China

Highlights So What? The odds of the Democrats taking the Senate have fallen. Meanwhile China's policy easing will benefit China itself, or consumer goods exporters, more so than other EMs. Why? China is the fulcrum of global macro at the moment - only a sharp spike in credit growth will signal a total capitulation by President Xi Jinping. We are lowering the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House from 70% to 65%, while in the Senate the odds fall from 50% to 40%. Generational warfare is one of our new long-run investment themes - it will help define the 2020 election. Feature Amidst the market correction last week, it was easy for investors to take their eyes off the ball: Chinese policy. Chart 1U.S. Is In Rude Health... The ongoing macro environment is one of policy divergence, with the U.S. economy in "rude health," (Chart 1) - to quote BCA's Chief U.S. Strategist Doug Peta - while Chinese growth disappointed under the pressure of macroprudential structural reforms (Chart 2). The dueling policies have converged to produce epic tailwinds for the U.S. dollar (Chart 3) and correspondingly headwinds for global risk assets. Chart 2...But China Still Struggling Chart 3Epic Tailwinds For The Dollar Amidst this backdrop, investors have finally come to terms with the first portion of our thesis: the Fed will respond to robust U.S. growth. Merely weeks ago, markets doubted that the Fed had the temerity to raise interest rates beyond a single hike in 2019. Today, despite President Trump's rhetoric, there is no doubt which way the Fed will guide interest rates next year (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Will Keep Hiking A surge in expectations for hawkish Fed policy beyond 2018 should be detrimental for global risk assets. A determined Fed, racing to meet the rising U.S. neutral rate, may tighten global monetary policy too much given that the global neutral rate is likely lower. That view would support remaining overweight U.S. assets and underweight EM well into 2019. Chart 5Signs That China Is Stimulating China is the fulcrum upon which this view will balance. Beijing continues to signal policy easing. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy's "China Play Index" has perked up, suggesting that global assets are sniffing out the bottoming of restrictive policy (Chart 5). Our own checklist, which would falsify our thesis that Chinese policymakers will avoid a stimulus "overshoot," is starting to see some movement (Table 1). Table 1Will China's Policy Easing Produce A Stimulus Overshoot? If China ramps up stimulus to keep pace with U.S. growth - itself a product of pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus - global risk assets may rally significantly. Our recommendation that investors buy the China Play Index as a portfolio hedge to our bearish view of global risk assets has only returned 0.7% since August 8. China: Credit Data Holds The Key Is it time to ditch the safety of U.S. stocks and embrace ROW? Chart 6What Will September Credit Data Bring? No, at least not yet. It is true that China is clearly shifting towards stimulus. As we go to press, the credit data for September has not yet appeared, but a sharp reversal in credit growth will be necessary to convince global markets that Xi Jinping has fully abandoned his efforts to impose more discipline on China's banks, shadow banks, local governments, and local government financing vehicles (Chart 6). It will be crucial to watch for a reversal in non-bank credit growth, which would suggest that Xi is capitulating on shadow banking, which would then imply a larger reflationary push overall (Chart 7). Chart 7Shadow Bank Crackdown To Lighten Up? The monetary policy setting is currently as easy as in 2016, although there has been no substantive change since July and People's Bank of China chief Yi Gang has signaled that while more can be done, his policy remains "prudent and neutral" (Chart 8). So far this year there have been four cuts to banks' required reserve ratios - it will take additional cuts to signify policy easing beyond expectations as of July (Chart 9). Easier monetary policy implies additional currency depreciation, which could have a reflationary effect. Chart 8Lending Rates Will Decline Substantially If Repo Rates Don't Rise Chart 9RRR Cuts Can Continue Local government brand new bond issuance is catching up to the previous two years', despite a late start. We expect this indicator to be abnormally strong in the closing months of the year, making for an overall increase year-on-year (Chart 10). Local governments are responding to the central government's encouragement to borrow and spend more. Chart 10Local Governments Borrowing More Further, global trade war concerns may abate in the coming months. There is still no guarantee that U.S. President Donald Trump will meet his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at the G20 leaders' summit in Argentina at the end of November. Both sides are expected to bring negotiating teams to this meeting if it goes forward. While no formal talks have taken place since August 23, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did meet with China's central bank Governor Yi Gang on the sidelines of the World Bank Annual Meeting in Bali, Indonesia. They discussed China's foreign exchange policy and the potential meeting between Trump and Xi. Our structural view is that the Sino-American tensions are hurtling towards a modern version of a Cold War. However, that structural view can have cyclical deviations. A pause in U.S.-China acrimony - though not a reversion to status quo ante - could manifest by the end of the year. Chart 11U.S. Is Winning The Trade War... Trade policy uncertainty has greatly favored U.S. assets relative to global, both in terms of equities (Chart 11) and the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Even a temporary truce, if combined with further Chinese stimulus, could reverse the trend. Chart 12...And So Is The U.S. Dollar As such, we can see a temporary pullback in our central thesis of policy divergence, one that benefits global risk assets in the immediate term. However, we caution investors from believing that a structural shift is in place that favors EM and high-beta assets. Put simply, we doubt that China will stimulate as aggressively as it did in 2016, 2012, or 2009 (Chart 13). There is just too much political capital already sunk into macroprudential reforms. Beijing policymakers are therefore sending mixed signals, both looking to stabilize growth rates and contain leverage. Chart 13Expect A Weaker Jolt This Time Several clients have pointed out that the pace and intensity of stimulus is not important. Even a modest turn in Chinese policy will be a strong catalyst for global risk assets at the moment given that the context of 2018-2019 is much more favorable than 2015-2016. In other words, the world is not facing a global manufacturing recession precipitated by a historic decline in commodity prices as it was in 2015. Today, the world needs a lot less from China to spark a cyclical recovery. We are not so sure. First, the big difference between 2015-2016 and today is not the health of the global economy but the health of the U.S. economy and the fact that the Fed is much further along in its tightening cycle. In 2016, the Fed took a 12-month vacation after hiking rates in December 2015, as the amount of slack in the U.S. economy was much larger (Chart 14). Today, the market has begun to price in expectations of further rate hikes in 2019. Chart 14Output Gap Is Closed Second, China's foreign exchange policy could still prove globally deflationary. China faces an exogenous risk today - the trade war - that it did not face in 2015-16. At that time the currency fell amidst financial turmoil, capital outflows, and policy devaluation. But it bottomed in late 2016 after the PBoC defended it robustly, the government imposed strict capital controls, and stimulus stabilized growth. Today the CNY has come under downward pressure again from slower growth, easing monetary policy, and manipulation to retaliate against U.S. tariffs. Despite capital controls, the one year swap-rate differential between China and the U.S. appears to be leading CNY/USD further downward (Chart 15). Given that China's current policy easing is heavily reliant on monetary easing, CNY/USD has more downside. Chart 15Interest Rate Differentials And CNY-USD: A Tight Link Chinese currency trajectory is therefore an important gauge for global investors. Downside beyond the psychological barrier of 6.9-7.0 CNY/USD will at some point have a deflationary rather than reflationary global impact. The PBoC may hold the line and prevent further depreciation, in which case any additional stimulus measures will reinforce this line. But if China adopts more aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus and yet the currency still depreciates due to the U.S. conflict, then China's import demand will not rise by as much as the stimulus would imply. Domestic sentiment will worsen, causing capital outflow pressure to rise, and EM currencies and global growth expectations will suffer. As such, we prefer to play Chinese stimulus through exposure to Chinese equities (ex-tech) relative to other EM equities. Chinese stimulus, we argue, will stay in China, rather than rescue global risk assets. Within EM ex-China, we generally prefer equity indices that are exposed to the Chinese consumer over those exposed to resource-oriented "old China." A key point about China's current policy easing is the use of tax cuts more so than credit-fueled infrastructure construction: the goal of the reform agenda is to boost the consumption share of the economy. As such, we have been recommending that clients overweight South Korea and Malaysia relative to EM benchmarks. Bottom Line: Chinese policy is the fulcrum upon which global policy divergence will turn. If Chinese stimulus overshoots, investors should expand beyond the safety of U.S. assets and spring for global risk assets. At the moment, our view is that Chinese stimulus will not cause global economies to re-converge. Instead, it will benefit Chinese equities relative to other EM plays, and EM markets that export consumer goods to China. Overall, however, we remain cautious on global risk assets. Midterm Update: Did Trump Declare A Generational War? Chart 16GOP Improves In Key Senate Races The Democratic Party's midterm election strategy of opposing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's nomination has failed to work in key Senate races, where President Trump has rallied his base in reaction to the contentious nomination hearings. Polls now indicate that several Republican Senate candidates are in the lead, including the three that we are watching most closely: Tennessee, Arizona, and Nevada (Chart 16). Our own Senate model, which has been generous to Democrats, now sees Arizona, Tennessee, and Missouri as likely going to the Republican Party (Chart 17). Nevada is still projected to flip to the Democratic Party, but the GOP retains the current 51-49 Senate makeup. Chart 17Our Model Suggests Senate Race Will Be A Wash Political