China

Highlights Global trade data we track as indicators of current and expected commodity demand - particularly EM import volumes - will provide a lift to oil prices over the course of 1H18. We continue to expect global oil demand growth, led by EM growth, to rise by 1.7mm and 1.6mm b/d this year and next, respectively. Against this still-positive backdrop, heightened geopolitical tensions are ratcheting up volatility in our outlook. A global trade war - now a factor following the Trump administration's bellicose rhetoric - would reduce our oil demand forecasts. That said, our Geopolitical Strategy team notes past U.S. administrations have used the threat of trade wars to cheapen the USD, which would be bullish commodities.1 Energy: Overweight. Even though it is not a surprise, the anti-trade rhetoric coming out of Washington is a wake-up call for oil markets. Trade is deeply entwined with EM income growth, which drives commodity demand globally. A shock to global trade would be a shock to aggregate demand and oil demand, hence oil prices. Base Metals: Neutral. President Trump announced 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminum last week. Markets are fretting over the possibility of a full-blown trade war if the U.S. zeroes in on China, as it apparently is doing, and Washington's allies impose retaliatory tariffs, should the Trump administration level tariffs on their exports.2 Precious Metals: Neutral. A global trade war would boost gold's appeal, and we continue to recommend it as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. In a series of tweets earlier this week, President Trump suggested concessions on steel and aluminum tariffs to Canada and Mexico in exchange for concessions on NAFTA. Neither Mexico nor Canada supported this link. Feature Our short-term models of global trade volumes continue to indicate EM imports - a key variable in our analysis of industrial commodity demand - will continue to grow (Chart of The Week).3 This will be supportive of commodity prices generally, particularly oil, in 1H18. In 2H18 and beyond, the outlook is getting cloudier. And more volatile. A fundamental underpinning of our oil-demand expectation for this year and next is that a slowdown in China in 2H18 will be offset by a pickup in EM and DM aggregate demand - and trade volumes - ex-China, in line with the IMF's expectation for EM and DM growth this year and next (Chart 2).4 DM markets and India likely will take up the slack created by China's slight slowdown. In fact, India already is moving out ahead: Based on official data, India's economy grew at a 7.2% rate in December, topping China's 6.8% rate, according to a Reuters survey at the end of February.5 Chart 1EM Import Volumes Will Continue To Grow Chart 2EM Growth Ex-China Keeps Oil Demand Strong EM Import Volumes Are Important To Oil Prices EM demand drives global oil demand. Over the long haul, the relationship between oil prices and EM import volumes has been strong: A 1% increase in EM import volumes has translated into roughly a 1% increase in Brent and WTI prices since 2000 (Chart 3).6 These variables all are linked: EM economic growth correlates with higher incomes, higher commodity demand and higher import volumes. All else equal (i.e., assuming supply is unchanged), this increases oil prices (via higher demand). The biggest weight in the EM import volume variable is China's imports, so the sustainability of the current Chinese growth is important, as is how smoothly policymakers there slow the economy in 2H18 as we expect. Chinese imports are sensitive to industrial output, which is captured by the Li Keqiang index, global PMIs, and FX markets (Chart 4). Provided policymakers can maintain income growth as the country pivots - once again - away from heavy industrial-export-led growth to consumer- and services-led growth, oil demand will not be materially affected, and should continue growing. At present, China's import volume growth has leveled off as Chart 4 shows, indicating income growth is holding up. China recently guided toward a GDP growth target of 6.5% for this year. Given they have a solid track record of achieving such targets, this indicates that they do not expect a severe slowdown. However, a hard economic landing - always a risk in transforming such a huge economy - would force us to reconsider our growth estimates. Chart 3EM Imports Supportive Of Prices Chart 4Growth In China's Import Volumes Levels Off In our analysis, we do not yet have enough information to determine whether the Trump administration will launch a trade war with China. The impact of President Trump's proposed steel and aluminum tariffs on China is de minimis: Chinese exports of these commodities to the U.S. amount to less than 0.2% of China's total exports, as our colleagues at BCA Research's China Investment Strategy note in this week's analysis.7 The big risk from these tariffs lies in what happens next. If they are the first step in additional tariffs directed at industries far more important to China, they could invite retaliation.8 If the recently announced tariffs expand to a global trade war - already the EU, Canada and Mexico have indicated they will not sit idly by while tariffs are imposed on exporters in their countries - the threat to world trade, and EM imports in particular, rises considerably. This would threaten crude oil prices. Trade Wars And Oil Flows Other than exports from the U.S., which could be targeted by states retaliating against tariffs, it is difficult to imagine the flow of oil being affected by a trade war in the short term: Oil is an internationally traded commodity, and traders adapt quickly to disruptions - e.g., re-routing crude flows in response to events affecting production, consumption, inventories or shipping.9 However, it does not require much of an intellectual leap to see EM trade volumes being significantly impacted by a trade war via the slowing in income growth globally. Such a turn of events would reduce aggregate demand in that part of the market - EM - that is responsible for the bulk of commodity demand growth. Falling EM trade volumes would be the natural result of falling incomes. This would be disinflationary, as well, which is not unexpected (Chart 5). We have found a long-term relationship with strong co-movement properties between EM import volumes and U.S. CPI and PCE inflation indexes. Our modelling indicates a 1% decrease (increase) in EM import volumes translates into a decrease (increase) in these U.S. inflation indexes of 15 to 20bp with a 6- to 12-month lag. These are non-trivial quantities: For instance, a decline in EM import volumes of 10% or more could shave as much as 2 points from U.S. inflation (Chart 6). Such a disinflation impulse once again coming from the real economy would, in all likelihood, force the Fed to throttle back on its interest-rate normalization policy or reverse course. Chart 5Lower EM Import Volumes##BR##Would Take U.S. Inflation Lower Chart 6EM Trade Volumes##BR##Over Time Volatility Likely To Pick Up As we noted above, our Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) colleagues point out the threat of tariffs and quotas has been used by U.S. administrations in the past to get systemically important central banks to support a weaker USD.10 The end game always is to spur exports to boost economic growth. The downside risk from trade wars discussed above is fairly obvious. Not so obvious is the upside commodity-price risk arising from a depreciation in the USD, which falls out of a strategy of using the threat of tariffs to ultimately weaken the USD. Our GPS colleagues quote Paul Volcker's summary of a similar gambit by Richard Nixon, who also ran a mercantilist presidential campaign in the late 1960s, to ultimately weaken the USD: The conclusion reached by some that the United States shrugged off responsibilities for the dollar and for leadership in preserving an open world order does seem to me a misinterpretation of the facts ... The devaluation itself was the strongest argument we had to repel protectionism. The operating premise throughout was that a necessary realignment of exchange rates and other measures consistent with more open trade and open capital markets could accomplish the necessary balance-of-payments adjustment. It is impossible to say whether such a depreciation is the Trump administration's end-game. However, if it is, this would be bullish commodities generally, gold and base metals in particular. For oil, a weaker USD would be bullish, but, as we have shown recently, fundamentals now drive oil price formation.11 Bottom Line: Current and expected EM import volumes indicate oil prices will continue to be supported by rising demand over the course of 1H18. We continue to expect global oil demand growth, led by EM growth, to rise by 1.7mm and 1.6mm b/d this year and next, respectively. Still, heightened geopolitical tensions brought on by bellicose trade signaling from the U.S. are ratcheting up volatility in our outlook. A global trade war would force us to lower our forecast for Brent and WTI crude oil from our current $74 and $70/bbl expectations for this year. However, as our Geopolitical Strategy team notes, past U.S. administrations have used the threat of trade wars to cheapen the USD. Should this turn out to be the Trump administration's strategy, the weaker USD would be bullish for commodity prices. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," published March 6, 2018. It is available at gps.bceresearch.com. Our colleagues note, "Import tariffs ought to be bullish for the greenback, given that they lead to higher domestic policy rates as inflationary pressures rise (and not just passing ones). However, as the previous two examples of U.S. protectionism teach us, the U.S. uses threats of tariffs so that it can get a cheaper USD. From Washington's perspective, both accomplish the same thing. Intriguingly, the U.S. dollar has sold off on the most recent news of protectionism." (Emphasis added.) 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease," published March 1, 2018, particularly the discussion beginning on p. 7. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Our 3-month ahead projections are based on two components: (1) the first principal component of a basket of currencies exposed to global growth; and (2) lagged U.S. monetary variables. Our modeling shows that exchange rates are forward-looking variables containing information of future fundamentals. Therefore, by selecting currencies exposed to global and EM growth, this allows us to run short-term forecasts of EM import volumes. The analysis is also confirmed using Granger-causality tests. 4 Please see "Brighter Prospects, Optimistic Markets, Challenges Ahead," in the IMF's January 22, 2018, World Economic Outlook Update, which notes its revised forecast calling for stronger global growth reflects improved DM growth expectations. 5 Please see "India regains status as fastest growing major economy," published by reuters.com on February 28, 2018. 6 These results fall out of co-integration regressions. 7 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China And The Risk Of Escalation," published March 7, 2018. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. See also footnote 2 above. 8 President Trump reportedly is considering broadening the tariffs on a range of Chinese imports and limiting Chinese investment in the U.S., to punish the country for "its alleged theft of intellectual property," according to Bloomberg. Please see "U.S. Considers Broad Curbs on Chinese Imports, Takeovers," published by Bloomberg.com, March 6, 2018. 9 The U.S. is exporting a little over 1.5mm b/d of crude oil and 4.6mm b/d of refined products at present, according to EIA data. A drawn-out trade war resulting in U.S. oil exports being hit with retaliatory tariffs or quotas could derail the expansion of crude exports brought on by the growth in shale-oil output in America. The IEA expects the U.S. to account for the largest increase in crude exports in the world between now and 2040, "propelling the region above Russia, Africa and South America in the global rankings." This has the effect of reducing net U.S. crude imports to 3mm b/d by 2040 from 7mm b/d at present. An increase in product exports - from 2mm b/d to 4mm b/d - makes the U.S. a net exporter of crude and product, based on the IEA's analysis. The largest demand for crude imports comes from Asia over this period, which grows 9mm b/d to 30mm b/d in total. Please see "WEO Analysis: A sea change in the global oil trade," published by the IEA February 23, 2018, on its website at iea.org. 10 We urge our readers to pick up BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report cited in footnote 1 above, which lays out our GPS team's analytical framework regarding trade wars. They note, "If constraints to trade protectionism were considerable, Trump would not have the ability to surprise the markets with bellicose rhetoric on a whim. BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy cannot predict individual triggers for events. But our framework allows us to elucidate the constraint context in which policymakers operate. On protectionism, Trump operates in a poorly constrained context. This is why we have been alarmist on trade since day one." 11 We found that the more backwardated oil forward curves are the less impact the USD has on the evolution of prices. Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," published on February 22, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 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

Highlights The direct impact of recently proposed U.S. import tariffs on steel and aluminum is likely to be small, both for China and the world. In isolation, this development is not very relevant for investment strategy. However, the lessons learned from studying the game of Prisoner's Dilemma suggest that investors should be legitimately concerned about an iterative "tit-for-tat" exchange of retaliation between the U.S. and its major trade partners if the Trump administration continues to pursue aggressively protectionist trade policies. Recent data releases show that the ongoing economic slowdown continues. While the Caixin manufacturing PMI is a bright spot, it is not likely heralding a major turning point for the Chinese economy. Investors should closely watch three bellwethers to judge the likelihood of a full-blown global trade war. Barring a major deterioration on this front, or a sharp further slowdown in Chinese economic growth, investors should stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks vs global. Feature The looming threat of U.S. protectionism came into full force over the past week, as President Trump stated that sweeping tariffs on all U.S. imports of steel and aluminum would soon be formalized. The tariff situation continues to evolve as we go to press, but the facts as they currently stand are the following: The proposed tariffs would be 25% on steel, and 10% on aluminum imports No exceptions are planned for any country, although statements from U.S. leadership on Monday suggested that Canada and Mexico may be exempt if NAFTA is renegotiated in the U.S.' favor Key European Union leaders threatened to retaliate against the U.S.' proposed tariffs, and the U.S. threatened to counter-retaliate China has taken a more cautious stance on the issue of retaliation, and is strongly seeking to negotiate with the Trump administration Minimal Direct Impact The developments over the past week raise two questions about China's economy that matter for investment strategy: What is the direct impact of the tariffs on China's exports likely to be? What is the implication for global growth? On the first question, the answer is fairly clear that the direct impact is likely to be small. The proposed tariffs do not disproportionately target China, and Chinese exports of steel and aluminum to the U.S. account for less than 0.2% of total exports (Chart 1). Exports of these products to all countries as a share of total exports is still quite small (panel 2). The second question is much more difficult to answer, and it has wide implications for both the Chinese economy and for investment strategy. When approaching the question, it is first important to note that the threat to the global economy from the imposition of the proposed tariffs comes from the potential for a series of retaliations from major trading partners, not the tariffs themselves. U.S. imports of steel and aluminum make up less than 1% of global goods exports, and Chart 2 presents a long-term history of average U.S. tariff rates along with our estimate of the impact of the U.S.' proposal. While the imposition of the announced tariffs would certainly change the trend that has been in place for some time, the rise is not very significant. Critically, even after the tariffs are imposed, U.S. tariffs rates will still be fractional when compared with those that prevailed during the early-1930s, when the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act materially exacerbated the Great Depression. Chart 1Chinese Steel And Aluminum Exports##br## Are Not Significant Chart 2We're A Long, Long Way Away##br## From Smoot-Hawley China's cautious stance towards retaliation is, at first blush, an encouraging development, but it may not be as hopeful of a sign as it seems. First, despite a general feeling among investors that China was the intended target of the U.S.' proposed tariffs, a global tariff on steel and aluminum is likely to disproportionately affect developed countries rather than China. It is