’s Bill Shorten. Shorten has a negative net approval rating and has never been viewed as an inspiring politician, while Morrison is just barely net positive. This perception works against Labor’s lead in the party polling – which is very competitive anyway – and suggests the election will be close. Critically, the Liberal-National Coalition’s polling as a whole has not benefited from the change in leadership. And in fact the data does not support the two major Australian parties’ abiding belief that a leadership coup will boost their popularity: Australia has seen four of these coups since 2010, two from Labor and two from the Coalition, and the party in question lost an average of 8% of the popular vote and 14 seats in parliament in the succeeding election (Table 1). Table 1Intra-Party Coups Don’t Win Votes Turnbull’s ouster also calls attention to another detrimental factor for the Coalition: the challenge on the right flank from minor and anti-establishment parties. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has a relatively low support rate both historically and in today’s race, currently at 8%, but anti-establishment feeling may have forced the Coalition into an error. Judging by the party’s weak polling since August, the negative response to Turnbull’s ouster has been more detrimental than the nomination of Morrison, an immigration hardliner and social conservative, has been beneficial. Meanwhile, Labor’s momentum has been corroborated by a string of surprise victories in by-elections and a sweeping win in the Victoria state elections on November 24. In the latter case, the party not only defended its hold on government, as one might expect in this progressive state, but exceeded expectations to win 56 seats out of 88 in the lower House, while the Coalition lost nearly half of its seats, falling from 37 to 21. Still, Labor’s lead is by no means decisive. In the average of the various primary polls its edge over the Coalition is within the margin of error. Moreover, the Coalition holds more “safe” (uncompetitive) seats than Labor.4 The bottom line is that a small swing in either party’s favor can produce a thin majority. The Coalition’s best case is the economy. But as concerns about unemployment and job creation recede, voters will make other demands. The top issues in recent polling are the cost of living, health care, housing affordability, and wages. Some polls also emphasize social mobility and climate change and renewable energy. Will Shorten’s Labor Party be able to capture the median voter? It is highly significant that the party has taken a rightward turn on immigration and taxes even as it holds out a more left-wing agenda on health, education, regulation, and social benefits. Immigration has played a major role in Australian politics and Labor is currently positioned near the political center – in other words, if Morrison hardens his line to guard against populists, he risks over-hardening and moving away from the median voter (Chart 10). Shorten has proposed a large bipartisan task force to determine the proper limits to immigration and how to deal with congestion and infrastructure pressures. Shorten’s platform also calls attention to abuse of temporary visas by foreign workers. Chart 10Labor Is Not Too Soft On Immigration On taxes, Shorten has attempted to separate small and big companies, again in a bid for the political center. When Prime Minister Morrison sought to establish his anti-tax credentials (Chart 11), Shorten met him halfway and proposed relief for middle class families and small and medium-sized enterprises. Yet he doubled down on higher taxes for multinational corporations and high-income earners. Chart 11Liberal-National Coalition Cutting Corporate Tax Rates Critically, the latter redistributive stances are more in line with the median voter than the Liberal Party’s more conservative, supply-side, tax cut agenda. All of Australia’s parties, including the increasingly popular “minority parties,” have a more favorable attitude toward redistribution than the Coalition, which is the outlier (Chart 12). Indeed, the National Party is closer in line with the others than the Liberals, highlighting the divisions within the Coalition that have been jeopardizing votes. As for tax cuts on middle income earners and small businesses, Labor’s acceptance of them speaks to voter concerns about living costs, jobs, and wages. Chart 12The Coalition Is Out Of Synch On Taxes Labor is also closer to the median voter on the aforementioned financial sector scandals. The Coalition stands to suffer because it has developed a reputation for being too cozy with the banks (Chart 13). This is one of the biggest perceived differences between the two major parties – in addition to the negative perception of intra-Coalition betrayal – and it is possibly one of the most salient issues in the election. This presents a serious danger for the Coalition. Chart 13Banks: The Coalition’s Ball And Chain What would a Labor government bring? The market will be jittery about Shorten’s attempts to increase tax revenue, which threatens a non-negligible tightening of fiscal policy. Shorten wants to raise taxes on high income earners; remove or lower deductions and discounts (such as on capital gains); crack down on tax evasion; and tighten control over a range of tax practices specific to Australia (limiting “negative gearing” and cutting cash refunds for “franking credits”). He is also taking a tough position on banks and the energy sector. At the same time, it is clear from Labor’s proposals in 2016 (Chart 14) that there will be a hefty amount of new spending coming down the pike if a Labor government is formed – primarily on education, health, infrastructure and job training. The tax cuts that Shorten does support will go to those with a higher propensity to consume, as well as to SMEs that are responsible for job creation. Chart 14Labor’s Spending Plans Unlikely To Change Much Ultimately, Australia’s recent history, taken in consideration with the global business cycle, does not suggest that the Labor Party is all that much more fiscally profligate than the Coalition – but the current budget