betting markets have sniffed out the shift in Senate polls, with the probability of the GOP maintaining control of the Senate now soaring to above 80%. However, the odds of retaining the House have actually reversed after initial gains in October (Chart 18). Why? Chart 18Republican Odds Surge For Senate First, because President Trump remains unpopular despite the surge of support for GOP Senate candidates in some states (Chart 19). Second, the generic ballot continues to give Democrats a robust lead of 7.3% (Chart 20). The lead has narrowed from a high of 9.5% in early September, but does not suggest that Republicans will benefit in the House as much as in the Senate. Chart 19Trump Still Has Popularity Deficit Chart 20Democrats' Robust Lead In Generic Polls Third, Justice Kavanaugh is now sitting on the Supreme Court! Had his nomination been stalled or outright rejected, the anger of the GOP base would have been more sustainable and broad-based going into the voting booth. The paradox for President Trump is that by winning the Supreme Court battle, the shot of adrenaline to the GOP base has been expended. Nonetheless, the fight itself shows yet again that anger works as an election strategy. After all, as counterintuitive as it may seem, there is no evidence that economic performance helps win midterm elections. Our research actually suggests that there is a mildly negative correlation between economic performance and congressional election performance (Chart 21). Voters only vote with their stomachs when they are hungry. Chart 21Strong Economy Won't Save The GOP In The House Of Representatives Midterm voters tend to be motivated by non-economic issues. With the Supreme Court settled in favor of the GOP base, the question arises: Is Trump out of ways to motivate his base with anger? Maybe not (there is still a Wall to be built!), but it may be too late to rally the GOP base sufficiently by November 6. The House appears to be lost, especially if GOP polling momentum stalls at its current level. However, the two parties have given us a glimpse into their strategies for 2020 - outrage versus outrage. President Trump, in an op-ed for USA Today, blasted the Democratic Party as a party of "open border socialism" that seeks to "model America's economy after Venezuela."1 Specifically, he cited plans by the Democratic Party to reform healthcare in such a way as to transfer the benefits that seniors currently enjoy under Medicare to the rest of the population, ending Medicare benefits in the process. The veracity of President Trump's claims is beyond the scope of this report - and has been covered extensively by the media. What is important is that President Trump may have revealed his strategy for 2020: Generational Warfare. Chart 22Here Comes Generational Warfare Investors caught glimpses of this strategy in 2016, when Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appealed directly to Millennial voters in his surprisingly robust battle against Secretary Hillary Clinton. For Democrats, appealing to Millennials is a no brainer. First, they are the largest voting bloc in the country (Chart 22). Their numbers relative to Baby Boomers will necessarily grow. Chart 23Beware The Crisis Of Expectations Second, the share of 30-year-olds earning more than their parents at a similar age has fallen by nearly half (Chart 23). Despite the poor economic situation of today's youth, government spending continues to accrue mainly to the elderly (Chart 24). Chart 24Get Grandma! The problem for Democrats is that the more they appeal to the youth, the more likely that President Trump's charges of socialism will ring true. After all, the 18-29 age cohort has more favorable views of socialism than capitalism (Chart 25). Yes, even in America! Chart 25Uh-Oh... Where does this leave investors? First, American politics is no longer merely ideologically polarized. In 2020, we expect generational polarization to emerge as a major theme. Second, the kind of Generational Warfare practised by President Trump leaves no room for cuts to public services. Trump is not opposing Democratic "open border socialism" with traditional, centrist, Republican calls for entitlement reform. Instead, he is casting himself as a champion and defender of Baby Boomer entitlements, which, as Chart 24 clearly illustrates, leave spending on the youth in the dust. The point is that President Trump is not preaching fiscal conservativism. There is no room for entitlement reform in the new GOP. Generational Warfare will simply seek to prevent Democrats from shifting more benefits to the non-Baby Boomer share of the population by preserving the already unsustainable Baby Boomer entitlements. BCA Research's House View sees 2020 as the likeliest date for the next U.S. recession. At the end of 2020, The Congressional Budget Office projects that the U.S. budget deficit will be around 5% (Chart 26). Given that the last four recessions raised the U.S. budget deficit by an average of 5% of GDP, it is safe to say that the U.S. budget deficit may rise to 2010 levels after the next downturn. Chart 26U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Given President Trump's and the Democratic Party's focus on Generational Warfare, it is unlikely that entitlement reform will occur proactively either before or after the next recession. This suggests that bond yields could rise significantly after the next downturn. Bottom Line: Our baseline odds for the midterm recession are due for an adjustment. We are lowering the odds of a Democratic House takeover to 65% (from 70%) and of a Senate takeover to 40% (from 50%). President Trump's USA Today op-ed signals a turn towards Generational Warfare. Neither the GOP nor the Democratic Party are interested in entitlement reform. The former, under Trump, seeks to preserve the already unsustainable Baby Boomer benefits, while the latter seeks to expand them to the rest of the population. The 2020 election may be fought along the lines of who is more profligate toward their base. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Donald Trump: Democrats Medicare for All plan will demolish promises to seniors," published by USA Today, dated October 12, 2018.

Highlights So What? More downside to CNY/USD ahead. Why? The trade war is spilling into political and military arenas, making it harder to de-escalate and negotiate a trade deal. Official U.S. and Chinese rhetoric is increasingly antagonistic, reflecting once-in-a-generation policy shifts toward a new Cold War. Tensions will not subside after the U.S. midterm election - neither the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement nor any quick deals with Japan and the EU will speed up U.S.-China negotiations. Feature Clients know that BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been alarmist on U.S.-China relations since we started as a service in 2012.1 This structural view is based on the long-term decline of U.S. power relative to China and the emergence of global multipolarity.2 However, the rise of General Secretary Xi Jinping in 2012 and President Donald Trump in 2016 have reinforced our view that "Sino-American conflict is more likely than you think."3 This includes military as well as economic conflict. Setting aside the risk of war, a geopolitical "incident" of some kind is becoming increasingly likely. As the two sides engage in brinkmanship, the probability of a miscalculation or provocation rises, and the probability of a grand new compromise falls. For investors, the takeaway is supportive of Geopolitical Strategy's current stance: long U.S. dollar, long U.S. stocks relative to DM, and long DM stocks relative to EM. We expect CNY/USD to fall further as markets question the ability to discount trade uncertainties via tariff rates alone (Chart 1). We continue to recommend a "safe haven" hedge of Swiss bonds and gold. Chart 1CNY/USD Has More Downside The risk is that China could respond to U.S. pressure by stimulating its economy aggressively. So far, the "China Play Index," devised by our Foreign Exchange Strategy, does not signal reflation. Nor do Chinese domestic infrastructure stocks relative to global, which our China Investment Strategy watches closely (Chart 2). Chart 2Small Stimulus Thus Far Trade Tensions Are Spilling Over A corollary of our view that U.S.-China tensions are secular and strategic in nature - i.e., not limited to the U.S. trade deficit - is the view that trade tensions will spill over into strategic areas, exacerbating those tensions and generating negative outcomes for investors exposed to the U.S.-China economic partnership.4 This strategic spillover is now taking shape. Since President Trump went forward with the second round of tariffs - 10% on $200 billion worth of imports, to ratchet up to 25% on January 1, 2019 - a series of negative events have taken place in U.S.-China relations (Table 1), culminating in the USS Decatur incident on September 30. Table 1Trade War Spills Into Strategic Areas The Decatur, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, was conducting operations in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea when it sailed within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson Reefs, which China claims as sovereign islands. At around 8:30am that Sunday morning, a Luyang-class destroyer from China's People's Liberation Army Navy "approached within 45 yards of Decatur's bow, after which Decatur maneuvered to prevent a collision," according to the U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman. This was not an unprecedented incident in itself, but it came very close to a collision that could easily have resulted in a shipwreck, a full-blown U.S.-China crisis, and a global risk-off event in financial markets. The Decatur sailed close to the Chinese-claimed reefs because it was conducting a "Freedom of Navigation Operation" (FONOP) to assert the international right of free passage. A major point of contention between China and the U.S. (and between China and most of its neighbors and the western world) is that China claims outright sovereignty over about 80% of the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands. In July 2016, the International Court of Arbitration ruled that none of the contested rocks and reefs in the sea qualify as islands and hence that they are not entitled to 12 nautical miles of "territorial" sea. China rejects this ruling and asserts sovereignty over the maritime features and much of the sea itself.5 In Diagram 1 we illustrate how a FONOP works based on a similar operation last year. The U.S. has conducted these operations for decades, but in late 2015 it began a series of FONOPs focusing on countering China's excessive claims in the South China Sea.6 This was also a way of opposing China's construction, reclamation, and "militarization" of the reefs under its possession. Diagram 1What Is A 'Freedom Of Navigation Operation'? It is not remotely a surprise that this year's trade tensions came close to exploding in the South China Sea. It is the premier geographic location of U.S.