therefore not surprising that China has signaled a somewhat conciliatory stance. In our view, the likelihood of Chinese retaliation is considerably higher if further tariffs are announced on goods that make up a larger share of their exports. In addition, as we noted above, the European Union has already highlighted some U.S. goods that may be subject to higher retaliatory tariffs in response to the news (which already elicited a threat of counter-retaliation from the U.S.), and both Canada and Mexico have also threatened retaliation if they are not granted an exemption from the proposed tariffs. In our view, these threats should be treated seriously, especially after revisiting the lessons of one of the most famous experiments in game theory. Bottom Line: The direct impact of proposed U.S. import tariffs on steel and aluminum is likely to be small, both for China and the world. Retaliation Risk And The Prisoner's Dilemma The dynamics of trade renegotiations can be examined, at least conceptually, through the lens of game theory. It is difficult to model these dynamics precisely because of the complexity of the relationship between trade and potential growth, but it is worth revisiting the lessons learned by the repeated playing of Prisoner's Dilemma, one of the most well-known examples of the application of game theory. To summarize, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario describes two criminals who have been arrested, and whose statement to the authorities affects the manner in which punishment (if any) is distributed between the two of them. The standard payoff structure of the game is set up such that one prisoner is able to largely avoid punishment if (s)he accuses the other of the crime and the other prisoner remains silent, but that both prisoners receive a punishment if they both accuse each other that is greater than the punishment received if they both remain silent (Table 1). Given that tariffs and other forms of trade protectionism can only durably succeed at improving net domestic economic outcomes if they do not result in retaliation, from the perspective of trade renegotiation, accusing the other player in the game of Prisoner's Dilemma is tantamount to restricting trade, and remaining silent is equivalent to allowing existing trade relationships to persist. Table1In The Prisoner's Dilemma, It's Better To Return Defection With Defection The success of strategies employed in repeated games of Prisoner's Dilemma was studied most famously by Robert Axelrod in 1980.1 The winning strategy (in both of Axelrod's tournaments) was "Tit for Tat", which follows two very simple rules: cooperate initially, and thereafter copy the other player's decision in the previous round. This strategy has three attributes that Axelrod showed to be highly successful when playing repeated games of Prisoner's Dilemma: niceness (not being the first player to accuse/defect/renege), being provocable (responding to defections with in-kind retaliation), and forgiveness (not allowing one-time defections to impact future choices beyond a one-time retaliation). Chart 3 illustrates the performance of the "Tit for Tat" strategy in the first Axelrod tournament, along with the average scores of several other strategies. The most important lesson from both tournaments is summarized nicely in the chart: the average score of a series of "nice" strategies was considerably higher than those that were not nice. But Chart 4 also highlights that niceness is only a relatively successful strategy because of its ability to produce an optimal outcome with other nice strategies: all strategies, nice or not, tend to generate poor outcomes when played against strategies that are not nice. This is because the payoff structure of Prisoner's Dilemma is such that, compared with defection, co-operation makes a player worse off if their opponent defects. Chart 3In Repeated Games Of Prisoner's Dilemma,##br## "Nice" Strategies Pay Off... Chart 4...But Only Because They Do Well Against ##br##Other "Nice" Strategies In the context of global trade, this can be seen as the likelihood of outsized job losses (or the lack of job gains in a protected industry) from a failure to retaliate. The key point for investors is that the most basic lesson of the Prisoner's Dilemma suggests that market participants should be legitimately concerned about retaliation from the U.S.' trade partners (and subsequent counter-retaliation) if it continues to pursue a protectionist agenda, because it can be a rational response for an individual country even if it leads to poor outcomes for everyone involved. In addition, three assumptions of the Prisoner's Dilemma game are not valid in the real world (or the current environment), which in two of these cases further increases the risk of an iterative exchange of retaliation: Chart 5The U.S. Has A Trade Deficit ##br##With Many Trading Partners In terms of the payoffs associated with the game, Prisoner's Dilemma assumes an equal starting position (of zero "points") on both sides, which is not the case in the current environment. The U.S. has a sizeable trade deficit with the world (Chart 5), and several important trading partners with the U.S. (especially China) maintain significant non-tariffs barriers to trade. Regardless of whether this inequity has been caused by an unfair trading relationship, in the parlance of Axelrod's tournaments, this implies that the U.S. strategy is likely to be not nice due to the perception on the part of the Trump administration of an unequal starting position. The implication is that the odds of an escalation of the imposition of relatively small tariffs into a full-blown trade war are higher than would normally be the case. Prisoner's Dilemma has clear and symmetric payoffs, which is also not the case in the current environment. The Trump administration apparently feels that the payoff to the U.S. of certain trade restrictions is a net positive even assuming retaliation, which raises the possibility of a negative outcome for the global economy. Worryingly, in our view the chances are high that calculations of the net benefit of any trade restriction are being done on a political basis, rather than an economic one. Prisoner's Dilemma assumes that the participants are unable to communicate, which is a limitation that does not exist in a real-world trade negotiation scenario. This lowers the probability that the U.S. and its major trading partners will engage in a spiraling tit-for-tat trade war relative to what the game of Prisoner's Dilemma would imply, even if the recently announced tariffs on steel and aluminum stand and major partners do retaliate. Bottom Line: The lessons learned from studying the game of Prisoner's Dilemma suggest that investors should be legitimately concerned about an iterative "tit-for-tat" exchange of retaliation between the U.S. and its major trade partners if the Trump administration continues to pursue aggressively protectionist trade policies. No Help From The Domestic Economy A protectionist agenda from the U.S. is also coming at an inconvenient time for Chinese policymakers, even if they were not blindsided by the move. Policymakers already have to contend with managing the impact of renewed reforms on economy's financial and industrial sectors, and the potential addition of the external sector to this list of problems needing attention is unwelcome. While a cooling of the economy was an inevitable result from the government's deleveraging campaign and shadow banking crackdown, Table 2 highlights how broadly leading economic indicators have decelerated. The table presents recent data points for several series that we identified in November Special Report as having leading properties for the Chinese business cycle,2 as well as the most recent month-over-month change, an indication of whether the series is currently above its 12-month moving average, how long this has been the case. Table 2No Convincing Signs Of An Impending Upturn In China's Economy Among the components of the BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator (an index designed to lead turning points in the Li Keqiang index), all six series are in a downtrend and 5 out of these 6 fell in January (the growth in M2 was the exception). A similar story is borne out in the housing price data, with a variety of diffusion indexes having also fallen in January.3 The Caixin Manufacturing PMI remains the one bright spot, having recently risen above its 12-month moving average and having risen in January, in stark contrast to the official PMI (which fell a full point). But as Chart 6 highlights, following the last four episodes when the Caixin PMI exceeded the official PMI by this magnitude, the subsequent trend in the average of the two was down in every case. The implication is that the outlier nature of the current Caixin PMI shown in Table 2 is just that, and not a heralding a major upturn in China's economy. Chart 6The Caixin PMI Is Probably The Noise, Not The Signal Bottom Line: Recent data releases show that the ongoing economic slowdown continues. While the Caixin manufacturing PMI is a bright spot, it is not likely heralding a major turning point for the Chinese economy. Conclusions For Investment Strategy Chart 7 illustrates the decision tree for Chinese stocks that we presented in our first report of the year. While there has been a modest further deterioration in the industrial sector, the pace of the decline is still consistent with the controlled slowdown scenario that we outlined in an October Weekly Report.4 As such, the recent softness in the data is not significant enough to cause us to change our recommended investment strategy. The key change over the past week has been the threat posed by U.S. protectionism to the global economy, which is the very first question to answer in our decision tree. The now high-beta nature of the Chinese stock market underscores that U.S. protectionism can significantly (negatively) impact the relative performance of Chinese equities if it destabilizes the global stock market, even if Chinese exports were to emerge from the exchange relatively unscathed. For now, we judge the likelihood of a full-blown tit-for-tat trade war to be a risk, and thus not a probable event. For now, market participants seem to agree: U.S. and global equities rebounded earlier this week in response to a feeling that the negative repercussions for global growth are likely to be minimal. Nonetheless, this is a risk that needs to be monitored closely, and to facilitate this our Geopolitical Strategy service has highlighted the following three bellwethers that they will be watching in order to judge the likelihood of a major escalation:5 Chart 7The Chinese Equity "Decision Tree" Tariff exceptions for allies: Given the national security basis for the steel and aluminum tariffs, it is likely that exceptions will be made for allies such as Canada and Europe. If yes, then the measure is unlikely to be part of a truly "America First" mercantilist strategy and is instead a veiled swipe at China to satisfy Trump's base ahead of the midterm elections NAFTA: Our geopolitical team has argued that the probability of NAFTA abrogation is around 50%.6 If the administration continues the negotiations in light of tariff announcements, however, it suggests that the revealed preference of the White House is less protectionist than it appears. Chinese intellectual property (IP) theft: The Trump administration is investigating Chinese technology transfer and IP theft under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. If China is found to have acted unfairly, penalties would likely include a combination of tariffs and restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. This might include an indemnity for cumulative losses from past violations, which would be rare, if not unprecedented, and which China would reject outright. This could produce across-the-board tariffs of a sort that the U.S. has not imposed since the Nixon shock. Chart 8China Is Outperforming Global In Ex-Tech Terms In the meantime, Chart 8 highlights that investable Chinese ex-technology stocks (proxied by the MSCI China Index ex-technology) remain in an uptrend versus their global peers, which underscores that investors should have a high threshold for reducing exposure to China. This underscores that investors should have a high threshold for reducing exposure to China. While the ongoing slowdown in China's economy is likely to cause earnings growth to decelerate over the coming year, the continued likelihood of decently positive earnings growth coupled with a sizeable valuation discount relative to global signals that Chinese ex-tech stocks are remain attractive on a risk/reward basis. Investors should stay overweight. Bottom Line: Investors should closely watch three bellwethers to judge the likelihood of a full-blown global trade war. Barring a major deterioration on this front, or a sharp further slowdown in Chinese economic growth, investors should stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks vs global. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 "Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma" and "More Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma" by Robert Axelrod, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24 Nos.1 and 3, March and September 1980. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of The Chinese Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 However, as discussed in our February 8 Weekly Report, we are keeping an eye on residential floor space sold given its history of leading China's housing market cycles. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle", dated October 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War", dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto Populism", dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Seasonal environmental restrictions on Chinese aluminum output are due to ease going into spring, which will restore some of the output taken off line when inefficient smelters were shuttered last year. Global demand likely will slow later this year, largely because we expect GDP growth in China, which accounts for more than half of global aluminum consumption, to moderate in 2H18. In addition, expected U.S. tariffs and quotas will limit imports and revive output in that market. This will contribute to the easing of a tight global balance, and take some of the pressure off prices, but we do not expect a significant move lower. We remain neutral. Energy: Overweight. Our long Dec/18 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short Dec/18 $70/bbl calls - recommended last week on the back of our updated price forecast - closed with a 3.1% gain on Tuesday. We took profits on our long 4Q19 $55/bbl Brent puts vs. short 4Q19 $50/bbl Brent puts, realizing a 20.7% gain since it was recommended January 18, 2018. Base Metals: Neutral. We are expecting a secular increase in aluminum supplies this year, on the back of Chinese environmental policies and more difficult global trading conditions. Precious Metals: Gold markets awaited Fed Chair Powell's Humphrey-Hawkins testimony beginning Tuesday, as vice chair for financial supervision, Randal Quarles, warned U.S. economic growth could exceed expectations the day before. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Argentina's drought looks like it will stress that country's grain harvests, and tighten markets at the margin. Feature Chart of the WeekAluminum In Large Deficit Last Year Easing of winter supply restrictions in China, as well as tighter controls on U.S. aluminum imports, will dominate the aluminum market in the near term. In both cases, the net effect likely will be an increase in global supply. The latter would also support aluminum's price in the U.S. market - as measured by the U.S. Midwest premium. These events will ease the global physical deficit in aluminum, which last year came in at its widest since 1995 (Chart of the Week). The current tight conditions are driven by Beijing's elimination of overcapacity, which, along with environmental reform policies implemented last year, led to a reduction in China's output. The price dynamics that dominated the aluminum market over the past couple years will shift as a result. This already can be seen in the behavior of prices on the LME and the SHFE: LME prices have been gyrating around $2,200/MT, while SHFE prices have dipped by more than 5% since the beginning of the year. Unwinding China's Supply-Side Policies? At first blush, it may not be apparent China's primary aluminum production sector experienced significant changes last year. After stalling at 1% year-on-year (y/y) growth in 2016, output grew 1.2% y/y in 2017, a sharp deceleration from the 16% y/y average growth rates registered between 2010 and 2015. However, the annual gain masked a 10% y/y increase in output in 1H17, which was almost completely reversed by the negative impacts of China's environmental policies and its efforts to eliminate overcapacity. These policy-led initiatives ultimately caused output to fall 7% y/y in 2H17 (Chart 2). The resulting 1 mm MT of production cuts in the second half of last year reflects China's 2017 supply-side policies. Beijing's strategy is two-fold: Chart 2Sharp Fall In 2H17 Output From China ... Eliminate outdated and unlicensed capacity by forcing it to close. This has removed an estimated 3-4 mm MT of annual capacity. The policy targets capacity lacking proper building and expansion permits, as well as the smelters that do not meet strict environmental standards. However, not all the shutdowns are permanent. Among this shuttered capacity is 2 mm MT of outdated smelter capacity belonging to China Hongqiao, which the company plans to replace with new capacity.1 The other major supply-side policy implemented by Beijing last year is a restriction on smelter activity during the mid-November to mid-March period. As is the case in the steel sector, this winter-curtailment policy seeks to reduce pollution during the smog-prone winter months. Aluminum smelters in the cities targeted in the winter plan were ordered to cut output by ~ 30% during this period. This policy is expected to be an annually recurring event until 2020. However, while 3 mm MT of annualized capacity would have been closed during the winter if the full 30% curtailment target had been met, reports surfaced in mid-December that compliance was low, and suggested only ~ 0.6 mm MT of capacity (just 20% of the goal, or 6% of the curtailment target) had been closed.2 The total aluminum annual capacity affected by both the winter environmental curtailments and capacity-reduction policies implemented last year could potentially reach 7 mm MT. China's total smelting capacity was a reported 40 mm MT in 2016. Lower Chinese Production ... And Consumption On a year-on-year basis, global primary aluminum production has been falling since August. This is, for the most part, true on a month-on-month basis, as well. The 12-month moving average for global aluminum production peaked in July, and has been coming down consistently since then. Although 2017 production came in higher than the previous year, this is due to a ~ 6% y/y increase in the first half, which preceded a ~ 4% y/y decline in output in the second half of the year. These dynamics are driven by China, which accounts for 55% of global primary production. Chinese firms raised primary output in 1H17, which was followed by a sharp contraction in 2H17. Chinese primary aluminum production peaked in June, recording an all-time record of 2.98 mm MT before falling in the subsequent months. On the other hand, primary production from the rest of the world has remained largely unchanged over the past two years, at 26 mm MT. Data from the International Aluminum Institute shows month-on-month production increases in China in December and January; however, output is still lower vs. the same period a year earlier. Chinese production drove global aluminum production higher in the past, but falling output from the world's leading producer now is causing global primary aluminum supply to contract. The impact of China's supply curtailments has been muted by lower demand for the metal (Chart 3). Again, lower consumption has been driven by the top-demand market - China - which typically consumes ~ 55% of the primary metal. Chinese primary consumption and production each came down by more than 1 mm MT y/y in the second half of last year. Falling aluminum demand in China is consistent with a slowdown in Chinese automobile production as well as fixed asset investments in infrastructure and transportation (Chart 4). Furthermore, China's scrap aluminum imports increased in 2H17, reflecting a preference for the secondary metal as the price of primary aluminum increased. Chart 3... Coincided With Falling Chinese Consumption Chart 4Slowdown In Chinese Demand A Divergence In Global Dynamics ... Despite the improved balance in China, the global primary aluminum balance in the rest of the world recorded a large deficit last year - the largest since 1995 (Chart 5). While both consumption and production in China came down by more than 1 mm MT in 2H17, consumption in the rest of the world increased by ~ 0.4 mm MT, even as production remained largely unchanged. This tightened the global market, as more stringent aluminum production policies in China meant that there was no flooding of Chinese aluminum to ease the deficit. In fact, the world excluding China deficit is the largest at least since the World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) started collecting data in 1995. ... Is Reflected In Inventory Dynamics This also coincides with rising aluminum stocks on the Shanghai Futures Exchange and falling inventory on the LME. In fact, Chinese aluminum imports have been falling and were down almost 30% y/y in 2H17. At the same time, Chinese net exports picked up slightly (Chart 6). Chart 5Record Aluminum Deficit Outside China Chart 6Chinese Net Exports On The Rise In response to lower output, LME inventories have been falling since 2Q14, and they continued their descent last year, ending 2017 at roughly the same level as mid-2008. On the other hand, stocks at the SHFE have been rising steeply since the beginning of last year and are at record highs (Chart 7). Whether the tight global market fundamentals will persist depends on whether China's outdated capacity cuts prove to be temporary or permanent. Chart 7Dynamics Reflected In Stock Changes U.S. Tariffs And Quotas Would Offset Tight Markets In what appears to be an effort to revive U.S. aluminum and steel production, the U.S. Commerce Department launched an investigation into these domestic industries late last year. Last month, Commerce proposed tariffs and quotas that would impact all aluminum imports with the exception of aluminum scrap and aluminum powders. There appear to be two main objectives of this investigation: 1. Increase capacity utilization in the U.S. aluminum and steel industries; and 2. Penalize China for subsidizing its aluminum sector at the expense of those in other countries. Among the Commerce proposals: 1. A 7.7% tariff on all aluminum imports to the U.S. 2. A 23.6% tariff on all aluminum imports from certain countries, while other countries would be subject to quotas equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the U.S.3 3. A quota on all aluminum imports from other countries equal to a maximum of 86.7% of their 2017 exports to the U.S. In a memo issued last week, the U.S. Department of Defense expressed its support for the targeted tariffs (option 2 above), as well as a recommendation to postpone action on the aluminum sector. President Trump has until April 19 to make a decision on the aluminum recommendations. While he may not stick to the exact details outlined in the three options, our Geopolitical Strategists expect him to go through with implementing protectionist measures to limit aluminum imports. U.S. production of primary aluminum is at its lowest level since 1951 (Chart 8). To reach the 80% target of smelter capacity utilization envisioned by Commerce, the U.S. will have to add ~ 0.67 mm MT of supply. This represents just ~ 1.16% of world supply in 2016. Imports currently make up 90% of U.S. primary aluminum consumption. Chart 8U.S. Producers Took A Big Hit In fact, even if this amount of aluminum was supplied domestically in the U.S. last year, the world aluminum market would have remained in deficit. Furthermore, this additional supply would pale in comparison to the cuts China has already implemented in its aluminum sector last year. China's primary production in the August to December period last year came in 1.15 mm MT below the same period in 2016. Annual smelter capacity in the U.S. is estimated to be a combined 1.82 mm MT. Of this capacity, Alcoa has 0.34 mm MT of idle capacity, Century Aluminum has 0.27 mm MT, while ARG International's Missouri plant has 0.27 mm MT of idle capacity. U.S. producers have started communicating plans to restart idled capacity. According to Century Aluminum's CEO, the company's eastern Kansas operation, which shuttered more than half of its production, could ramp output at one of its smelters to full capacity of up to 0.27 mm MT by early next year. Similarly, Alcoa has committed to partially restarting production at its Warwick, Indiana, facility, which would bring 0.16 mm MT of capacity online by the second quarter of this year. However, imports are not the sole reason output in the U.S. aluminum sector is falling. High power costs also have contributed, but this is not addressed in the Department of Commerce's report. In any case, we would not be surprised to witness an increase in aluminum imports by U.S. consumers before a final decision is made. If import controls do in fact fall into place, prices in the U.S. - as reflected by the U.S. Midwest transaction premium - will likely increase. Bottom Line: Supply- and demand-side developments, mostly in China, which accounts for more than half of global production and consumption, will combine to ease a global supply deficit this year. Expected U.S. tariffs and quotas will limit imports and revive output in that market. This will take some pressure off prices, but, we do not expect levels to move significantly lower. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "China Hongqiao says to cut 2 mln T/year of outdated aluminum capacity," published on August 2, 2017, available at reuters.com. 2 Please see "Aluminum Under Pressure After China Smog Cutbacks Fall Short," published on December 20, 2017, available at reuters.com. 3 The countries noted are China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela, and Vietnam. 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

Highlights The political path of least resistance leads to fiscal profligacy - in the U.S. and beyond. The response to populism is underway. The U.S. midterm election is market-relevant. Gridlock between the White House and Congress does, in fact, weigh on equity returns, after controlling for macro variables. The Democratic Party's chances of taking over Congress have fallen, but remain 50% in the House of Representatives. A divided House and Senate is the worst combination for equities, but macro factors matter most. China is clearly rebooting its "reform" agenda as Xi Jinping becomes an irresistible force. We remain long H-shares relative to EM, for now. Emerging markets - including an improved South Africa - will suffer as politics become a tailwind for U.S. growth and a headwind for Chinese growth. Feature The bond market has been shocked into action this month by the twin realizations that the Republican-held Congress is not as incompetent as believed and that the Republican Party is not as fiscally conservative as professed. When combined with steady U.S. wage growth and rising inflation expectations (Chart 1), our core 2018 theme - that U.S. politics would act as an accelerant to growth - has been priced in by the bond market with impressive urgency.1 The tax cuts alone were not enough to wake the bond market. First, the realization that a tax cut would pass Congress struck markets in late October, when it became increasingly clear that the $1.5 trillion Tax Cuts And Jobs Act would indeed pass the Senate. Second, the bill's passage along strict party lines - including the slimmest of margins in the Senate thanks to reconciliation rules - convinced investors that there would be no further compromises down the pipeline. The real game changer was the realization that the political path of least resistance leads towards profligacy. This happened with the signing into law of the February 9 two-year budget compromise (the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) that will see fiscal spending raised by around $380 billion.2 The deal failed to gain the support of a majority of Republicans in the House, despite House Speaker Paul Ryan's support, but 73 Democrats crossed the aisle to ensure its passage. They did so despite a lack of formal assurances that the House would consider an immigration bill. The three-day shutdown in late January has forced Democrats, who largely took the blame, to assess whether they care more about preserving their liberal credentials on fiscal policy or immigration policy. The two-year budget agreement is a testament to their concern for the former. The deal will see the budget deficit most likely rise to about 5.5% of GDP in FY2019, up from 3.3% in last year's CBO baseline forecast (Chart 2). Chart 1Rising U.S. Inflation Expectations Chart 2Fiscal Policy Gets Expansive Adding to the newly authorized fiscal spending could be a congressional rule-change that reintroduces earmarks - leading to a potential $20 billion additional spending per year. There is also a 10-year infrastructure plan that could see spending increase by another ~$200 billion over the next decade. The new budget compromise, combined with last year's tax cuts, will massively increase U.S. fiscal thrust beyond the IMF's baseline (Chart 3). The IMF's forecast, done before the tax cuts were passed, suggested that fiscal thrust would contract by about 0.5% of GDP this year, and would only slightly expand in 2019. Now we estimate that fiscal thrust will be a positive 0.8% of GDP in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. These figures are tentative because it is not clear exactly how much of the spending will take place this year versus 2019 and 2020. Our colleague Mark McClellan, author of BCA's flagship The Bank Credit Analyst, has stressed that the impact on GDP growth will be less than these figures suggest because the economic multipliers related to tax cuts are less than those for spending.3 Our theme that the political path of least resistance will lead to profligacy is not exclusive to the U.S. After all, populism is not exclusive to the U.S, with non-centrist parties consistently capturing around 16% of the electoral vote in Europe (Chart 4). Chart 3The Budget Deal And Tax Cuts##br## Will Expand U.S. Fiscal Thrust Chart 4Populism Will Fuel Fiscal##br##Spending Beyond The U.S. Policymakers are not price-setters in the political marketplace, but price-takers. The price-setter is the median voter, who we believe has swung to the left when it comes to economic policy in developed markets after a multi-year, low-growth, economic recovery.4 Broadly speaking, investors should prepare for higher fiscal spending globally on the back of this dynamic. Aside from the U.S., the populist dynamic is evident in the world's third (Japan), fourth (Germany), and sixth (the U.K.) largest economies. Japan may have started it all, as a political paradigm shift in 2011-12 spurred a historic reflationary effort.5 Geopolitical pressure from China and domestic political pressures on the back of an extraordinary rise in income inequality, and natural and national disasters, combined to create the political context that made Abenomics possible. While the fiscal arrow has somewhat disappointed - particularly when PM Shinzo Abe authorized the 2014 increase in the consumption tax - Japan has still surprised to the upside on fiscal thrust (Chart 5). On average, the IMF has underestimated Japan's fiscal impulse by 0.84% since the beginning of 2012. Investors often understate the ability of centrist, establishment policymakers to rebrand anti-establishment policies - whether on fiscal spending or immigration - as their own. In January 2015, we asked whether "Abenomics Is The Future?"6 We concluded that rising populism in Europe would require a policy response not unlike the policy mix favored by Tokyo. Today, the details of the latest German coalition deal between the formally fiscally conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP) means that even Germany has now succumbed to the political pressure to reflate. The CDU has agreed to fork over the influential ministry of finance to the profligate SPD and apparently spend an additional 46 billion euros, over the duration of the Grand Coalition, on public investment and tax cuts. Finally, in the U.K., the end of austerity came quickly on the heels of the Brexit referendum, the ultimate populist shot-across-the-bow. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, announced a shift away from austerity almost immediately, scrapping targets for balancing the budget by the end of the decade. The change in rhetoric has carried over to the new government, especially after the Labour Party pummeled the Tories on austerity in the lead up to the June 2017 election. The bond market action over the past several weeks suggests that investors have not fully appreciated the political shifts underway over the past several years. Bond yields had to "catch up" to the political reality essentially over the course of February. However, the structural upward trajectory is now in place. The end of stimulative monetary policy will accelerate the rise in bond yields. Quantitative easing programs have soaked up more than the net government issuance of the major economies. Chart 6 shows that the flow of the major economies' government bonds available for the private sector to purchase was negative from 2015-2017. This flow will now swing to the positive side as fiscal spending necessitates greater issuance and as central banks withdraw demand. Real interest rates may therefore be higher to the extent that government bonds will have to compete with private-sector issuance for available savings. Chart 5Japan's Abenomics Leads The Way To More Spending Chart 6Lots Of Bonds Hitting The Private Market Bottom Line: The U.S. electorate chose the populist, anti-establishment Donald Trump as president with unemployment at a multi-decade low of 4.6%. The message from the U.S. election, and the rise of anti-establishment parties in Europe, is that the electorate is restless, even with the post-Great Financial Crisis recovery now in its ninth year. Policymakers have heard the message, loud and clear, and are adjusting fiscal policy accordingly. Over the course of the next quarter, BCA's Global Investment Strategy expects the rapid rise in bond yields to peter out, but investors should use any bond rallies as an opportunity to reduce duration risk. BCA's House View calls for the 10-year Treasury yield to finish the year at about 3.25%.7 Our U.S. bond strategists expect the end-of-cycle level of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield to be between 3.3% and 3.5%.8 Does The U.S. Midterm Election Matter? The three-day government shutdown that ended on January 22 has hurt the chances of the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm election. The Democrats' lead in the generic congressional ballot has gone from a high of 13% at the end of 2017 to just 9% today (Chart 7). As Chart 8 illustrates, this generic ballot has some predictive quality. However, it also suggests that for Democrats, the lead needs to be considerably larger than for Republicans to generate the type of seat-swing needed to win a majority in the House of Representatives in 2018. Chart 7Democrats Have Lost Some Steam Chart 8Democrats Need Big Polling Lead To Win Majority There are three reasons for this built-in advantage for the Republican Party in recent midterm elections. First, the Republicans dominate the rural vote, which tends to be overrepresented in any electoral system that draws electoral districts geographically. Second, redistricting - or gerrymandering - has tended to favor the Republican Party in the past several elections. While the Supreme Court has recently struck down some of the most egregiously drawn electoral districts, the overall impact of gerrymandering since 2010 overwhelmingly favors the GOP. Third, midterm elections tend to have a lot lower voter turnout than general elections, which hurts the Democrats who rely on the youth and minority vote. Both constituencies tend to shy away from participation in the midterm election. Does the market care who wins the House and Senate? On the margin, yes. If the current GOP control of the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate were to be broken, markets might react negatively. It is often stated that gridlock has a positive effect on stock prices, as it reduces the probability of harmful government involvement in the economy and financial markets. However, research by our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, which we have recently updated, suggests otherwise. After controlling for the macro environment, gridlock between the White House and Congress is actually associated with modestly lower equity market returns.9 This conclusion is based on the past century of data. For most of that period, polarization has steadily risen to today's record-setting levels (Chart 9). As such, the negative impact of gridlock could be higher today. Table 1 illustrates the impact of four factors on monthly S&P 500 price returns. The first two columns demonstrate the effect on returns of recessions and tightening monetary policy, respectively, whereas the last two columns measure the effects of executive/legislative disunity and reduced uncertainty in the 12-months following presidential and midterm elections.10 The table presents the beta of a simple regression based on dummy variables for each of the four components (t-statistics are shown in parentheses). Chart 9U.S. Polarization Has Risen For 60 Years Table 1Divided Government Is, In Fact, Bad For Stocks As expected, the macro context has a much larger impact on stock returns than politically driven effects. The impact of political gridlock is shown to be negative regardless of timeframe. The takeaway for equity investors is that, contrary to popular belief, political gridlock is not positive for stock prices after controlling for important macro factors. Absolute results are similarly negative, with the average monthly S&P 500 returns considerably larger during periods of unified executive and legislative branches (Chart 10). Intriguingly, the less negative constellation of forces is when the president faces a unified Congress ruled by the opposing party. We would reason that such periods force the president to compromise with the legislature, which constitutionally has a lot of authority over domestic policy. The worst outcome for equity markets, by far, is when the president faces a split legislature. In these cases, we suspect that uncertainty rises as neither party has to take responsibility for negative policy outcomes, making them more likely. Chart 10A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks In the current context, gridlock could lead to greater political volatility. For example, a Democratic House of Representatives would begin several investigations into the Trump White House and could potentially initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. But as we pointed out last year, impeachment alone is no reason to sell stocks.11 The Democrats would not have the ability to alter President Trump's deregulatory trajectory - which remains under the purview of the executive - nor would they be likely to gain enough seats to repeal the tax cut legislation. Yet given President Trump's populist bias, center-left Democrats could find much in common with the president on spending. This would only reinforce our adage that the political path of least resistance will tend towards profligacy. The only thing that President Trump and the Democrats in Congress will find in common, in other words, will be to blow out the U.S. budget deficit. Bottom Line: The chances of a Democratic takeover following the midterm elections have fallen, but remain at 50% for the House of Representatives. A gridlocked Congress is mildly negative for equity markets, taking into consideration that macro variables still dominate. Nonetheless, investors should ignore the likely higher political volatility and focus on the fact that President Trump and the Democrats are not that far apart when it comes to spending. China: The Reform Reboot Is Here And It Is Still Winter He told us not to believe the people who say it's spring in China again. It's still winter. - Anonymous Chinese government official referring to Liu He, the top economic adviser.12 The one risk to the BCA House View of a structural bond bear market - at least in the near term - is a peaking of global growth and a slowdown in emerging markets. The EM economies, which normally magnify booms in advanced economies, particularly in latter stages of the economic cycle, are currently experiencing a relative contraction in their PMIs (Chart 11). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy's "carry canary" indicator - which shows that EM/JPY carry trades tend to lead global industrial activity - is similarly flashing warning signs (Chart 12).13 Chart 11EM Economies Underperforming Chart 12Yen Carry Trades Signal Distress At the heart of the divergence in growth between EM and DM is China. Beijing has been tightening monetary conditions as part of overall structural reform efforts, causing a sharp deceleration in the Li Keqiang index (Chart 13). In addition, the orders-to-inventories ratio has begun to contract, import volumes are weak, and export price growth is slowing sharply (Chart 14). Chart 13Li Keqiang Index Surprises Downward Chart 14China's Economy Weakens... The Chinese slowdown is fundamentally driven by politics. Last April we introduced a checklist for determining whether Chinese President Xi Jinping would "reboot" his reform agenda during his second term in office. We define "reform" as policies that accelerate the transition of China's growth model away from investment-driven, resource-intensive growth. Since then, political and economic events have supported our thesis. Most recently, interbank lending rates have spiked due to China's new macro-prudential regulations and monetary policy (Chart 15), and January's total credit growth clocked in at an uninspiring 11.2% (Chart 16). Tight credit control in the first calendar month typically implies that credit expansion will be limited for the rest of the year (Chart 17). A strong grip on money and credit growth is entirely in keeping with the three-year "battle" that Xi Jinping has declared against systemic financial risk.14 Chart 15...While Policy Drives Up Interbank Rates Chart 16January Credit Growth Disappoints... Chart 17... And January Credit Is The Biggest In short, we have just crossed the 50% threshold on our checklist, confirming that China is indeed rebooting its reform agenda (Table 2). Going forward, what matters is the intensity and duration of the reform push. Three events at the start of the Chinese New Year suggest that the market will be surprised by both. Table 2How Do We Know China Is Reforming? First, the National People's Congress (NPC), which convenes March 5, is reportedly planning to remove term limits for the president and vice-president, thus enabling Xi Jinping to remain as president well beyond March 2023. Xi was already set up to be the most powerful man in China's politics through the 2020s,15 so we do not consider this a material change in circumstances: the material change occurred last October when "Xi Thought" received the status of "Mao Zedong Thought" in the Communist Party's constitution and reshaped the Politburo to his liking. The point is that Xi's position is irresistible which means that his policies will have greater, not lesser, effectiveness as party and state bureaucrats scramble to enact them faithfully.16 Chart 18Crackdown On Shadow Lending Has Teeth Second, the Communist Party is reportedly convening its "Third Plenum" half a year early this year - that is, in late February and early March, just before the annual legislative meeting that begins March 5. This is a symbolic move. The third plenum is known as the "reform plenum," and this year is the fortieth anniversary of the 1978 third plenum that launched China's market reform and opening up to the global economy under Deng Xiaoping. However, the last time China convened a third plenum - in 2013 when Xi first announced his agenda - the excitement fizzled as implementation proved to be slow.17 As we have repeatedly warned clients, China's political environment has changed dramatically since 2013: the constraints to painful structural reforms have fallen.18 If the third plenum is indeed held early, some key decisions on reform initiatives will be made as we go to press, and any that require legislative approval will receive it instantly when the National People's Congress convenes on March 5.19 This will be a "double punch" that will supercharge the reform agenda this year. It is precisely the kind of ambition that we have been expecting. Third, one of the most important administrative vehicles of this new reform push, the Financial Stability and Development Commission (FSDC), has just made its first serious move.20 On February 23, China's top insurance regulator announced that it is taking control of Anbang Insurance Group for one year, possibly two, in order to restructure it amid insolvency and systemic risks. Anbang's troubles are idiosyncratic and have received ample media attention since June 2017.21 Nevertheless, China's government has just seized a company with assets over $300bn. Clearly the crackdown on the shadow financial sector has teeth (Chart 18). Anbang's case will reverberate beyond the handful of private companies involved in shadow banking and highly leveraged foreign acquisitions abroad. Beijing's focus is systemic risk, not merely innovative insurance products. The central government is scrutinizing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments as well as a range of financial companies and products. We provide a list of reform initiatives in Table 3. Table 3China Is Rebooting Economic Reforms What is the cumulative effect of these three developments? Basically, they raise the stakes for Xi's policies dramatically this year. If Xi makes himself president for life, and yet this year's third plenum is as over-hyped and under-delivered as in 2013, then we would expect China's economic future to darken rapidly. China will lose any pretext of reform just as the United States goes on the offensive against Beijing's mercantilism. It would be time to short China on a long-term time line. However, it would also spell doom for our positive U.S. dollar outlook and bearish EM view. If, on the other hand, Xi Jinping couples his power grab with renewed efforts to restructure China's economy and improve market access for foreigners, then he has a chance of deleveraging, improving China's productivity, and managing tensions with the U.S. This is the best outcome for investors, although it would still be negative for Chinese growth and imports, and hence EM assets, this year. The next political indicator to watch is the March 5 NPC session. This legislative meeting will be critical in determining what precise reforms the Xi administration will prioritize this year. The NPC occurs annually but is more important this year than usual because it installs a new government for the 2018-23 period and will kick off the new agenda. In terms of personnel, there is much speculation (Table 4).22 Investors should stay focused on the big picture: four months ago, the news media focused on Xi Jinping's Maoist thirst for power and declared that all reform efforts were dead in the water. Now the press is filled with speculation about which key reformer will get which key economic/financial position. The big picture is that Xi is using his Mao-like authority in the Communist Party to rein in the country's economic and financial imbalances. His new economic team will have to establish their credibility this year by remaining firm when the market and vested interests push back, which means more policy-induced volatility should be expected. Table 4China's New Government Takes Shape At National People's Congress The risk is that Beijing overcorrects, not that reforms languish like they did in 2015-16. Our subjective probability of a policy mistake remains at 30%, but we expect that the market will start to price in this higher probability of risk as the March political events unfold. As Liu He declared at Davos, China's reforms this year will "exceed the international community's expectations."23 The anti-corruption campaign is another important factor to monitor. In addition to any major economic legislation, the most important law that the NPC may pass is one that would create a new nationwide National Supervisory Commission, which will expand the Communist Party's anti-corruption campaign into every level of the state bureaucracy. In other words, an anti-corruption component is sharpening the policy effectiveness of the economic and financial agenda. In the aforementioned Anbang case, for instance, corporate chief Wu Xiaohui was stung by a corruption probe in June 2017 and is being tried for "economic crimes" - now his company and its counterparty risks are being restructured. The combination of anti-corruption campaign and regulatory crackdown has the potential to cause significant risk aversion among financial institutions, SOEs, and local governments. Add in the ongoing pollution curbs, and any significant SOE restructuring, and Chinese policy becomes a clear source of volatility and economic policy uncertainty this year that the market is not, as yet, pricing (Chart 19). On cue, perhaps in anticipation of rising domestic volatility, China has stopped updating its home-grown version of the VIX (Chart 20). Chart 19Market Expects No Political Volatility Yet Chart 20Has China Halted Its Version Of The VIX? We would not expect anything more than a whiff, at best, of policy easing at the NPC this March. For instance, poverty alleviation efforts will require some fiscal spending. But even then, the point of fiscal spending will be to offset credit tightness, not to stimulate the economy in any remarkable way. Monetary policy may not get much tighter from here, as inflation is rolling over amid the slowdown (Chart 21),24 but anything suggesting a substantial shift back to easy policy would be contrary to our view. More accommodative policy at this point in time would suggest that Xi has no real intention of fighting systemic risk and - further - that global growth faces no significant impediment from China this year. In such a scenario, the dollar could fall further and EM would outperform. We expect the contrary. We are long DXY and short EUR/JPY. We remain overweight Chinese H-shares within emerging markets, but we will close this trade if we suspect either that reform is a fig leaf or that authorities have moved into overcorrection territory. Otherwise, reform is a good thing for Chinese firms relative to EM counterparts that have come to rely on China's longstanding commodity- and capital-intensive growth model (Chart 22). Chart 21Monetary Policy May Not Tighten From Here Chart 22Tighter-Fisted China Will Hit EM Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has rebooted China's economic reforms. The new government being assembled is likely to intensify the crackdown on systemic financial risk. Reforms will surprise to the upside, which means that Chinese growth is likely to surprise to the downside amidst the current slowdown, thus weighing on global growth at a time when populism provides a tailwind to U.S. growth. What It All Means For South Africa And Emerging Markets We spent a full week in South Africa last June and came back with these thoughts about the country's economy and the markets:25 The main driving force behind EM risk assets, year-to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 23). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist, economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled have supported the ongoing EM carry trade. The actual emerging market growth fundamentals and politics are therefore unimportant. Chart 23Weak Inflation And Dollar Drove EM Assets Chart 24Market Likes Ramaphosa, Unlike Zuma In the near term, South African politics obviously do matter. Markets have cheered the election of Cyril Ramaphosa to the presidency of the African National Congress (ANC), a stark contrast to the market reaction following his predecessor's ascendancy to the same position (Chart 24). However, the now President Ramaphosa's defeat of ex-President Jacob Zuma's former cabinet minister and ex-wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was narrow and has split the ANC down the middle. On one side is Ramaphosa's pragmatic wing, on the other is Dlamini-Zuma's side, focused on racial inequality and social justice. Chart 25Chronic Youth Unemployment Chart 26Few Gains In Middle Class Population For now, the ANC bureaucracy has served as an important circuit-breaker that will limit electoral choices in the 2019 election to the pro-market Ramaphosa, centrist Democratic Alliance, and radical Economic Freedom Fighters. From investors' perspective, this is a good thing. After all, it is clear that if the South African median voter had her way, she would probably not vote for Ramaphosa, given that the country is facing chronic unemployment (Chart 25), endemic corruption, poor healthcare infrastructure, and a desire for aggressive, and targeted, redistributive economic policies. South Africa stands alone amongst its EM peers when it comes to its tepid rise in the middle class as a percent of the population (Chart 26) and persistently high income inequality (Chart 27). We see no evidence that the electorate will welcome pro-market structural reforms. Chart 27Inequality Remains Very High Nonetheless, Ramaphosa's presidency is a positive given the recent deterioration of South Africa's governance, which should improve as the new regime focuses on fighting corruption and restructuring SOEs. Whether Ramaphosa will similarly have the maneuvering room to correct the country's endemically low productivity (Chart 28) and still large twin deficits (Chart 29) is another question altogether. Chart 28A Distant Laggard In Productivity Chart 29Twin Deficits A Structural Weakness Will investors have time to find out the answer to those latter questions? Not if our core thesis for this year - that politics is a tailwind to U.S. growth and a headwind to Chinese growth - is right. In an environment where the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield is rising, DXY stabilizes, and Chinese economy slows down, commodities and thus South African assets will come under pressure. As our colleague Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's chief EM strategist, recently put it: positive political developments are magnified amid a benign external backdrop. Conversely, in a negative external environment, positive political transformations can have limited impact on the direction of financial markets. Bottom Line: Markets are cheering Ramaphosa's ascendancy to the South African presidency. We agree that the development is, all other things being equal, bullish for South Africa's economy and assets. However, the structural challenges are vast and we do not see enough political unity in the ANC to resolve them. Furthermore, we are not sure that the global macro environment will remain sanguine for long enough to give policymakers the time for preemptive structural reforms. To reflect the potential for a positive political change and forthcoming orthodox macro policies, we are closing our recommendation to bet on yield curve steepening in South Africa, which has been flat since initiation on June 28, 2017. However, we will maintain our recommendation to buy South African 5-year CDS protection and sell Russian, even though it has returned a loss of 17.08 bps thus far. We expect that Russia will prove to be a low-beta EM play in the next downturn, whereas South Africa will not be so lucky. On a different note, we are booking gains of 2525bps on our short Venezeulan vs. EM 10-yr sovereign bonds, as our commodity team upgrades its oil-price forecast for this year. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Congressional Budget Office, "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018," February 8, 2018, available at www.cbo.gov. 3 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "March 2018," dated February 22, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan's Political Paradigm Shift: Investment Implications," dated December 21, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Is Abenomics The Future?" dated February 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Structural Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 16, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Party On The QE2," dated November 8, 2010, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 We include the last factor in the regression because it could be that the market responds positively in the post-election period, irrespective of the election outcome, simply because political uncertainty is diminished. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Tom Mitchell, "Xi's China: The Rise Of Party Politics," Financial Times, July 25, 2016, available at ft.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 13 "Carry Canary" indicator tracks the performance of EM/JPY carry trades. These trades short the Japanese Yen and long an emerging market currency with a high interest rate (Brazilian real, Russian ruble, or South African rand), and as such they are highly geared to a positive global growth back-drop. Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues ... For Now," dated February 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 The other two battles are against pollution and poverty. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Consider that the standard political calendar would have called for Xi to make personnel adjustments at the second plenum (which was held in January), then to formalize those personnel changes at the legislature in March, and then to announce reform initiatives at the third plenum in the fall, leaving implementation until late in the year or even March 2019. Instead, all of this will be done by March of this year, leaving the rest of the year for implementation. 20 The Financial Stability and Development Commission was created last July at an important financial gathering that occurs once every five years. We dubbed it a "Preemptive Dodd Frank" at the time because of China's avowed intention to use it to tackle systemic financial risk. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. The FSDC's purpose is to coordinate the People's Bank of China with the chief financial regulators - the banking, insurance, and securities regulatory commissions (CBRC, CIRC, and CSRC) and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). There is even a possibility under discussion (we think very low probability of happening) that the FSDC will preside above the central bank - though the precise organizational structure will remain unclear until it is formalized, probably during the March legislative session. 21 Anbang is part of a group of companies, including Foresea, Fosun, HNA, Ping An, and Dalian Wanda, that have been targeted over the past year for shady financial doings, corruption, excessive debt, and capital flight. In particular, Anbang was integral to the development of universal life products, which have been highly restricted since last year. These were not standard insurance products but risky short-term, high-yield shadow investment products. Investors could redeem them easily so there was a risk that purchasers could swamp insurance companies with demands for paybacks if investment returns fell short. This would leave insurance companies squeezed for cash, which in turn could shake other financial institutions. The systemic risk not only threatened legitimate insurance customers but also threatened to leave insurance companies unable to make debt payments on huge leveraged buyouts that they had done abroad. Anbang and others had used these and other shadow products to lever up and then go on a global acquisition spree, buying assets like insurance subsidiaries, hotels, and media/entertainment companies. The targeted firms are also in trouble with the central government for trying to divest themselves of China's currency at the height of the RMB depreciation and capital flight of 2015. They were using China's shadow leverage to springboard into Western assets that would be safe from RMB devaluation and Chinese political risk. The government wants outward investment to go into China's strategic goals (such as the Belt and Road Initiative) instead of into high-profile, marquee Western assets and brands. 22 Particularly over whether Xi Jinping's right-hand man, Liu He, will be appointed as the new central bank governor, to replace long-serving Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, and/or whether he will replace Vice Premier Ma Kai as chairman of the FSDC. It is important whether Liu He takes the place of central banker or chief reformer because those roles are so different. Making him PBoC chief would keep a reformer at the helm of a key institution at an important point in its evolution, but will raise questions about who, if anyone, will take charge of structural reform. Giving him the broader and more ad hoc role of Reformer-in-Chief would be reminiscent of Zhu Rongji at the historic NPC session in March 1998, i.e. very optimistic for reforms. Of course, Liu He is not the only person to watch. It is also important to see what role former anti-corruption czar Wang Qishan gets (for instance, leading U.S. negotiations) and whether rising stars like bank regulator Guo Shuqing are given more authority (he is a hawkish reformer). 23 Please see Xie Yu and Frank Tang, "Xi picks team of problem solvers to head China's economic portfolios," South China Morning Post, dated February 21, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Feature China's foreign reserves have been subject to heavy scrutiny over the past few years. The country's multi-trillion-dollar official reserve assets, long viewed by both Chinese officials and the global investment community as an unproductive use of resources, suddenly became a lifeline for China's exchange rate stability following the August 2015 devaluation of the RMB. China's official reserves currently stand at roughly US$3.2 trillion, a massive drawdown from the US$4 trillion all-time peak reached in 2014. Over the years, BCA's China Investment Strategy service has run a series of Special Reports tracking the composition of China's foreign asset holdings.1 This year's update comes at a time when investors have become comfortable with the view that China has succeeded at stemming capital outflow, but headlines suggest that investors continue to scrutinize China's official reserves to assess any potential impact on U.S. Treasury yields.2 Today's report takes a close look at the U.S. Treasury International Capital (TIC) system data and various other sources to check the evolution of China's official reserves and foreign assets. As we have noted in previous versions of this report, there are some important caveats. First, Chinese holdings of U.S. assets reported by the TIC are not entirely held by the People's Bank of China in its official reserves. Some assets, particularly corporate bonds and equities, may be held by Chinese institutional investors. Meanwhile, it is well known that in recent years China has been using offshore custodians in some European countries, the usual suspects being Belgium, Luxembourg and the U.K., which disguises the true situation of the country's official reserve holdings. Finally, China's large conglomerates owned by the central government also hold vast amounts of foreign assets, or "shadow reserves". With these caveats, this week's report reveals some important developments in the past year: While China's official reserves have risen in U.S. dollar terms, the growth rate in SDR-denominated reserves remains modestly negative (Chart 1). This suggests that the recovery of the former has been due to a currency revaluation effect, and that a material easing in capital controls is not likely over the coming 6-12 months even if China has succeeded in stabilizing its reserve level. China still holds the largest amount of foreign reserves in the world, but its global share has dropped to about 40%, down from a peak of over 50% in 2014. Relative to mid-2016, the TIC data show Chinese holdings of U.S. assets have increased as a share of the country's total foreign reserves (Table 1). This flies in the face of concerns that Beijing is predisposed to slowing or stopping the purchase of U.S. Treasurys, and has occurred in spite of the currency revaluation effect that we noted above, which would have the tendency of boosting the share of holdings of non-U.S. assets. Indeed, measured in SDRs, China's holdings of non-U.S. assets since mid-2016 have fallen by a larger magnitude than holdings of U.S. assets. Table 1Chinese Foreign Exchange Reserves Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys have trended sideways since August 2017, but holdings of some other countries suspected to be China's overseas custodians have turned up or continued to rise (Chart 2). This likely means that Chinese holdings of U.S. assets are larger than reflected in the TIC data. Chart 1China Has Stabilized Its Reserve Level Chart 2U.S. Treasurys: How Much Does China Really Hold? China's holdings of U.S. risky assets have increased since mid-2016, after they were disproportionately liquidated in 2015/2016 as part of its reserve stabilization efforts, perhaps due to reduced political sensitivity when compared with selling U.S. Treasurys. Given that increasing the expected returns of the country's foreign assets has been a long-run policy goal, it will be interesting to see whether China's holdings of U.S. risky assets increase significantly over the coming year. The effect of the restrictions that China has placed on outward direct investment are evident in several places: slower growth in direct investment abroad as a share of total international position assets (relative to portfolio investment and overseas loans), a sharp re-orientation in outward investment towards "strategic" industries rather than "trophy" investments in tourism and entertainment, and an outright reduction in investment in Belt & Road Initiative (BRI)-related countries, despite the strategic importance of the initiative. While we expect a pickup in the growth rate of outward investment over the coming 6-12 months, we doubt that the increase will be sharp. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Demystifying China's Foreign Assets", dated December 15, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "China Officials Are Said To Be Wary Of Treasuries, Sparking Drop", dated January 10, 2018, Bloomberg News. China's official data shows that the country's total holdings of international assets have risen to around US$6.7 trillion last year, including foreign exchange reserves, direct investment, overseas lending and holdings of bonds and equities. Official reserves have declined sharply since 2016, and other holdings have increased steadily. Reserves assets dropped below half of total foreign assets in 2016, and their share continued to fall last year. In contrast, portfolio investment and overseas loans have gained significantly both in value terms and as a share of the country's total foreign assets. Chart 3 Chart 4 Despite the sharp decline, international investment positions by Chinese nationals, public and private combined, are still much more heavily concentrated in official reserve assets compared with other major economies. In other major creditor countries, outward direct and portfolio investment accounts for a much larger share of international assets than reserves. Official reserves in the U.S. are negligible. China's official reserves give the PBOC resources to maintain exchange rate stability, but they also lower the expected returns of the country's foreign assets. Encouraging domestic entities to acquire overseas assets directly has been a long-run policy. However, Chinese authorities became alarmed by the pace of Chinese nationals' overseas investment during the acute phase of capital outflow, and have continued to take restrictive measures to limit some projects. Chart 5 Our calculations shows that Chinese total holdings of U.S. assets reached US$1.62 trillion at the end of November 2017, including Treasurys, government agency bonds, corporate bonds, stocks and non-Treasury short-term custody liabilities of U.S. banks to Chinese official institutions, based on the TIC data (Table 1). Treasurys still account for the majority of the country's total holdings of U.S. assets, while corporate bonds and stocks are relatively insignificant. China's holdings of U.S. assets as a share of total reserves declined between the global financial crisis and 2014, but the trend has since reversed. The share of U.S. asset holdings currently accounts for 52% of Chinese official reserves, compared with a peak of over 70% in the early 2000s and a trough of 46% in 2014. China's overall holdings of foreign exchange reserves (including U.S. assets) declined massively in early 2016, and the recovery in level terms is entirely due to a currency revaluation effect. The U.S. dollar carries a 41.73% weight in the SDR (Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund), and it accounts for about 63% of total foreign reserves managed by