balance does suggest that there is substantial room to increase deficits, which is convenient for a government that is predisposed to give voters more services (Chart 15). Hence fiscal easing is the path of least resistance - one that could make the RBA even more comfortable in raising interest rates if the conditions laid out earlier in this report come to pass. Chart 15Australia's Next Government Will Have Room To Spend! Bottom Line: The Australian Labor Party is slightly favored to win the next Australian election. This is a low-conviction call given the tight competition in public opinion polling and other mixed indicators. Broadly speaking, Labor’s shift to the political center on immigration and some tax issues makes the party more electable relative to the Coalition; meanwhile its promise of more government services fits with voter demands. We do not accept the narrative that Shorten’s Labor Party will engage in substantial fiscal tightening. The path of least resistance is for tax cuts as well as revenue collection, and for greater government spending. On the other hand, if the Coalition capitalizes on the incumbent advantage and stays in power, larger tax cuts will be in store. Hence we expect Australia to see marginally larger-than-expected budget deficits and fiscal thrust as the one reliable takeaway of next year’s election. Fixed Income Investment Implications We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Australian government bonds in currency-hedged global bond portfolios. While we have laid out the conditions that would make us change that view in this report, it is still too soon to position for such a move. Our RBA Monitor, which measures the cyclical pressures on the central bank to change monetary policy settings, is modestly below the zero line (Chart 16). This indicates a need for easier policy, although the indicator is starting to rise driven by the inflation components in the Monitor (bottom panel). In terms of market pricing, there are only 15bps of rate hikes over the next year discounted in the Australian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve, so markets are exposed to any shift to a more hawkish bias by the RBA as 2019 progresses. Chart 16Our RBA Monitor Starting To Turn Less Dovish Looking purely at Australian government bond yields, the forward curves are priced for very little change in yields over the next year (Chart 17). This suggests that outright duration trades in Australia look uninteresting from a carry perspective of betting against the forwards. We continue to prefer Australian bonds on a relative basis to global developed market peers until there is more decisive evidence pointing to convergence of Australian growth and inflation to the other major economies (bottom panel). Chart 17Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds Over the past year, Global Fixed Income Strategy has recommended tactical trades in Australian money market futures to fade the pricing of RBA hikes that we did not expect to materialize. Specifically, we entered a long position in December 2018 Australian 90-Day Bank Bill futures on October 17, 2017, then switched to a long October 2019 90-Day Bank Bill futures position on May 29, 2017. The latter contract is now trading at implied interest rate levels just above the RBA’s 1.5% Cash Rate (Chart 18), suggesting that there is no more value in this trade.  Chart 18Taking Profits On Our Long Bank Bill Futures Trade We therefore take a profit of 21bps on the Bank Bill futures trade, while awaiting evidence from the “RBA Hike Checklist” introduced in this report before considering trades that will benefit from a more hawkish central bank.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Technically the House of Representatives election could occur as late as November 2, while the half Senate election is due May 18, but the norm is to hold the election simultaneously. The 2016 election was a “double dissolution” involving the election of the entire Senate and House of Representatives.  2      Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?” dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcareserach.com. 3      We would slightly favor Labor leading a slim majority in the Senate as well as in the House. In the Senate, the half of the seats that are up for grabs are evenly split and the polling at this early stage favors Labor over the Coalition. The poor performance of the Greens, in recent polling and in the Victoria state election, suggests a positive development for Labor on the margin, whereas One Nation, whose polls are improving, poses a threat to the Coalition. 4      Labor is fighting for 15 “marginal” (hotly contested) seats and 28 “fairly safe” seats, while the Coalition is only fighting for 12 marginal seats and 14 fairly safe seats.  

  Overweight (High-Conviction) One of the key themes for 2019 we noted in Monday’s Weekly Report is the later stages of the U.S. capex upcycle; we highlight our high-conviction overweight recommendation on the S&P software index, a hold-over from last year, which is levered to this theme. As shown in the top panel, relative capital outlays and the share price ratio are joined at the hip. Software upgrades offer the simplest, quickest and most effective capital deployment, especially when productivity gains ground to a halt. Importantly, leading indicators of overall capex remain upbeat and should continue to underpin software profits (second panel). The recovery in the software price deflator (bottom panel), a proxy for industry pricing power, corroborates the upbeat demand backdrop. With regard to financial statements, software stocks have pristine balance sheets with more cash on hand than debt, which sustains the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio in negative territory. Interest coverage is great at 10x and free cash flow generation is expanding smartly. Bottom Line: Software stocks should remain core tech holdings in equity portfolios; we reiterate our high-conviction overweight recommendation. Please see Monday’s Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, RHT, ADSK, SNPS, CTXS, ANSS, CDNS, FTNT and SYMC.