-China strategic friction: a hub for international trade; a vital supply route for all major Asian economies; and the primary focus of China's attempt to rewrite global rules (Diagram 2).7 The Appendix updates our list of clashes in this area. Diagram 2South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout The takeaway is that, far from capitulating to the Trump administration's trade demands, China is taking a more aggressive stance - and it is doing so outside the trade context. The U.S., for its part, has not diminished the significance of this incident, as it has often done on similar occasions.8 Instead, Vice President Mike Pence gave a remarkable speech at the Hudson Institute on October 4 in which he highlighted the Decatur, among a range of other "predatory" Chinese state-backed actions, to make a comprehensive case that China is a geopolitical rival seeking to undermine the United States and specifically the Trump administration.9 Pence's comments reflect a decision to "go public" with a shift in national strategy that has been developing in recent years, beginning - albeit tepidly - even in the Obama administration. A similar shift is underway in China - and has accelerated with the U.S.'s implementation of tariffs. Official Communist Party rhetoric increasingly characterizes the U.S. as an enemy whose real intention is to "contain" China's rise and has recently called for Chinese "self-reliance" in the face of U.S. sanctions.10 The two sides are bracing for conflict and are now seeking to mold public opinion more actively. Bottom Line: Investors should take note: markets were 45 yards away from a significant correction! The U.S.-China trade tensions are spilling outside of economic relations into political and military domains, as we expected. The South China Sea remains a hot zone that could be the setting of a geopolitical incident as tensions mount. What Is A Show Of Force? Notably, the U.S. military is said to be considering a "global show of force" during an unspecified week in November in order to deter China from its current policy trajectory. If this occurs, it will be market-relevant as it will be seen as a provocation by China and other U.S. rivals. A "show of force" is a formal military operation conducted by a nation with the purpose of demonstrating that it has both the will and the ability to use force in defense of its interests. It is fundamentally a political action, even though it utilizes military resources. The declared intention is to demonstrate resolve and prevent or deter an undesirable course of action by a rival state.11 Nevertheless, it is the equivalent of a dog baring its teeth and should not be taken lightly, especially when conducted by one major power against another. The U.S. holds shows of force fairly frequently. Over recent decades it has been the third most common type of operation for U.S. forces.12 However, for most of the past several decades, the U.S. conducted very few operations in the Asia Pacific not pertaining to the Vietnam War, and these were usually of limited length and intensity. They were often shows of force to deter North Korea from various acts of terrorism and sabotage. China was rarely involved - there was, for example, no U.S. deployment during the Tiananmen crisis. Nevertheless there are a few highly relevant precedents: By far the most important exception is the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996. This was a major show of force - and one whose shadow still hangs over the Taiwan Strait. In July 1995, Beijing launched a series of missile tests and military exercises, hoping to discourage pro-independence sentiment and dissuade the Taiwanese people from voting for President Lee Teng-hui - who was rightly suspected of favoring independence - ahead of the 1996 elections. The United States responded on March 1, 1996 by deploying two aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz and USS Independence, and various warships to the area. The Nimitz even sailed through the strait. Tensions peaked ahead of the Taiwanese election on March 23, 1996 - in which voters went against China's wishes - and the show of force concluded after 48 days on April 17. Of course, tensions simmered for years afterwards. The Taiwan incident was the only operation involving China in the 1990s, and the first to do so since a minor contingency operation upon the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979. It is generally deemed successful in demonstrating U.S. commitment to Taiwan's security - but it also spurred a revolution in Chinese military affairs, such that China is today in a far better position to attack Taiwan than ever before.13 The market effects were pronounced: Chinese and Taiwanese equities sold off. American stocks were unaffected (Chart 3). Chart 3Naval Shows Of Force Can Rattle Markets The second major exception was the Hainan Island Incident, or EP-3 Incident. On April 1, 2001 a Chinese jet struck a U.S. EP-3 ARIES II signals reconnaissance plane in the skies over the South China Sea. The U.S. plane landed on China's island province of Hainan, where its crew was detained and interrogated for 10 days while their aircraft was meticulously disassembled. Ultimately the U.S. issued a half-hearted apology and the crew was released. This was a much smaller show of force than the third Taiwan crisis. The U.S. Navy positioned three destroyers in the area for two days. Chart 4A South China Sea Incident Helped Kill The Bull Market This incident marked the peak of the cycle in U.S. equities ex-tech (Chart 4). In China, both A-shares and H-shares experienced volatility before selling off in subsequent months (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 5Volatility And Selloffs Amid Asian Shows Of Force The Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island incidents occasioned a show of force. On March 26, 2010 a North Korean miniature submarine conducted a surprise torpedo attack against the Cheonan, a South Korean Corvette, sinking it and killing 46 sailors. The U.S. intended to respond by positioning the USS George Washington in the Yellow Sea, but was intimidated from doing so by China's fiercely negative diplomatic reaction. Instead it deployed the carrier to the Sea of Japan. Later that year, however, after North Korea shelled Yeonpyeong Island and killed four South Koreans, the U.S. responded with a beefed up version of regular military drills, including the George Washington, for four days in the Yellow Sea. This incident is significant in showing how aggressively China will oppose demonstrations of American naval power in its near abroad. Unlike in 1996, China is today much better positioned to react to U.S. naval action in its neighborhood. If Beijing was so resistant to a U.S. show of force against North Korea in the wake of a North Korean attack, it will be even more resistant to a U.S. display of might in China's nearby waters aimed at China in response to what China views as a defense of maritime-territorial sovereignty. Chinese A-shares sold off, while H-shares were somewhat more resilient, during this episode (Chart 5, second panel). Fire and Fury: The United States' latest significant show of force occurred in 2017 when the navy positioned three aircraft carrier strike groups in the region to deter North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric against the United States. This action ultimately led to Chinese enforcement of sanctions and North Korean capitulation to U.S. demands. Chinese stocks only briefly sold off during this episode (Chart 5, third panel). However, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield fell during the peak of tensions in the summer. So what about the global show of force that the U.S. is considering in November? Details on the specific operation under consideration are scant because they fall under a "classified proposal," written by members of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command and only partially leaked to the press (apparently to coincide with Vice President Pence's speech).14 The proposal is still being discussed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence Community, so nothing is final. From the information that is publicly available, it is highly significant that the proposed show of force is supposed to be "global" in range. It would reportedly involve a "series" of military missions on "several fronts," including the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, an unspecified area near Russia, and the west coast of South America. It would also involve multiple military services - the navy, the air force, the marines, and potentially cyber and space capabilities. While the various missions would reportedly be "concentrated" and "focused," implying that the U.S. wants to manage the escalation of tensions carefully, the locations that have been named are extremely sensitive. A show of force in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea would be provocative enough. A simultaneous show of force against both China and Russia in today's context would be truly extraordinary.15 In short, if the report is accurate, the U.S. is contemplating a rare and provocative display of its global power projection capabilities. Why would the U.S. stage such a grand demonstration merely because of a taunt by a Chinese ship? The Decatur incident is only the proximate cause. Washington is in the midst of attempting a very dangerous "two-front war" against China and Iran, the latter of whom faces oil sanctions from November 4.16 Moreover, this is a "three-front war" if today's historically bad relations with Russia are taken into account. Indeed, the U.S. may well be responding to the joint show of force by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi in their own large-scale military exercises in September, in which Chinese soldiers participated in a Russian drill outside the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for the first time.17 As such, we would not put any stock in the idea that a sudden drop-off in geopolitical tensions, with China or anyone else, will occur after the U.S. midterm election on November 6. Rather, investors should expect an increase in geopolitical risk. There is no combination of midterm election results in which Trump will be forced to pull back on his "Maximum Pressure" doctrine. The proposal is not final, and the idea alone is a low-level threat that could be used in negotiations. But under the circumstances, we think it more likely than not that the U.S. will go forward with it. Ultimately, the U.S. proposal epitomizes our mega-theme of multipolarity. The U.S. is in relative decline and is reasserting itself with a muscular national security policy, particularly against China and Iran but also against Russia. However, its actions are highly unlikely to cause a change in China's behavior now that Beijing has determined that the U.S. is seeking Cold War-style strategic containment. Instead, China will hasten its efforts to become self-reliant and to deter U.S. aggression in its near abroad. Global economic policy uncertainty, and trade policy uncertainty, are likely to increase, not decrease, in such an environment. Saber-rattling and supply-chain risk will weigh on EM Asia in particular. Bottom