global central banks. In our view, these two measures should be viewed as relevant benchmarks to gauge China's desired level of holdings of U.S. dollar-denominated assets in its official reserves. Chart 6 Chart 7 Long-term assets (defined as having a maturity greater than one year) make up the overwhelming majority of China's holdings of U.S. assets. Most of these long-term assets are in the form of government and agency bonds, corporate bonds and stocks. Chinese holdings of short-term U.S. assets have been negligible in recent years. During the global financial crisis in 2008/09, China massively increased its holdings of short-term U.S. assets, amid a global drive of "flight to liquidity" at the height of the crisis. Chart 8 Chart 9 In terms of risk classification, the majority of Chinese holdings of U.S. assets are risk-free assets, including Treasurys and government agency bonds. China's holdings of these assets have plateaued in recent years. As a share of China's total reserves, U.S. risk-free assets currently account for about 45%, down from about 65% in 2003. Meanwhile, the accumulation of U.S. risky assets has stabilized after a sharp drop in 2016. Changes in U.S. risky asset holdings largely reflect changes in equities, with corporate bonds steadily accounting for about 0.6% of total foreign assets. Chart 10 Chart 11 China currently holds US$1.18 trillion of Treasurys, which account for over 83.8% of total Chinese holdings of U.S. risk-free assets, or 37.7% of total Chinese foreign reserves. Notably, Treasurys as a share of Chinese foreign reserves have been relatively stable, ranging between 30% and 40% over the past decade. This may be the comfort zone for the Chinese authorities' asset allocation to U.S. government paper. China's holdings of U.S. government agency bonds have been roughly flat over the past year following a pickup from 2014-2016. Still, China's agency bond holdings are significantly lower than at their peak prior to the U.S. subprime debacle. Their share in Chinese foreign reserves has declined to 8% from a peak of close to 30% in 2008. Chart 12 Chart 13 Almost all of China's holdings of Treasurys are parked in long-term paper (with duration of more than one year). China's possession of short-term Treasurys has been negligible in recent years, but picked up fractionally in late 2016 (likely as part of the PBOC's increase in cash holdings to deal with capital outflows). Short-term Treasurys accounted for as high as 2.5% of Chinese reserves during the last U.S. expansion, yet remain essentially at zero today despite several rate hikes from the Fed. Chart 14 Chart 15 Chinese holdings of risky U.S. assets - corporate bonds and equities - account for 7% of China's total foreign reserves, a non-trivial decline from its peak of over 10% in 2015. The decline was mainly due to the sudden drop of holdings of equities is holding currently standing at about USD 200 billion. Chart 16 Chart 17 China remains the largest foreign creditor to the U.S. government. Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys account for about 10% of total outstanding U.S. government bonds, or around 19% of total foreign holdings of U.S. Treasurys, according to our calculation. About 51% of outstanding U.S. Treasurys are held by foreigners. China is also one of the largest foreign holders of U.S. of agency bonds. While its holdings only accounts for 3% of total outstanding agency bonds, they account for around 22% of the total held by foreigners. About 12% of agency and GSE-backed securities are currently held by foreigners. Chart 18 Chart 19 The flow of Chinese outward direct investment remains high, reaching US$270 billion in 2017, although investment slowed in dollar terms relative to 2016 by a small margin. Total overseas direct investments amount to US$ 1.7 trillion. China's overseas investments have been heavily concentrated in resource-rich regions and industries. Cumulatively, the energy sector alone accounts for almost half of China's total overseas investments, followed by transportation infrastructure, real estate and base metals, which clearly underscores China's demand for commodities. The overseas investments in property dropped about 26% in 2017 compared to the years before. China's outbound investment was originally led by state-owned enterprises. More recently, private Chinese enterprises have become more active in overseas investments and acquisitions. Chart 20 Chart 21 Chart 22 The U.S. remained one of the largest targets for Chinese investments in 2017, following Switzerland and the U.K. Investment in Switzerland was buoyed by the acquisition of a Swiss agribusiness firm, which has significant long-term implications for food security in China. Consistent with the breakdown in outbound investment by industry, Chinese investments in resource rich countries, such as Australia, Canada and Brazil have recently been much more muted. There is an outright reduction in investment in Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) related countries, despite the strategic importance of the initiative. Corporate China's interest in the global resource space has waned in the past year, with total investment in the energy and metals industries having peaked in 2016. There has been a dramatic increase in investment in the agriculture, finance and logistics industries. These investment deals are mainly driven by state-owned enterprises. Recent increases in investment in tourism and entertainment industries have decreased, which may reflect cautiousness on the part of the Chinese government in the wake of the sharp decline in foreign reserves that occurred in 2015 (and the massive overseas investments by private enterprises in recent years). Chart 23, 24 Chart 25 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Following the establishment of an interest rate corridor system in 2015, the 1-week interbank repo rate is the new de jure policy rate in China. However, the massive rise in interbank repo rate spreads that has occurred over the past 18 months means that the 3-month repo rate has become the new de facto policy rate. This is the key rate that investors should be watching in order to predict the impact of monetary policy on average or effective interest rates in the real economy. Roughly 3/4ths of the tightening in monetary policy that has occurred since late-2016 has actually been regulatory/macro-prudential in nature. This raises the possibility that interbank spreads may rise outside of the central bank's comfort zone, but the PBOC appears to have the appropriate tools to respond to such an event. Concerns that rising inflation and a recent surge in monthly bank lending may spur tighter monetary policy over the coming 6-12 months are a red herring. Recent trends in the Chinese economy are more consistent with the need to ease monetary policy than the need to tighten. Investors should continue to maintain cyclical exposure to investable Chinese stocks, excluding the tech sector. Feature We examined the question of how to judge the stance of China's monetary policy in a Weekly Report published last month.1 In today's Special Report we answer seven questions about China's monetary policy framework, in order to clarify the transmission mechanism between the PBOC's interest rate corridor and the real economy and to help investors understand how to measure and track changes to the Chinese monetary policy landscape. Today's report makes several important conclusions. First, it underscores that while the 1-week interbank repo rate is the new de jure policy rate in China, a sharp rise in interbank spreads that began in late-2016 has caused the 3-month rate to become the de facto policy rate. This is the key rate that investors should be watching in order to predict the impact of monetary policy on average or effective interest rates in the real economy. Second, it highlights that roughly 3/4ths of China's monetary policy tightening since late-2016 has actually been caused by macro-prudential changes made by the PBOC, rather than due to direct interest rate hikes. Third, while the PBOC's rhetoric about inflation and the recent pickup in bank loans ostensibly suggests that further tightening is forthcoming, the reality is that recent trends in the Chinese economy are more consistent with the need to ease monetary policy than the need to tighten. From the perspective of investment strategy, our analysis continues to suggest that investors should maintain cyclical exposure to investable Chinese stocks excluding the tech sector. We outlined how the outlook for monetary policy fits into our "decision tree" for Chinese stocks in our first report of the year,2 and we continue to expect that the PBOC will refrain from significant further tightening over the coming 6-12 months. Our answers to the seven questions below should provide investors with a strong sense of how to predict potential inflection points in Chinese monetary policy, and whether it remains supportive of our recommended investment strategy over the coming year. Q: What is the PBOC's new policy framework, and how does it differ from the bank's traditional monetary policy tools? A: The PBOC has established a corridor system similar to that of many other countries, and now aims to control market-based interest rates as opposed to the old system of regulated interest rates. Chart 1China's Policy Rate: New Vs Old The PBOC's long, ongoing effort to liberalize its interest rate environment reached a new stage in mid-2015, when the central bank shifted to a corridor system similar to that observed in several other countries. Like in other nations, the objective of the corridor is to guide short-term interest rates towards a particular policy rate, which since late-2016 has been officially recognized as the 1-week interbank repo rate. Chart 1 illustrates this corridor, which is bounded by the PBOC's 1-week reverse repo rate on the lower end and by the 1-week standing lending facility rate on the upper end. The chart also shows the benchmark lending rate, which is China's "old" policy rate. For global investors who are more familiar with U.S. monetary policy, this corridor is conceptually equivalent to the target range for the federal funds rate, with the 1-week interbank repo rate acting as the effective fed funds rate. The key difference between China's old and new monetary policy framework is that the former is based heavily on regulated interest rates (and changes in the reserve requirement ratio), whereas the latter rests on manipulating market-based interest rates using a variety of tools. China's "old" policy tools still exist and may be employed if Chinese policymakers wish to rapidly shift the monetary policy stance. But more importantly, they continue to influence the monetary environment in a way that is important for investors to understand, even if they are not the day-to-day focus of policymakers (see next question). Q: What is the relationship between the new PBOC policy rate and the old one? A: The PBOC's corridor system influences 3-month interbank repo rates, which directly impact how many loans are issued at an interest rate above the old, benchmark policy rate (and by what magnitude). Chart 1 highlighted that the midpoint of the PBOC's interest rate corridor has been consistently and meaningfully below that of the old benchmark lending rate over the past two years, but the adoption of the corridor system did not instantly ease monetary policy in China. The reason is that the vast majority of loans in China are issued at rates above the benchmark rate, and the link between the PBOC's old and new monetary policy framework appears to be how the interbank market influences the breadth and depth of this loan rate premium above the old benchmark. Chart 2A Strong Link Between 3-Month Repo Rates ##br##And Economy-Wide Rates Chart 2 highlights that there is a strong (and leading) relationship between changes in China's 3-month interbank repo rate and 1) changes in the percentage of loans issued above the benchmark rate and 2) the changes in the gap between the weighted-average interest rate and the benchmark rate. While the 1-week interbank repo rate has only increased by around 50 bps since late-2016, the 3-month rate has risen about 200 bps, which explains the extent of the rise in the share of loans issued at above-benchmark rates and the rise in average interest rates relative to the benchmark. This relationship is crucial for investors to understand, since we noted in our January 18 Weekly Report that the midpoint of the 2014-2016 range for average interest rates represents our best estimate of the threshold between easy and tight monetary policy in China.3 Charts 1 and 2 also underscore another very important point: while the 1-week interbank repo rate is the new de jure policy rate, the 3-month rate is the new de facto policy rate as long as interbank repo spreads remain elevated. Q: Why have 3-month interbank repo rates risen so much relative to the 1-week rate? Is this a sign of serious interbank stress? A: No, the rise has been intentionally caused by changes in macro-prudential policy. But the rise in spreads has made up a significant portion of monetary tightening in China since late-2016. By the standards of developed markets, China's interbank repo spreads are extraordinarily high. Chart 3 presents China's 3-month / 1-week interbank repo spread since the PBOC established its new monetary policy framework versus the U.S. 3-month / 1-week LIBOR and repo rate spreads. During the worst of the U.S. subprime financial crisis, these spreads peaked at 182 and 105 bps, respectively. By contrast, China's repo rate spread currently stands at 200 bps. Part of this difference is likely explained by the fact that repos in China tend to be conducted on a 'pledged' basis (where ownership of the collateral remains with the cash borrower but is pledged to the lender),4 but we strongly doubt that it explains a majority of the difference given how low Chinese interbank repo spreads were prior to Q4 2016. Chart 3Chinese Repo Rate Spreads Are Outsized##br## Compared With The U.S. As there are no other signs of an outright banking crisis in China, it follows that China's interbank repo spreads have risen due to a distortion in the market. We reject expectations of further increases in the interest rate corridor as an explanation, given that the rise in spreads has occurred at what is still the short-end of the interbank repo market and that it has persisted for more than a year in the face of very minor changes to the corridor. It is difficult to judge the ultimate cause of the rise in repo spreads with a high degree of confidence, because it began in late-November 2016 when global financial markets were in a high state of flux. Government bond yields rose globally following the U.S. election in early-November in response to (ultimately validated) expectations of stimulative fiscal policy from the Trump administration, and the 1-week repo rate itself was rising during the period. But to us, two pieces of evidence suggest that the rise in interbank repo spreads was caused by the PBOC's decision to include banks' off-balance sheet holdings of wealth management products into its macro-prudential assessment (MPA): The Timing of the MPA Decision: While the PBOC's inclusion of WMPs in its MPA only began in the first quarter of 2017, news that the PBOC had begun a trial of the program broke in mid-November, in advance of the sharp rise in spreads.5 The Rise In 7-Day Depository / Non-Depository Repo Spreads: Chart 4 shows the difference between the 7-day interbank repo rate for all financial institutions and that for depository corporations only (the latter being the new, de jure policy rate). The chart shows that the spread between these two same-maturity rates began a significant uptrend around the same time that the 3-month / 1-week repo spread started to rise. Since non-depository financial institutions appear to have been more active in issuing WMPs over the past several years, this rise in 7-day depository / non-depository repo spreads is consistent with a liquidity squeeze (in anticipation of an upcoming MPA "stress test") among heavy issuers of WMPs. Chart 4Repo Rate Spreads Have Risen ##br##Due To Shadow Banking Crackdown While the rise in the 3-month / 1-week interbank repo spread does therefore appear to represent a "liquidity event" that is squeezing some Chinese banks, it does not seem to meet the description of real banking "stress". True financial system stress tends to occur when banks become wary of lending to each other due to solvency concerns, whereas the current rise in interbank spreads has occurred entirely due to regulatory changes (i.e. the Xi administration's crackdown on shadow banking). As such, while the rise in spreads undoubtedly represents tighter monetary policy, we have already incorporated this development into our framework for China's economy and its financial markets and see no reason to make any changes to our recommended investment strategy unless interbank spreads were to rise sharply further from here. Q: What can the PBOC do to control interbank spreads if they rise significantly from current levels? A: It can use open market operations to inject liquidity into the banking system. Our discussion above highlights that most of the tightening in Chinese market interest rates that has occurred since late-2016 has been regulatory in nature rather than due to direct increases in the PBOC's new policy rate. In fact, since the 3-month interbank repo rate has risen approximately 200 bps because of a 150 bps rise in 3-month / 1-week repo