Line: The U.S. government is contemplating an extraordinary "global show of force" that could involve a series of joint military operations across the globe. The chief focus is China, but the unknown array of operations could also target Russia or Iran. We think such operations are plausible and will increase global economic uncertainty. We would expect them to create volatility in global markets, adding to jitters over China tariffs (supply-chain risks) and Iranian sanctions (oil prices). How Will China Retaliate? China does not have the ability to respond proportionately to the U.S. - it cannot hold a global show of force of its own. Because its own shows of force will appear diminutive next to American fireworks, it may not react immediately. Beijing is more likely to respond by changing its policies to address the underlying increase in antagonism with the United States and improve its national security. We would classify its potential responses into two main groups: the low road and the high road. The low road consists of policies meant to confront the U.S. directly and forcefully. In our view, these policies bring significant costs that will make China reluctant to embrace them fully: Raise the stakes in the South China Sea: China could go for broke and deploy the full range of military assets in the islands that it has repurposed. This would provoke an even larger international naval response from the U.S. and its allies.18 Remove sanctions on North Korea: China could reverse sanctions enforcement on North Korea (Chart 6) and undermine President Trump's signature foreign policy overture. The problem is that China would then provide the U.S. with a pretext for an even greater military presence in Northeast Asia. Chart 6China Could Reverse Sanctions Enforcement Flout sanctions on Iran: China could subsidize Iran (Chart 7) in the hopes of helping to create a huge American distraction comparable to the second Iraq war. But this confrontation would threaten China with an oil shock and economic dislocation, an even greater conflict with the U.S., and the risk of regime change in Iran.19 Chart 7China Could Flout Iran Sanctions Punish U.S. companies: China could raise the pressure on U.S. companies doing business on its territory. The problem is that the U.S. has already demonstrated, through the ZTE affair this year, that it can inflict devastating reprisals against the tech champions on whom China's economic future depends (Chart 8). Chart 8U.S. Could Punish Chinese Tech Firms Thus China is most likely to take the "high road," i.e. seeking alternatives to the United States throughout the rest of the world: Chart 9China's Market Is Its Biggest Advantage Import more goods: China's greatest strength in winning friends is that its domestic demand remains relatively robust (Chart 9). China can substitute away from the U.S. by shifting to other developed markets. Emerging markets are becoming more connected with China and less so with the U.S. (Chart 10). Chart 10China's Trade Ties Grow, Ex-U.S. Maintain outward investment: China's outward investment profile is expanding rapidly (Chart 11), but there is potential for a negative political backlash - as has occurred in Malaysia.20 China will need to focus on improving relations with those countries where it expands investment, including in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).21 Chart 11China's Outward Investment Strategy: Priorities Over The Past Decade Court U.S. regional allies: Relations with South Korea have already improved; Shinzo Abe of Japan is soon to make a rare state visit to China; and trilateral trade talks between these three have revived for the first time since 2015 (Chart 12). Both the Philippines and Thailand currently have governments that are friendly to China. Beijing will need to ensure that its growing trade surpluses do not get out of whack. Chart 12Can China Court U.S. Allies? Sign multilateral trade pacts: China is trying to position itself as a leader of free trade. This is a tough sell, but a successful completion of negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) will generate some momentum. This Asia Pacific trade grouping is far larger in terms of total imports than its more sophisticated rival, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the latter being shorn of U.S. participation (Chart 13). Chart 13RCEP Is Bigger Than CPTPP Play nice in the South China Sea: Now that the U.S. is proposing to push back against Chinese militarization of the islands, it makes sense for China to take a conciliatory approach. It is proposing joint energy exploration with the Philippines and others at least as long as offshore activity is depressed (Chart 14). China might also try to settle a diplomatic "Code of Conduct" for the sea with its neighbors. Chart 14A Reason For China To Play Nice The most important consequence is an alliance with Russia, whether formal or not. The security agenda of these two powers is increasingly aligned with their robust economic partnership (Chart 15).22 The differences and distrust between them cannot override their need to guard themselves against a more assertive United States. Chart 15Embrace Of Dragon And Bear Bottom Line: China's "high road" strategies are its best options when more aggressive options have higher risks of undermining China's own long-term interests. But an alliance with Russia is quickly becoming inevitable. Investment Implications A global show of force targeting China's "core interests" in Taiwan and the South China Sea will make trade negotiations even more difficult. China is not going to offer concessions when facing U.S. military intimidation in addition to tariffs.23 Investors should watch closely for any signs that nationalist protests and boycotts of U.S. goods are developing in China. Such a movement would not be allowed to continue for long without the Communist Party condoning it. A boycott would mark a form of retaliation that is much more impactful than tariffs. A deterioration in cultural ties is also in the cards. The United States is reported to be considering restrictions on Chinese student visas after intelligence assessments of non-traditional technological and intellectual property theft via graduate students in advanced programs such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.24 U.S. markets remain insulated today, as in the last big rupture in U.S.-China relations in 1989, so we continue to expect U.S. equities to outperform Chinese (and global) stocks amid trade tensions and saber-rattling. Chart 16Last U.S.-China Crisis Prompted Stimulus... However, an important takeaway from the 1989 episode is that China stimulated the economy (Chart 16). This time we think stimulus will remain lackluster, reflecting Xi's need to keep overall leverage contained (Chart 17). But conflict escalation with the U.S. is clearly the biggest risk to this view. Chart 17...But Stimulus Muted Thus Far One oft-discussed retaliatory option is that China could sell off its vast $1.17 trillion holdings of U.S. treasuries. Rapidly dumping them is not effective, but slowly tapering is precisely what China has been doing since 2011 (Chart 18). This will accelerate its need to invest in real assets abroad and to purchase alternative reserve currencies, such as the euro, pound, and yen. Chart 18China Weans Itself Off Treasuries Ultimately, the significance of Vice President Pence's speech is that the U.S. now views China as both a great power and a threat to U.S. supremacy. This raises the potential for a large share of the $33 billion in cumulative U.S. direct investment in China since 2006 to become, effectively, stranded capital (Chart 19). If that is indeed the case, it would mean that investors in S&P 500 China-exposed companies would have to take note and re-rate their investments. Companies with significant investment in China may have to make capital investments in alternative supply-chain options, leading to a significant hit to their profit margin. Chart 19Stranded Capital In China? Other countries in Europe and the rest of Asia stand to benefit from the U.S. getting squeezed out of China's market, unless and until the new Cold War forces them to choose sides. Their choice is by no means a foregone conclusion, underscoring that China's policy response will be to seek better bonds with its neighbors and non-U.S. partners. Over the longer term, we think that our mega-theme of multipolarity will produce the bifurcation of capitalism. Within each sphere of influence globalization will continue to operate, but between spheres, or in the border areas, it will become a much less tidy affair. In addition to our recommendations above on page 2, we are reinitiating our short U.S. S&P 500 China-exposed stocks relative to the broad market. These companies have sold off heavily in recent months but the negative backdrop suggests that there is farther to go. Housekeeping On a separate note, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is closing our long U.S. high-tax rate basket relative to S&P 500 trade for a gain of 8.26%. This was a play on the Trump tax cuts that we initiated in April 2017. Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Underestimating Sino-American Tensions," dated November 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, and "The Looming Conflict In The South China Sea," May 29, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Comparable incidents in December 2013, August 2014, May 2016, December 2016, August 2017, and March 2018 did not receive such a high-level response from U.S. leaders, reflecting both the seriousness of the Decatur incident and the administration's sense of political expediency amidst the trade conflict and midterm election cycle. 9 Pence criticized Chinese President Xi by name for allegedly breaking his word on the militarization of the Spratly Islands. He suggested that China's outward investment should be understood in strategic rather than economic terms, implying that the Belt and Road Initiative is a Soviet-style plan to organize a "bloc" of nations under Chinese hegemony. And he hinted at a new defense of the Monroe Doctrine in his criticism of China's recent assistance to the collapsing socialist regime in Venezuela. Please see the White House, "Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration's Policy Toward China," dated October 4, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 10 The Trump administration's key document is Secretary of Defense James Mattis, "Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America," Department of Defense, 2018, available at dod.defense.gov. For the Xi administration, see Orange Wang and Zhou Xin, "Xi Jinping says trade war pushes China to rely on itself and 'that's not a bad thing,'" South China Morning Post, dated September 26, 2018, available at www.scmp.com; and the Information Office of the State Council, "The Facts and China's Position on China-US Trade Friction," September 2018, available at www.chinadaily.com. 11 For this discussion of shows of force please see W. Eugene Cobble, H. H. Gaffney, and Dmitry Gorenburg, "For the Record: All U.S. Forces' Responses to Situations, 1970-2000 (with additions covering 2000-2003)," Center for Strategic Studies, May 2005, available at www.dtic.mil. 12 See footnote 11 above. 13 Please see William S. Murray, "Asymmetric Options for Taiwan's Defense," Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, June 5, 2014, available at www.uscc.gov. 14 Please see Barbara Starr, "US Navy proposing major show of force to warn China," dated October 4, 2018, available at www.cnn.com. 15 Even the South American location implies that Chinese, Russian, and Iranian influence on that continent is now deemed meaningful enough to require a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine. Over the past decade, the U.S. has tended to regard these activities as limited, but now that may be changing. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "2019: The Geopolitical Recession?" dated October 3, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see "Russia Holds Massive War Games, As Putin And Xi Tout Ties," Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, September 11, 2018, available at www.rferl.org. 18 Australia, Japan, and the U.K. have already begun enforcing freedom of navigation alongside the U.S. 19 The U.S. could also impose secondary sanctions on China for non-compliance. State-owned energy firm Sinopec, for instance, was said to be reducing imports of crude from Iran by half in the month of September. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that Chinese refiners, like other Asian refiners, are preparing to run more light-sweet crude from the U.S. in the future, which gives a good yield in high-value-added products like gasoline. So far China has not imposed retaliatory tariffs on these imports from the U.S. Please see Chen Aizhu and Florence Tan, "China's Sinopec halves Iran oil loadings under U.S. pressure: sources," Reuters, dated September 28, 2018, available at uk.reuters.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'," dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown?" dated September 13, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, and "The Embrace Of The Dragon And The Bear," dated April 11, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Xi Jinping's refusal to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over the past weekend, and decision to visit North Korea for the first time in his term, underscores this point. 24 Please see Demetri Sevastopulo and Tom Mitchell, "US considered ban on student visas for Chinese nationals," Financial Times, dated October 2, 2018, available at www.ft.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued)

Highlights Heightening geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China, higher U.S. bond yields, tightening U.S. dollar liquidity and weakening EM/China growth - all combined - constitute a bitter cocktail for EM. Barring a meaningful improvement in Chinese growth, higher U.S. bond yields will be overwhelming for EM financial markets. U.S. banks are not creating new dollars sufficiently. In addition, they are shrinking their claims on EM. The U.S. dollar is primed for another upleg. Downgrade Indian stocks from overweight to underweight within a dedicated EM equity portfolio. Feature As China becomes more assertive and slightly hostile toward the U.S., this will likely mark a paradigm shift in the macro landscape and asset valuations and, hence, could become a grey swan1 event for emerging markets (EM). Investors remain complacent about the ongoing geopolitical confrontation between these two economic giants as well as other headwinds that China and EM are facing. The decision by the Trump administration to raise import tariffs to 25% on $200 billion of China's exports to the U.S. as of January 1, 2019 is an unambiguous signal that U.S. trade confrontation with China is not a pre-mid-term election political plot. Instead, it is the beginning of a long-term geopolitical battle between an existing and rising superpower. Remarkably, the just-concluded trade deal between the U.S., Mexico and Canada (USMCA) includes language that requires signatories to give notice if they plan to negotiate a free trade deal with a "non-market" economy.2 Provided "non-market" country is for now implied to be China, this corroborates that confrontation with the latter is a new long-term strategy for the U.S. In addition, investors should not expect China to be constantly on the defensive. Both the political leadership and people in China have realized that trade is not the only aspect where the U.S. is likely to challenge the Middle Kingdom, and they recognize it will be a long-term battle. Therefore, the communist party and President Xi will counter the U.S. with reasonably tough actions. Quite simply, failure to do so will place the political leadership's credibility in question. President Xi understands this well, and will not allow it to happen. It is hard to forecast the avenues and approaches that Chinese leadership will explore to confront the U.S. Yet the recent navy incident in the South China Sea exemplifies that China will not be silent in this row.3 More generally, EM financial markets are not ready for such negative surprises. For example, there has been little capitulation on the part of asset managers with respect to EM equities. In fact, they have lately been buying EM ETF futures (Chart I-1). Global financial market volatility calculated as an equally weighted average of volatility in U.S. and EM equities, U.S. bonds, various currencies, oil and gold are near its historic lows (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Asset Managers Have Been Buying EM Equity Futures Chart I-2Financial Markets Volatility Is Very Low Remarkably, the U.S. bond market volatility is at an all-time low while bond yields are breaking out (Chart I-3). Odds are the U.S. yields will move up considerably. The basis is that strong growth and rising inflation in the U.S. warrant considerably higher bond yields and more Fed rate hikes than are currently priced in. Barring a meaningful improvement in Chinese growth and global trade, higher U.S. bond yields will be overwhelming for EM financial markets. In particular, higher U.S interest rates could trigger another downleg in the value of Chinese yuan. Chart I-4 illustrates that the China-U.S. interest rate differential has been instrumental to moves in the RMB/USD exchange rate. Chart I-3A Breakout In U.S. Bond Yields Chart I-4China Vs. U.S.: Does Interest Rate ##br##Differential Explain Exchange Rate? Apart from the heightening geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China and higher U.S. bond yields, weakening EM/China growth, tightening global U.S. dollar liquidity and a strong U.S. dollar all combined will constitute a bitter cocktail for EM. We discuss some of these negatives below. All in all, financial markets could be on the cusp of a volatility outbreak, and EM will still be at the epicenter of the storm. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service continues to recommend short positions in EM risk assets and an underweight allocation versus DM. A Dead Cat Bounce... Emerging markets share prices have attempted to stage a rebound lately, but so far it appears to be nothing more than a dead cat bounce. Even thought the aggregate EM equity index managed a 5% bounce in recent weeks, both the EM equally weighted equity and small-cap indexes have failed to rebound at all (Chart I-5, top and middle panels). Similarly, EM bank stocks - which make up 17% of the MSCI market cap and are the key to the benchmark's performance - have not rallied (Chart I-5, bottom panel). This is occurring at a time when the S&P 500 is at all-time highs. These are very unhealthy signs for EM risk assets. ...As China/EM Growth Continues To Downshift The premise behind the lack of meaningful rebound in EM equities in our view is that both global manufacturing and world trade growth continue to downshift (Chart I-6, top panel). The epicenters of the slowdown are China and other emerging economies (Chart I-6, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-5No Confirmation Of EM Rebound Chart I-6EM/China Growth Is Decelerating Importantly, the Markit PMI manufacturing surveys suggest export orders contracted in September in the world's important manufacturing hubs, including China, Japan, Taiwan and Germany. The last time such poor export performance was registered was more than two years ago. The slump in the aggregate EM manufacturing PMI explains not only the EM equity selloff but also EM credit spreads widening and EM currency depreciation since the beginning of this year (Chart I-7). So long as the weakening trend in EM/China and global trade growth persist, EM risk assets and currencies will continue to sell off. Regarding China, growth deceleration was already occurring before the initial import tariffs took hold. Specifically, not only are overseas orders weak, but also domestic orders have rolled over decisively, as indicated by the People's Bank of China's (PBoC) 5000 industrial enterprise survey (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Weakening Growth Explains Selloff In ##br##EM Credit And Currencies Chart I-8China: Domestic And Overseas Orders In the mainland, the boost to infrastructure spending in the coming months will likely be offset by a slump in property construction and other segments of the economy. We discussed this angle in our recent report,4 but in recent days there has been more real estate market tightening. Specifically, the authorities are considering the cancellation of the housing pre-sale system in Guangdong province - a policy that could be applied to other geographies. The motive of this tightening is to curb both the land-buying frenzy and Ponzi financing schemes that many developers are involved in. This fits the policy script of dealing with and purging speculation and excesses early to prevent a bust later. These policy measures will cut off property developers from their primary source of funding - presales - and force them to reduce their construction volumes. As an unintended consequence of this announcement, some developers have already begun cutting house prices to accelerate pre-sales and raise funds. Given already bubbly property valuations and the existence of substantial speculative buying, house price deflation could set off a domino chain effect of lower prices, reduced speculative investment purchases and financial strains on developers, leading them in turn to offer even larger price discounts to generate funds faster, and so on. Forecasting the exact trajectory of a downturn and the speed of its adjustment is impossible. This is why we focus on the presence of major imbalances/excesses and policy tightening that could cause disentangling of these excesses. Given the still-considerable property market excesses5 prevalent in China and the money/credit tightening that has already occurred in the past two years, we reckon the odds of a material property market downtrend are substantial. On the whole, our main theme for China and EM remains that mainland construction activity will continue to downshift, with negative implications for countries that supply construction goods, materials and equipment. U.S. Dollars Shortages? The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders and inflationary pressures continue to rise. Barring a deflationary shock from China/EM, the Federal Reserve has little reason to halt its rate hikes or abandon its policy of shrinking its balance sheet. Not only are U.S. interest rates rising, but there are also budding U.S. dollar shortages that will get worse: The U.S. banking system's excess reserves at the Fed are dwindling, as the latter continues to shrink its balance sheet (Chart I-9). U.S. banks' dollar-denominated claims on foreign entities in general and emerging markets in particular are shrinking (Chart I-10). Thus, EM debtors in particular have found themselves short of dollars. Chart I-9The U.S. Dollar Is Primed For Another Upleg Chart I-10U.S. Dollar Shortages In Rest Of World Finally, U.S. banks are not creating enough dollars - their total assets are growing at a paltry rate of 1%, and U.S. broad money (M2) growth is expanding at 4% annually - the slowest pace in the past 14 years excluding the aftermath of the 2008 credit crisis (Chart I-11). Bottom Line: The Fed is shrinking its balance sheet, and high-powered money/liquidity in the banking system is falling. This and other factors are discouraging U.S. banks from creating new U.S. dollars. Along with rising U.S. interest rates, this will propel the greenback higher, which will be detrimental for EM risk assets. Equity Portfolio Rotation Amid High Oil Prices Given the recent breakout in oil prices, we make the following changes to our country equity allocation: Upgrade Russia from neutral to overweight.4 October 2018 Orthodox macro policy and high oil prices will help this bourse to outperform the EM benchmark (Chart I-12, top panel). We have already been overweight Russia within EM local bonds, currency and credit portfolios.6 Chart I-11U.S. Banks Are Not Creating Sufficient Amount Of Dollars Chart I-12Upgrade Russian And Colombian Equities ##br##From Neutral To Overweight Upgrade Colombian equities from neutral to overweight. Like Russia, high oil prices and orthodox macro policies justify an upgrade (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Upgrade Malaysia from underweight to neutral.4 October 2018 High energy prices, hope for structural changes and low inflation do not justify an underweight stance. Still, Malaysia is vulnerable to slowdown in global trade and credit excesses of the past years that have not yet been worked out. This prevents us from upgrading this bourse to overweight. Downgrade Philippines equities from neutral to underweight.4 October 2018 Inflation is breaking out and the central bank is behind the curve.7 Downgrade India from overweight to underweight. More detailed analysis on India starts on the following page. Our equity overweights are Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Brazil, South Africa, India, the Philippines, Indonesia and Peru. The complete list of our equity, fixed-income, credit and currency allocations are always presented at the end of our Weekly Reports, please refer to page 16. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Downgrade Indian Equities 4 October 2018 We are downgrading our allocation to Indian stocks from overweight to underweight within an EM-dedicated equity portfolio (Chart II-1). Rising stress in the country's non-bank finance companies - the recent default of finance company Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited and the fire-sale of Dewan Housing Finance bonds by a mutual fund - has been responsible for escalating financial risks, and will have ramifications for overall macro stability and growth. Stress Among Finance Companies: Liquidity Or Solvency? Finance companies account for about 12% of the MSCI India Stock Index. Further, there are deep interlinkages between them and mutual funds. Chart II-2 shows that mutual funds have exponentially increased their claims on non-bank finance companies by purchasing commercial paper (short-term debt obligations) issued by the latter. Chart II-1Failure To Break Out Is A Bad Omen Chart II-2Mutual Funds' Exposure To Finance Companies Further signs that the non-bank finance sector is having difficulties rolling over or repaying their debt obligations will hurt mutual funds. This might trigger redemptions from the latter by their own investors. Importantly, mutual funds' net purchases of equities as well as bonds has been very strong in recent years, often outpacing that of foreigners (Chart II-3). Given the former's large holdings of various securities, forced selling by mutual funds can often create an air pocket for Indian financial markets: local investors will be selling at a time when foreign investors are not yet ready to buy. Odds are considerable that stress will continue to escalate in the non-bank financial sector. Short-term interest rates and corporate bond yields are rising (Chart II-4). This is occurring at a time when non-bank finance companies are very vulnerable because of their liquidity mismanagement. Chart II-3Indian Mutual Funds Are Large Investors In Stocks And Bonds Chart II-4Rising Borrowing Costs Financial data from six non-bank finance companies included in the MSCI India Equity Index reveals that short-term debt levels for these companies are extremely elevated (Chart II-5, top panel) and their liquidity situation is grim. A measure of liquidity risk, calculated as short-term investments (including cash) minus short-term borrowing, has plummeted and is in deep negative territory (Chart II-5, bottom panel). In short, these finance companies have been borrowing short term and lending long term. Additionally, these entities will soon have to deal with surging non-performing assets (NPAs). Total assets for large finance companies - including the six companies included in the MSCI Equity Index - have grown at an annual average of around 20% since 2010. It is difficult to lend or invest at such a rapid pace while avoiding capital misallocation and the accumulation of bad assets. Crucially, the current level for NPAs for these six finance companies is 2.3% of risk-weighted assets, but could rise much further. Their provisions stand 2.1%, which barely covers existing NPAs. Hence, provisions have to rise multi-fold. For example, if NPAs rise to 12%, that would wipe out 32% of these companies' equity. We assume a recovery ratio of 30% on these bad assets. For comparison, the NPA ratio for overall the banking system has already surged to about 12%. Finally, commercial banks' lending to finance companies has been excessive in recent years (Chart II-6). Commercial banks are already swamped with rising non-performing loans, and any additional stress among finance companies will damage investor sentiment and negatively impact banks' share prices. Chart II-5Finance Companies: Liquidity Strains Are ##br##Rooted In Maturity Mismatches Chart II-6Banks' Exposure To Finance Companies Bottom Line: Odds are that the liquidity stress among finance companies will escalate and turn into a solvency problem. This will harm mutual funds in particular and cause them to liquidate their equity and bond holdings. Indian financial markets will selloff further. Limited Maneuvering Room For Central Bank High crude prices, rising inflation and mounting financial stress are placing the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in an extremely precarious position: If the central bank provides sufficient liquidity or reduces interest rates to deal with budding stress in the financial system, the currency will plunge further; If the RBI does not provide sufficient liquidity or hikes rates to put a floor under the rupee, the stress in the financial system will worsen. It seems the central bank is currently biased to providing liquidity to contain financial system stress. In fact, the central bank has already injected bank reserves through the liquidity adjustment facility. In addition, it announced upcoming purchases of government securities in October in the order of Rs. 360 billion and has stressed its willingness to provide more injections if the need arises. This is negative for the currency which will continue to tumble, especially at a time when the U.S. dollar is well-bid worldwide. In turn, continued currency depreciation will make foreign investors net sellers of stocks and bonds. Bottom Line: We recommend investors downgrade India from overweight to underweight. We are also closing our long Indian banks / short Chinese banks at a 2% loss. Concerning equity sectors, we are reiterating our long Indian software companies' stocks / short EM overall equity benchmark. This trade is up 22%, and a cheaper rupee and strong DM growth herald further gains. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 A grey swan is an event that can be anticipated to a certain degree but is considered unlikely to occur and would have a sizable impact on financial markets if it were to occur. 2https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/united-states-mexico# 3https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/china-us-warship-unsafe-encounter/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Desynchronization Compels Currency Adjustments," dated September 20, 2018, a link available on page 16. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?," dated April 6, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, link available on ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The Philippines: Duterte's Money Illusion," dated April 25, 2018, link available on ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Chart of the WeekIncreasing Gas-On-Gas Pricing Will Disrupt Global LNG Markets Growth in the global Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) market will be fuelled by surging U.S. natural gas production, which will allow consumers in Asian and European markets to diversify away from oil-indexed pricing - with its attendant geopolitical risks - and falling European gas production. As a result, markets will move toward short- and long-term contracts priced in USD/MMBtu (Chart of the Week). This will favor gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. shale-gas supplies, where production is growing at double-digit p.a. rates (Chart 2). Well-developed trading and risk-management markets in the U.S. - centered on Henry Hub, LA - will incentivize consumers to shorten the tenor of oil-indexed contracts, replacing them with hedgeable futures-based contracts. These markets allow producers and merchants to offer short- and long-term contracts that meet consumer preferences. As the global LNG market grows, shipping companies, along with producers and merchants with worldwide trading and transport capabilities - or access to such capabilities - will grow market share at the expense of exporters tied to the more rigid oil-indexing regime (Chart 3). Energy: Overweight. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve over February - August; these positions are up an average 88.4% since inception, basis Tuesday's close. The long S&P GSCI position we recommended in December is up 21.8%, on the back of higher oil prices and backwardated crude-oil forward curves. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper is holding on to recent gains - up ~ 11% from its mid-August trough, following oil higher. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold hovers around $1,200/oz, following the Fed's meeting last week, which resulted in a 25bp increase in fed funds to 2.25%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The trade agreement to be signed by U.S. officials at the end of November with their counterparts in Mexico and Canada removes some of the uncertainty weighing on ag markets. Upward revisions to 2017 carry-out estimates by the USDA continue to pressure corn and beans. Chart 2Surging Production, Market Depth Favor U.S. Gas Producers And Merchants Chart 3Growing LNG Imports Will Favor Shippers, Producers And Merchants Feature Surging U.S. natural gas production will continue to find its way to global LNG markets over the next decade. The persistence of oil-indexing in Asian LNG contracts will fuel the growth of U.S. exports, given the arbitrage between cheaper natural gas - priced basis supply-demand fundamentals for gas - and more expensive oil-indexed contracts.1 Added to this cost advantage, U.S. exports can be linked to hedgeable futures prices, using NYMEX Henry Hub, LA, contracts. These stability-of-supply and pricing advantages also allow LNG buyers in Asia and Europe to diversify away from oil-production disruption risks, which can send prices sharply higher, and being overly reliant on Russian imports. Chart 4U.S. LNG Exports Will Surge This will give global consumers an incentive to continue shortening the tenor of more rigid oil-indexed LNG contracts, and to replace them with hedgeable contracts referencing Henry Hub, LA, futures contracts priced in USD/MMBtu. While a fairly stout increase of U.S. LNG exports already is expected by the EIA and IEA, we believe this dynamic likely results in export volumes that are higher than the ~ 10 Bcf/d expected by 2023, and close to 15 Bcf/d toward the end of the 2020s (Chart 4).2 Increasing volumes of associated natural gas production in the Permian Basin in west Texas, which will have to be transported from the basin so that it does not curtail oil production, will drive a large part of this growth. We expect a significant LNG export center to be developed in South Texas in Corpus Christi over the next five years or so, just as the U.S. surpasses 10 Bcf/d of exports in the middle of the next decade.3 Flexible pricing of LNG contracts basis Henry Hub already is supporting the buildout of Gulf Coast exports via take-or-cancel contracts. These contracts are replacing the more restrictive take-or-pay contracts still used in Asia.4 This will continue to evolve, allowing supply development to be hedged via Henry Hub natgas futures. Consumers ultimately benefit from cheaper supplies and hedgeable risks. This is not to say other benchmarks will fall away. There is always room for regional benchmarks - even oil-based benchmarks such as the Japan Crude Cocktail (JCC), or the spot- and swaps-market reference Japan/Korea Marker (JKM).5 The global crude oil market accommodates such regional benchmarks: WTI crude oil futures are the benchmark for oil markets in the Americas, while Brent crude oil futures serve as the benchmark for global markets. Crude oils with different chemical properties can be priced relative to these benchmarks for delivery anywhere in the world. The global LNG market could retain an Asian benchmark, but a lot of work needs to be done in terms of building the supporting infrastructure - pipelines, regasification facilities, deep futures markets, etc. - to make that happen.6 We are inclined to believe the build-out of U.S. LNG export capacity will occur before these pieces fall into place: Scale has never been an issue in the U.S. oil and gas patch. Global Supply - Demand Overview Chart 5Global LNG Demand Growth Likely Outpaces Current Expectations Global LNG demand is expected to rise at an impressive 1.7% p.a. out to 2040 (Chart 5). However, local supply and demand levels are increasingly unbalanced, implying that cross-border pipeline and LNG imports will need to increase as gas demand rises.7 A few key markets lead this trend, as seen in Chart 6, which illustrates the supply-gap in major consuming countries. Supply gaps are poised to grow in Emerging Asia and Europe, due to elevated demand growth in the former and lack of supply growth in the latter. World LNG demand grew by 10% last year, with Europe and Emerging Asia accounting for more than 95% of this increase. However, last year's stellar growth numbers should not be considered as the baseline growth forecast.8 The latest projections show demand increasing by 21 Bcf/d by 2025 - taking LNG imports from 38 Bcf/d at present to 58 Bcf/d by then. This implies a lower annualized growth rate of 5.5%. Chart 6Supply - Demand Imbalances Will Fuel LNG Demand Globally LNG Supply On Growth Trajectory World LNG export capacity is expected to go from 48 Bcf/d in 2017 to 61 Bcf/d by 2022 (Chart 7), with 53% of the additional capacity coming from the U.S., 18% from Australia, and 15% from Russia.9 Chart 7LNG Export Capacity Growth Our baseline forecast for the LNG market foresees a short-term supply surplus in 2020 (Chart 8), followed by a catch-up in demand and new waves of projects between 2024 and 2030. Among the supply-side developments we are following: Chart 8New LNG Projects In The Pipeline The Australian LNG market has undergone massive change in the last five years. While being a relatively small natural gas producer (8th largest producer, accounting for ~ 3% of world output), in 2015, the country became the second largest LNG exporting country in the world with now over 7.5 Bcf/d of exports. The bulk of new liquefaction facilities will be operational in 2019 with the completion of new trains at the Wheatstone, Prelude Floating and Ichthys LNG facilities.10 This will bring Australian total LNG export capacity to over 10 Bcf/d. Importantly, most of Australia's LNG trade is with Emerging Asian countries. This region still relies mostly on oil-linked, long-term, and fixed-destination contracts. Absent the OPEC market-share war of 2014 - 2016, when oil prices collapsed, Australia's LNG prices are subject to oil price risks and volatility (Chart 9). Chart 9Asian Oil-Indexed Contracts Trade Above Spot LNG The U.S. currently has ~ 3 Bcf/d liquefaction capacity and is increasingly exporting to Asian countries (Table 1). The present wave of projects under-construction will push capacity to ~ 9 Bcf/d in 2020. Following a two year pause in project Final Investment Decisions (FIDs) from 2016 to 2017, potential FIDs in 2018 and 2019 could increase the U.S. capacity to ~ 14 Bcf/d by 2025. This will make the U.S. the second-largest exporter of LNG in the world, surpassing Australia. This new wave of investment is yet to be finalized; therefore, final investment decisions in 2H18 and 2019 will be crucial to determine the medium-term potential of U.S. LNG. If a majority of these projects goes through, U.S. capacity risks being overbuilt for the next decade (Chart 10). Table 1U.S. LNG Exports By Country Chart 10U.S. LNG Capacity Risks Becoming Overbuilt Importantly, U.S. LNG exports already have had a massive impact on the global LNG market. The totality of U.S. export prices are determined by gas-on-gas pricing - i.e., gas priced in USD/MMBtu as a function of gas supply-demand fundamentals. Just as importantly, these contracts are without destination restrictions found in many oil-indexed contacts. In the U.S., the presence of a deep futures market allows flexible long-term contracting.11 According to Royal Dutch Shell, the spot LNG market doubled from 2010 to 2017, accounting for ~ 25% of all transactions, most of it due to the prodigious increase in U.S. LNG supply.12 An overbuilt U.S. market would increase spot LNG trading. Our own calculations based on EIA data indicate the U.S. could have too much capacity relative to demand in 2018 - 19, but goes into balance in 2020 - 2022.13 Russia's natural gas production is projected to increase from 66.7 Bcf/d in 2017 to 70.1 Bcf/d in 2023. However, the bulk of this increase will cover new pipeline exports. The country's LNG capacity is expected to grow by ~ 2.5 Bcf/d with the completion of trains at the Yamal, Vysotsk and Portovaya export facilities. Despite its low LNG capacity, Russia remains a key player in the LNG market. Its rising pipeline capacity connected to China - the fastest growing market in the world - competes directly with global LNG supplies. For Russia, the rise of natural gas availability on a global basis - in the form of LNG - shakes its foreign relationships and policies to the core. In loosening the once-tight relationship between buyers and sellers, the rise of spot LNG supplies will favor consumers and energy security, and foster the development of longer-term contracting.14 Global LNG Demand Could Outpace Supply By our reckoning, some 62% of additional global gas demand of 160 Bcf/d will be covered by rising domestic production, 12% by rising trans-national pipeline capacity, and the remaining 26% by LNG imports.15 Longer-term, we expect LNG and natural gas demand to keep rising as industry demand expands and major coal consumers build up their natural gas and renewables usage. As a result, LNG consumption will increase at a rate of ~ 3% p.a. until 2040, as overall gas demand grows ~ 1.7%.16 Key demand-side developments: Table 2Natgas Emits Less CO2 China's environmental reforms, supply-side industrial policies and continued economic growth will be the engine of global natural gas and LNG growth in the next decade. The Middle Kingdom's natural gas demand grew 15% to 23 Bcf/d in 2017, of which 54% came from additional LNG. This short-term growth surge required spot and short-term LNG imports, which pushed up North Asian LNG spot prices. Despite our expectation that China will continue leading global LNG growth, we believe 2017 to be an outlier. Two factors contributed to the rise in spot prices: To tackle its massive pollution without significantly altering economic development and growth, China's environmental policies favor natural gas as a bridge to a low-carbon economy, since natgas contains half the carbon content of coal (Table 2). China's supply-side reforms and winter capacity cut led to a spike in spot LNG demand, which had to be covered in global LNG markets. China has an extremely low level of storage to deal with seasonal natgas consumption fluctuations; this forces the country to rely on spot LNG to meet short-term peaks in gas demand (Chart 11). Chart 11China's Minimal Natgas Storage Forces It To Rely On Spot Markets While these factors still dominate Chinese markets, new Russian pipeline capacity is expected to start delivering gas in 2019, the ~ 247 bcf of additional domestic storage capacity and the rise in spot LNG supply will mitigate the effect. In addition, China is limited in its regasification capacity. Data re projects under construction and demand forecasts indicate the average utilization would rise to ~ 90% in 2020. Winter usage would push this to ~ 100% rapidly, constraining its ability to meet winter demand with spot LNG. As a result, we expect Asian spot LNG prices to rise above contracted oil-indexed prices next winter, but less so in 2020 and 2021. Longer term, China's gas consumption is expected to grow 4.6% p.a., outpacing the 4.0% p.a. domestic production growth. Some 23% of the gap will come from Russian and Turkmenistan pipeline imports. Europe's supply-gap rose in the past 3 years, and is expected to continue to widen. Unlike the rest of the world, this gap is growing because of supply depletion instead of strong demand growth. In fact, demand is expected to remain flat, based on the IEA's forecast of Europe's long-term growth. On the other hand, total European gas supply has decreased by 16% since 2010, and is expected to continue decreasing at a similar pace, reaching 21 Bcf/d in 2023 from 25 Bcf/d in 2017. These declines in European natgas supply are due to: The phase-out by 2030 of Netherlands' Groningen field. Continued concerns about the impact of natural gas production on earthquakes in nearby communities pushed the Dutch government to adopt, in March 2018, a plan to gradually stop gas extraction at the Groningen field. Production has been decreasing since 2013 and is expected to decrease by around three quarters between now and end-2023. U.K. natural gas production will decrease by 5% p.a. due to the lack of capex and the large number of fields reaching a mature state. Stagnation in Norway's gas production following its record production level in 2017. Europe's regasification capacity has considerable slack, which will allow it to expand its import volumes. Europe currently has 23 Bcf/d regas capacity, with a very low 27% utilization in 2017. This means it has ~16 Bcf/d capacity available. With the U.S. is expected to raise its exports by ~ 6 - 7 Bcf/d in the next couple of years, Europe could potentially absorb the entire U.S. LNG exports if it desires to diversify its source of energy supply. Pressure Builds For Competitive LNG Markets Chart 12Expect More LNG Spot Trading The movement toward an integrated global market - similar in structure to current oil markets - will be driven by sharply increased U.S. LNG exports, and more competitive pricing of LNG as a function of gas supply-demand fundamentals. This latter effort likely will find support from Japanese and EU regulators. In addition, U.S. exporters already are using futures-based pricing - using Henry Hub contracts - which provide greater flexibility for producers, consumers and merchants to hedge their risk. Either Asian markets will develop viable regional benchmarks, or the global market will increasingly adopt Henry Hub indexing. Again, this is a typical commodity-market evolution: wheat can be priced for delivery anywhere on the planet using Chicago Board of Trade indexing. Asia lacks an integrated pipeline network. Market-based pricing of gas as gas - i.e., based on regional supply-demand gas fundamentals - also has not fully developed. LNG-on-LNG competition is considered a way to promote market-based pricing. Thus, the rise in spot and short-term contracts priced on the basis of natural gas fundamentals in the region already visible in the data likely will continue (Chart 12). In addition, if we see the oil price spike we expect in 1Q19 - driven by the loss of Iranian exports due to U.S. sanctions, continuing losses in Venezuelan exports due to economic collapse, and still-strong global oil demand - LNG priced on gas fundamentals will become even more attractive.17 LNG consumers' exposure to oil prices - via oil-indexed supply contracts - is a disadvantage to consumers with super-abundant natural gas supplies (Chart 13).18 That said, the U.S. export capacity remains limited, thus it cannot completely substitute for the global trade being done basis oil-indexed LNG contracts. Still, higher oil prices will incentivize a shift to contracts with prices determined by natgas fundamentals, which favors continued growth in U.S. exports. If anything, it will push for a faster-than-expected expansion of U.S. LNG export capacity. Chart 13LNG Buyers Will Resist Oil-Indexed Exposure Bottom Line: Growth in global LNG markets likely will be faster than expected, as the U.S. develops its export capacity and continues to offer futures-based pricing. This will further reduce the attractiveness of rigid oil-indexed contracts. Gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. shale-gas supplies, possessing trading and risk-management capabilities that allow them to offer flexible contracts globally, are favored in this quickly evolving market. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Associate pavelb@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 The LNG cost structure is complex. A recent paper from the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies estimates U.S. breakeven costs for new LNG projects are roughly $7/MMBtu delivered, or ~ $4/MMBtu over current Henry Hub, LA, spot prices. This includes liquefaction costs, and transportation costs from the U.S. Gulf to Asia of ~ $1.50/MMBtu, and ~ $0.70/MMBtu from the U.S. Gulf to northwest Europe. Regasification charges and entry fees likely add ~ $0.70 to $1/MMBtu. Please see "The LNG Shipping Forecast: costs rebounding, outlook uncertain," published by the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies, March 2018. Transport costs are variable, and are only one part of the LNG pricing equation. The benefits of diversifying supplies cannot be overlooked, nor can the benefit of gas-on-gas pricing in a high-priced crude oil market. See also see "US powerhouse in the making," published June 14, 2018, by petroleum-economist.com. 2 Please see the International Energy Agency's Gas 2018 report published in March, particularly the discussion of supply beginning on p. 67. 3 Please see "The Price of Permian gas Pipeline Limits," by Stephen Rassenfoss, in the Journal of Petroleum Technology, published July 19, 2018. 4 Take-or-cancel contracts employ option-like features - e.g., cancelation payments that function as an option premium - that give buyer and seller flexibility in cancelling a contract or delivery in a manner that allows the seller to cover fixed costs, not unlike a tolling contact. This is possible because of the hedging latitude provided by the NYMEX natural gas futures market, which has Henry Hub, LA, as its delivery point. Please see "The Shift Away from Take-or-Pay Contracts in LNG," published by the Atlanta-based law firm King & Spalding on its Energy Law Exchange blog September 13, 2017. 5 Platts' JKM spot assessment for November was $11.35/MMBtu, which was down 6% from October assessments. Please see "Platts JKM: Asia November LNG spot prices fall on thin demand," published by S&P Global Platts September 21, 2018. The NYMEX JKM forward curve peaks at $13.50/MMBtu for January 2019 deliveries, and backwardates thereafter. 6 Big LNG consumers' antitrust regulators are increasing pressure on overly restrictive contracts, which could open these markets to further competition over the next three years. Japan's Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) in 2017 concluded a review of term LNG contracts, which raised the possibility heretofore standard term contract features - e.g., limits on destinations and diversions, and take-or-pay provisions - could run counter to its antimonopoly laws. Japan is the largest importer of LNG in the world, taking ~ 11 Bcf/d. Meanwhile, in June of this year, the European Commission opened an investigation into long-term LNG contracts between its member states and Qatar Petroleum. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Washington, D.C., law firm, expects a ruling on destination and profit-sharing clauses that severely limit re-trading of LNG by purchasers. Akin Gump expects a ruling in the course of the next 3 years. While Japan's FTC did not specify remedies, it is possible buyers gain rights to re-sell and re-direct cargoes, following these reviews. This would make markets more competitive, although indexing the price of LNG to oil-based formulas likely will hinder this process. Please see "Revisiting LNG Resale Restrictions - Implications of Recent EU Decisions," published on the firm's website August 2, 2018. 7 Natural gas demand grew by 16% since 2010, according to the BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy, and is expected to grow by a cumulative 47% (1.6% p.a.) by 2040. 8 Many idiosyncratic factors helped Chinese LNG imports reach such an exceptional growth rate, mostly weather-related: China's environmental policy is resulting in widespread substitution of coal for natural gas for space-heating purposes, which, in colder-than-expected winters, results in surging demand. We do not believe this will be a long-term seasonal influence: Physical facilities are being built out to accommodate higher supply and demand. 9 World liquefaction capacity will rise to ~ 61 Bcf/d in 2022, based on our calculations of projects under construction. The bulk of additional capacity will come from the U.S., Australia and Russia. 10 Capacity of 0.6, 0.5 and 1.2 Bcf/d, respectively. 11 Please see U.S. Department of Energy, office of Oil & Natural Gas, LNG Monthly. 12 Like most globally traded commodities, LNG can be traded in USD/MMBtu. The global financial and clearing system already is set up to accommodate commodity transactions denominated in USD, therefore we do not see any impediments to extending it further into the LNG market. 13 Please see Chart 10 footnote for details. 14 We will be exploring the geopolitical dimension of LNG next week in a Special Report written with our colleagues in BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy. Please see Meghan L. O'Sullivan, Windfall: How the new energy abundance upends global politics and Strengthens America's Power (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012). 15 From 2017 to 2040, based on BP projections. The bulk of additional pipeline capacity will come from Russia with 12 Bcf/d destined to China and Europe expected to come on line in 2019. 16 Please see the International Energy Agency's GAS 2018 report published in March, BP's BP Statistical Review Of World Energy 2018 report published in June, Shell's Shell LNG Outlook 2018 report published in February, and U.S. the Energy Information Administration's International Energy Outlook 2017 report published in September. 17 Please see our most recent assessment of global oil fundamentals, published September 27, 2018, entitled "Risks From Unplanned Oil-Outage Rising; OPEC 2.0's Spare Capacity Is Suspect," and our updated forecast, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1h19 rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl," published September 20, 2018. 18 Asia LNG prices are usually linked to the JCC according to predetermined formulae. However, the exact formula remains opaque and varies with each contract. Based on our calculations, we concluded that since 2010, the average formula uses a slope of ~14% on JCC prices lagged 4 months, with very low s-curve components and a constant. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017