spreads, then it would appear that a full 75% of China's recent monetary policy tightening is attributable to the PBOC's decision to crack down on WMP issuance and shadow lending more generally. This undoubtedly showcases the potential for macro-prudential policies to significantly influence monetary policy in China, but it also raises the question of whether the crackdown may unintentionally tighten financial conditions by more than the PBOC expects. For example, while the PBOC likely knew that increasing its scrutiny over WMPs would impact the interbank market, it is not likely that they were able to predict the magnitude of the impact with any precision. Chart 5The PBOC Has Ample Room ##br##To Inject Liquidity If Needed Chart 5 presents one monetary policy tool that the PBOC can use to try to reduce spreads in the interbank repo market were they to rise outside of the central bank's comfort zone. The chart shows the rolling 1-year net liquidity injection into the banking system from the PBOC's open market operations (OMOs), and highlights that the period of rising interbank repo spreads has generally corresponded with declining net liquidity injections. In fact, the chart shows that the PBOC injected no net liquidity into the banking system in 2017, which likely increased the magnitude of the rise in interbank repo spreads. More recently, net liquidity injections have fallen quite sharply, but this appears to have been caused by the PBOC's use of a different policy tool, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, to inject a substantial amount of liquidity to help meet cash demand during the Chinese New Year. In short, while it is possible that interbank repo spreads could rise significantly and unexpectedly from current levels, the fact that spreads have been elevated but stable over the past year when the PBOC injected no net liquidity into the banking system suggests that monetary authorities should be able to reign in any outsized rise back to levels within the central bank's comfort zone. Q: Is the PBOC likely to tighten aggressively further to control inflation? A: No. The PBOC specifically noted in their latest monetary policy report that inflation needs to be "closely watched", so further tightening to control inflation cannot be ruled out. However, several observations suggest that the risk of aggressive further tightening to control inflation is moderate at most: We have highlighted in past reports that Chinese core consumer prices have recently been correlated with past values of the Li Keqiang index, which has declined meaningfully from its high early last year (Chart 6). The most recent inflation release suggests that the rate of appreciation in core prices is indeed rolling over, suggesting that inflationary pressure is set to ease (rather than intensify) over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 7 presents the BCA China Regional CPI Diffusion Index, which is made up of headline inflation data from 31 first-level administrative divisions. The index is shown alongside overall headline inflation, and while it does confirm that there has been some increase in inflation pressure, the index has not decisively risen above the boom/bust line. Chart 8 illustrates the measure of household inflation expectations that the PBOC cited along with headline CPI. While it is true that the measure has increased, it has done so from a below-median level, and the relationship shown in the chart suggests that further increases would be needed simply to have headline CPI accelerate. Given that headline inflation is 150 bps below the central bank's stated target, it appears that the PBOC is exaggerating the risk of an inflationary breakout to maintain hawkish rhetoric as part of its efforts to reduce the presence of moral hazard in financial markets and the real economy.6 Chart 6Ebbing Inflationary Risk Chart 7No Decisive Outbreak Chart 8Rising, But From A Low Level To be clear, we agree that the PBOC will likely raise its interest rate corridor (potentially significantly) further if core inflation re-accelerates and the disinflationary impact of food & energy prices dissipates. However, we see low odds of such a scenario over the coming 6-12 months barring a material re-acceleration of the economy. Q: Does the spike in new RMB loans in January raise the risk of further monetary tightening? A: No. Credit trends in the Chinese economy are more consistent with the need to ease than the need to tighten. Chart 9 shows the monthly increase in new RMB loans, which rose massively in January. Some market commentators have suggested that the January increase in this series carries special significance for loan growth over the remainder of the year, and that the rise suggests that further monetary tightening is forthcoming. But a closer examination of the data highlights that these concerns are unfounded. Panel 2 of Chart 9 shows the domestic bank loan component of total social financing, which is nearly identical to the new RMB loans series shown in panel 1. When presented as the YoY growth rate of a stock rather than a monthly flow,7 it is clear that bank loan growth did not meaningfully accelerate in January. In fact, Chart 10 shows that the YoY growth rate of total social financing (adjusted for equity and municipal bond issuance) continues to decelerate, highlighting that credit trends in the Chinese economy are more consistent with the need to ease monetary policy rather than tighten. Chart 9A Sharp MoM Rise... Chart 10...But Not In YoY Terms Q: What market-based indicators can investors use to tell if Chinese monetary policy is becoming restrictive? A: Watch the correlation between the 3-month interbank repo rate and China's relative sovereign CDS spread vs Germany. Chart 11A Market-Based Indicator ##br##Of The Restrictiveness Of Monetary Policy Besides a generalized selloff in Chinese risky financial assets, one warning sign that investors can use to monitor whether monetary policy has become restrictive is the rolling 1-year correlation between the 3-month interbank repo rate and the relative sovereign CDS spread between China and a large, fiscally sound developed economy (such as Germany). Despite the fact that actual sovereign credit risk in China is extremely low, Chart 11 shows that the relative CDS spread has acted as a good bellwether for growth conditions in the Chinese economy. It shows that the correlation between this spread and the 3-month interbank repo rate was initially positive in late-2016 (representing concern on the part of investors that monetary policy is restrictive), but has since come back down into negative territory. Interestingly, the correlation was consistently positive from mid-2011 to mid-2014, when average lending rates averaged 7% or higher and the benchmark lending rate exceeded the IMF's Taylor Rule estimate by about 1%.8 So while this is but one measure that we will be tracking, it's performance over the past several years as an indicator for restrictive policy appears to accord with our ex-post understanding of the impact of monetary conditions on the Chinese economy. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Tightening In China: How Much Is Too Much?" dated January 18, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'Decision Tree' For Chinese Stocks", dated January 4, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Tightening In China: How Much Is Too Much?" dated January 18, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 For more information on the structure of China's repo market, please see "The Chinese Interbank Repo Market" by Ross Kendall and Jonathan Lees, Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin, June 2017. 5 "China's tightened rules on wealth management products having little effect", Cathy Zhang, South China Morning Post, November 17, 2016 6 Please see our January 25 webcast for our geopolitical team's perspective on the potential impact of Governor Xiaochuan's approaching retirement on the PBOC's policy bias: https://gps.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/index/178# 7 We cumulate the social financing series using the best available estimates of the initial starting point of each component series. 8 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Tightening In China: How Much Is Too Much?" dated January 18, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Despite having the largest negative return of major markets during the global equity market correction, China's investable stock selloff appears to be normal after controlling for its risk characteristics. Taken together, the association between the global correction and volatility/valuation should be viewed as a sharp reduction in complacency in the market. Several factors make us cautious about China's outsized tech sector exposure in a world of reduced complacency. We recommend that investors retain cyclical exposure to investable Chinese stocks while neutralizing exposure to the tech sector. Feature Chart 1An Average Size, But Very Rapid, ##br##Global Selloff Global equities have sold off quite sharply since the end of January, having declined a total of 9% in US$ terms from their January 26 high to last Friday's close (Chart 1). BCA addressed the rout in a Special Report last week,1 and noted that strong economic growth and positive earnings surprises are likely to keep the global equity bull market intact, a view largely supported by this week's stock market behavior. Still, the report also highlighted that investors need to adjust to the fact that realized volatility is likely to sustainably rise, even if forward-looking volatility measures (such as the VIX in the U.S.) are currently too elevated. More generally, we equate the return of volatility with a reduction in complacency, and in this week's report we explore the implications of lower complacency for investors with an overweight allocation towards Chinese equities. Our judgement is that the complacency risk for China's ex-tech equity market is low, but that the same cannot be said for China's technology stocks. We conclude by recommending two trades that investors can employ to retain cyclical exposure to investable Chinese stocks, but with a neutralized exposure to the tech sector. Normal Underperformance For China Chart 2At First China Appears To Be Among ##br##The Worst Performers... At first blush, China's investable stock market fared quite poorly during the global stock market correction. Chart 2 lists 21 major country stock markets by the magnitude of their decline in US$ terms and highlights that China's selloff ranks at the very top of the list. But a simple comparison of stock market performance is misleading, as it fails to adjust for the different degrees of riskiness that are normally observed across global equity markets. For example, it is well known that emerging market equities have tended to be high beta relative to global stocks over the past decade, and we noted in a recent Special Report that Chinese investable stocks have become high beta even relative to emerging markets. In order to properly compare the performance of these markets during the global stock market selloff, we rely on the concept of "abnormal return" that is often employed in event study analysis. This approach involves calculating a counterfactual "normal" return for each market based on its rolling 1-year alpha and beta versus global stocks prior to the selloff, and then comparing it to the actual return. This difference, the "abnormal return" of each market, is shown in Chart 3, which highlights that China's performance during the selloff was perfectly normal after controlling for its risk characteristics. In fact, Chart 3 shows that many equity markets outperformed on a risk-adjusted basis, highlighting that the magnitude of the selloff in global stocks could actually have been worse. As for the underlying cause of the selloff, we showed in last week's Special Report that a crowded "short volatility" trade was undoubtedly a driving force: Chart 4 highlights that net long speculative positions on the VIX had fallen to a new low over the past six months, a circumstance that has now completely reversed. But Chart 5 shows that valuation also appears to have been a factor contributing to the selloff, by presenting the abnormal returns shown in Chart 3 as a function of the difference between the market's 12-month forward P/E and that of the global benchmark. While the fit is somewhat loose, the chart confirms that markets with higher (lower) forward P/E ratios were more likely to have negative (positive) abnormal returns over the two-week period. Chart 3...But Not After Adjusting##br## For Riskiness Chart 4The Low-Vol Trade Contributed ##br##To The Speed Of The Selloff... Taken together, the association between the selloff and volatility/valuation should be viewed as a sharp reduction in complacency in the market. While this does not necessarily bode poorly for global equities over the coming 6-12 months, there are some potential implications to explore for China's investable stock market. Chart 5...But Valuation Was Also A Factor Complacency Risk And Chinese Stocks The sharp reversal in global markets raises the question of whether Chinese equities are complacent about some looming risk. The obvious candidate for complacency risk in China would be focused on its economy, and the potential for a more substantial economic slowdown than is currently expected by market participants. However, we are unconvinced that Chinese ex-tech stocks are somehow neglecting the risks facing China's economy over the coming year. First, we have noted in previous reports that Chinese investable ex-tech stocks are extremely cheap versus global ex-tech stocks, highlighting that investors have priced in a degree of structural risk. Second, recent economic data releases from China do not suggest that the pace of the ongoing economic slowdown is accelerating, suggesting that there is no basis to expect a severe downturn over the coming year. But we acknowledge that the same cannot be said for China's tech sector. While Chinese tech stocks are not stretched on a technical basis (either versus the investable benchmark or versus global tech stocks), several observations make us cautious about China's outsized tech exposure in a world of reduced complacency: First, the growth rates of IBES 12-month trailing and forward earnings growth for global technology stocks are currently at the 80th and 85th percentiles, respectively (Chart 6). This suggests that a substantial amount of fundamental improvement has already been priced in to global tech stocks, raising the risk of earnings disappointment over the coming year. Given that China's tech sector weight (42%) is considerably above that of the global benchmark (18%), a global tech selloff would cause China's investable stock market to underperform even if Chinese tech performance is in line with that of the global tech sector. Second, relative to global technology stocks, the growth rates of China's 12-month trailing and forward earnings growth are also quite elevated, at the 80th and 70th percentiles, respectively (Chart 6 panel 2). This suggests that the tech earnings exuberance observed globally is even worse in China. Third, Chart 7 highlights that China's tech sector has been responsible for pushing our relative composite valuation indicator for China into overvalued territory over the past year. Relative to global ex-tech, China's ex-tech stocks are still significantly cheap; relative to global tech, China's tech stocks are significantly overvalued. Last, we have noted in past reports that China's tech sector appears to be a domestic consumer play, and thus unlikely to significantly underperform over the coming year. However, we also noted in last week's report on China's housing market that the optimism of the consumer sector may be somewhat unfounded if it is based on expectations of future gains in employment and/or income.2 While we do not expect a broad-based retracement in China's consumer sector, even a moderate decline in consumer confidence could spark a non-trivial selloff in Chinese tech stocks given the stretched fundamental picture highlighted above. Chart 6Tech Earnings Growth##br## Is Significantly Stretched Chart 7Tech Stocks Have Pushed China ##br##Into Overvalued Territory Investment Recommendations Given our observations about the complacency risk facing Chinese tech sector stocks, we are making the following changes to our investment recommendations: We are closing our overweight MSCI China Free versus the emerging markets benchmark trade for a 31% relative return. This has been a core trade for BCA's China Investment Strategy service and has provided investors with significant outperformance since its initiation in May 2012. We are opening two new trades as a replacement for the closed China / EM position: 1) long MSCI China investable ex-technology / short MSCI All Country World ex-technology, and 2) long MSCI China investable value / short All Country World value. These two new trades are a slight variation of a single theme, which is to retain cyclical exposure to investable Chinese stocks while neutralizing exposure to the tech sector. While style indexes such as value and growth normally do not have such a stark sector orientation, Chart 8 highlights that the relative performance of China value vs global value looks very similar to our internally-calculated ex-technology indexes for both markets. This is because MSCI's China growth index is almost entirely made up of tech sector stocks, meaning that a relative value play effectively mimics an ex-tech position. As a final point, we noted above that it is difficult to see how Chinese ex-tech equities are complacent about the ongoing slowdown in China's economy. Chart 9 supports this view by presenting a model for China's investable ex-tech 12-month trailing earnings in US$ terms, based on the Li Keqiang index. The model fit has been tight over the past decade, and is currently forecasting roughly 10% earnings growth over the coming year. This would clearly represent a significant deceleration from current levels, but it is still a decent earnings result that signals Chinese ex-tech stocks are attractive on a risk/reward basis given the sizeable valuation discount that is levied on China relative to global stocks. Chart 8China Ex-Tech And Value:##br## Similar Performance Vs Global Chart 9Positive Ex-Tech Earnings Growth Likely, ##br##Even With A Slowing Economy We remain alert to the possibility of a further, more pronounced slowdown in China's economy, but barring that Chinese ex-tech stocks appear to be a solid buy over the coming 6-12 months. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Return Of Vol", dated February 6, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is China's Housing Market Stabilizing?", dated February 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The trajectory of EM bank profits and share prices will be critical to sustain the EM equity rally. Rising U.S. bond yields will push up EM local bond yields. This, along with poor quality of banks' earnings, will likely halt EM banks' stock rally. We reiterate our strategic equity position: short EM banks / long U.S. banks. The same strategy can be replicated in credit markets. In China, bank loan data are no longer indicative of aggregate lending to all segments of the economy. Banks' total claims, total assets, and money aggregates have all slowed. The Korean won is making a major top. Short it against an equal-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and yen. Feature Chart I-1Rising U.S. Bond Yields = Higher EM Local ##br##Bond Yields And Lower Bank Stocks The key financial market variables with respect to the outlook for emerging markets (EM) are commodities prices, the U.S. dollar and EM bank share prices. We have written extensively on the former two, and today we elaborate on the third pillar: the importance of banks/financial stocks to the EM aggregate equity index. First, surging U.S. Treasurys yields point to higher EM local currency bond yields (Chart I-1, top panel). In turn, EM banks' share performance inversely correlates with EM local bond yields (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Altogether, this heralds lower EM bank share prices. Second, financials make up 24.4% of the MSCI EM equity market cap, with banks accounting for 18% out of the 24.4%. Hence, financials/banks' price fluctuations are critical to the EM equity benchmark. Importantly, financials' earnings accounts for 33.6% of EM listed companies earnings. By contrast, technology accounts for 27.6% of the EM market cap, but only 23.3% of EM total earnings (Table I-1). As to the EM technology sector, it is heavily skewed toward four large companies: Tencent, Alibaba, Samsung and TSMC. The latter two have already shown considerable weakness, with Samsung breaking down below its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Analyses on the former two companies are beyond the realm of macro research. What's more, these stocks are extremely overbought and probably expensive. If the rest of EM goes down, these two stocks are not likely to preclude it from happening. Third, banks in China, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil have been boosting their reported EPS by reducing their provisions outright or the pace of provisioning. Table I-1EM Equity Sectors: Earnings & Market Cap Weights Chart I-2Is EM Tech Hardware Breaking Down? For various reasons, we believe these reductions in provisions are unjustified. In China, Turkey and Malaysia, NPLs are too low to begin with: the more accurate measures of NPLs are probably much higher in these banking systems given the magnitude and duration of the preceding credit boom (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3China: Banks' Provisions Are Inadequate Chart I-4Turkey And Malaysia: ##br##Falling Provisions Are Untenable In Brazil and Indonesia, the recent weakness in nominal GDP growth - shown inverted on the chart - does not justify the outright reduction in the level of net new NPL provisions (Chart I-5). In short, some EM banks have inflated their EPS in recent quarters by reducing provisioning for bad loans. This suggests that their EPS quality is poor, and their profit recovery is unsustainable. Bottom Line: EM bank share prices have reached their previous high but are unlikely to break above that level, in our opinion (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Brazil And Indonesia: Declining ##br##Provisions Are Unsustainable Chart I-6EM Bank Share Prices ##br##Are Facing Resistance We reiterate our strategic call of being short EM banks and long U.S. bank stocks. The relative share price performance of EM versus U.S. banks has been inversely correlated with U.S. bond yields (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Rising U.S. Bond Yields = ##br##EM Banks Underperformance If our view on higher U.S. bond yields materializes, odds are that EM bank share prices will relapse considerably versus U.S. banks. Traders should consider implementing this trade. Credit investors can replicate the same strategy in credit markets. Strategy Considerations Investor sentiment remains bullish on risk assets in general and emerging markets in particular. The buy-on-dips mentality is well entrenched. Amid such investor consensus, it is important to consider alternative scenarios. Presently, the relative performance of Swiss versus global non-financial stocks is sitting on its long-term moving average (Chart I-8). Odds of a rebound in the relative performance of Swiss non-financial stocks from such oversold levels are fairly high. As and when the latter begin outperforming their global peers, it might entail a negative outlook for global bourses in general and cyclical equity sectors in particular. The basis is that Swiss non-financial stocks are defensive in nature, as pharmaceuticals and consumer staples account for a large portion of the total market cap. Not surprisingly, the previous bottoms in Swiss non-financials' relative performance versus global non-financials coincided with major tops in global equity bull markets. For now, the risk-reward for global stocks is unattractive, and the outlook for EM relative performance is extremely poor. Notably, relative manufacturing PMI trends favor DM over EM stocks (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Swiss Stocks Are At Critical Juncture: ##br##What Does It Mean For Global Equities? Chart I-9EM Relative To DM: PMIs And Share Prices Besides, as we discussed at great length in our recent report,1 EM equity valuations are on par with DM when adjusted for sector weights and sub-sectors with outlier valuation ratios. Our stance remains that EM risk assets will face a perfect storm this year for two reasons: Strong U.S. growth will cause U.S. inflation to rise, and the selloff in U.S. bonds has further to run. Higher U.S. interest rates should support the U.S. dollar and weigh on EM risk assets that have benefited disproportionally from the search for yield; While China's growth has slowed only moderately, our forward-looking leading indicators continue to point to further deceleration. A combination of these two tectonic shifts will amount to a perfect storm for EM risk assets in 2018. We explore these two issues in greater detail below. U.S. Inflation, The Fed And The U.S. Dollar We have the following observations on current U.S. economic dynamics: Fiscal stimulus is arriving at a time when growth is already robust, and the labor market is tight. This will likely produce higher inflation. Inflation does not need to surge to make a difference in financial markets. It would be fair to say investors have become complacent and financial markets are still pricing in a goldilocks scenario. Therefore, even a moderate rise in core inflation readings along with some anecdotal evidence that companies are able to raise prices will lead to further re-pricing in U.S. interest rate expectations. Higher U.S. interest rates pose a risk to EM, which have benefited considerably from the search for yield. EM currencies, domestic bonds and credit markets have so far held up well, despite the considerable rise in U.S. bond yields (see Chart I-1 on page 1). Based on this, it is tempting to argue that EM will be immune to rising U.S. interest rate expectations. Nevertheless, we believe this EM resilience has occurred because fund flows to EM remain very robust. These flows are often backward looking. Odds are that 10-year U.S. Treasury yields will move well north of 3%. Such a considerable rise in yields will weigh on EM risk assets. It is essential to realize that the positioning in EM stocks, local bonds and credit is more elevated today than it was before the 2015 downturn. Finally, Chart I-10 illustrates that U.S. banks' excess reserves at the Federal Reserve have started to drop. In recent years the periods of reserve declines have coincided with a strong U.S. dollar, yet the latest drop in banks' excess reserves has not yet produced a meaningful rally in the greenback (the dollar is shown inverted in Chart I-10). The Fed's ongoing tapering efforts and the U.S. Treasury's replenishment of its account at the Fed are bound to produce further reductions in banks' excess reserves. Based on the latter's correlation with the exchange rate, this should support the greenback. Notably, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued, according to our most favored valuation measure: the unit labor cost-based real effective exchange rate (Chart I-11). This takes into account both wages and productivity, and hence gauges competitiveness much better than real effective exchange rate measures that rely on consumer and producer prices. Chart I-10Shrinking U.S. Banks Excess ##br##Reserves = Stronger U.S. Dollar Chart I-11The U.S. Dollar Is Not Expensive Finally, tax cuts are supply side reforms, and they are typically bullish for the currency. Bottom Line: A combination of stronger growth, rising interest rate expectations, neutral valuations and oversold conditions should help the U.S. dollar to rebound. The rally in the U.S. exchange rate versus EM currencies will be pronounced if China's growth slows, as we expect it to. Making Sense Of Chinese Data China's slowdown has so far been moderate. However, in any economy a downturn almost always begins with a moderation in growth. That, however, is not sufficient reason to conclude that the growth slump will be benign or short-lived. Judgement on the duration and magnitude of a slowdown should be based on the existence of major macro imbalances, or lack thereof. Given that China has enormous money, credit and property market excesses/imbalances and policy has been tightening, we believe that growth disappointments will be non-trivial and more substantive than the market consensus currently expects. The following corroborate the case for a deepening growth slump ahead: The annual change in the manufacturing new orders-to-inventory ratio from the National Bureau of Statistics points to a relapse in Caixin's manufacturing PMI as well as steel, iron ore and coal prices (Chart I-12). This indicator also heralds a decline in analysts' EPS net revisions for all Chinese stocks (Chart I-13). Chart I-12China: An Impending Slowdown Chart I-13China: EPS Net Revisions Have Peaked While some economic data like imports for January were strong, it is important to realize that this January had a few more working days compared with January 2017 due to the Chinese New Year falling in February this year. Although the same seasonal adjustment should be applied to money and credit data, there are other critical dimensions specific to the credit data that investors should be aware of. Banks' loans to companies and households - widely watched by the investment community - was very strong in January relative to the previous month. However, loan and most of other data in China should be seasonally adjusted. The annual growth rate in RMB bank loans is still very robust at 13.2% (Chart I-14, top panel). However, the growth rates of banks' total assets, total claims and broad money have all dropped close to 10% or below (Chart I-14). The disparity between bank loans on the one hand and their claims and assets on the other is due to the following: In China's banking statistics, banks' loans to non-bank financial institutions - such as financial trusts, investment corporations, insurance, financial leasing companies and auto-financing companies, and loan companies - are not included in banks' loan data. Hence, bank loan data do not reveal the banks' full impact on the economy. By extending credit to non-bank financial institutions, banks have expanded their balance sheets without exceeding their loan quotas. In short, banks have funded shadow banking and by extension the real economy and speculative investment schemes but have done so via non-bank financial institutions. In addition, banks have also bought a lot of corporate and local government bonds that are not considered loans. Overall, bank loans have been understating the degree of the banking system's credit expansion. In the past year, regulators have been forcing banks to reduce their lending to non-bank financial institutions. With this channel of balance sheet expansion restricted (Chart I-15, top panel), banks are probably resorting to more traditional loans to expand their balance sheets and earn income. Chart I-14China: Bank Loans, ##br##Assets And Total Claims Chart I-15China: Bank Lending To Shadow ##br##Banking Is Being Curtailed In short, one needs to look at banks' aggregate claims on all entities - companies, households, non-bank financial institutions and governments - to assess whether their lending to the economy is slowing or accelerating. Chart I-16China: Structure Of Bank Assets Consistent with the ongoing regulatory clampdown, banks' claims on non-bank financial institutions - so called shadow banking - have plummeted in the past 12 months after expanding 50-70% annually for several years in a row (Chart I-15, top panel). The bottom three panels of Chart I-15 indicate that the annual growth rates of banks' claims on companies, household and the government have either already decelerated or are slowing now. Their respective shares in banks' total assets are displayed in Chart I-16. While banks' RMB loans remain the largest category of assets, the importance of other claims has risen. Bottom Line: Several leading indicators continue pointing to an impending slowdown in the mainland's economy. Bank loan data is no longer indicative of total bank assets expansion/aggregate lending to all segments in the economy. Broader measures - such as banks' total claims, assets and money aggregates - have decelerated considerably. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Korea: A Major Top In The Won The Korean won is vulnerable on several fronts: Its real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs is well above its historical mean (Chart II-1, top panel). Importantly, based on this same measure, the won is very expensive versus the Japanese yen (Chart II-1, bottom panel). The manufacturing cycle has already weakened in Korea (Chart II-2). Chart II-1The Won Is Expensive Chart II-2Korea's Manufacturing Is Weakening Japanese exports in U.S. dollar terms are starting to outperform Korean ones (Chart II-3), suggesting that Korean exporters might be losing market share to their Japanese rivals. Furthermore, manufacturing inventories are rising sharply in Korea but not in Japan (Chart II-4). Relative manufacturing inventory trends also favor the yen versus the won (Chart II-4, bottom panel). Chart II-3Relative Exports: Korea Versus Japan Chart II-4Manufacturing Inventories: Korea And Japan The won's appreciation has depressed Korea's export prices in local-currency terms. In Japan, on the other hand, local-currency export prices are holding better. Interestingly, the relative export price trend in U.S. dollars points to the won's depreciation versus the yen (Chart II-5). Korean non-financial stocks have broken below their 200-day moving average, which corroborates that corporate profitability is deteriorating (Chart II-6). Korean equities have been among the world's worst-performing bourses year-to-date. Chart II-5Export Prices: Korea And Japan Chart II-6Korean Non-Financial Stocks Are Cracking In addition, the correction in Korean stocks commenced before the recent plunge in the S&P 500. This highlights that the relapse in Korean share prices was not only due to the contagion from the U.S. equity selloff. Finally, the technical profile of the won points to a major top. Chart II-7 shows that the won is facing multi-year technical resistance versus the U.S. dollar. Chart II-7KRW/USD Exchange Rate: ##br##A Long-Term Technical Profile Investment Conclusions We have been short the Korean won versus the Thai baht since October 19, 2016 and this trade has produced a 7.3% gain. We recommend closing this trade and shorting the won versus an equally-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and yen. The rationale to short the KRW versus this basket is to hedge against a possible near-term U.S. dollar selloff if China is forced to revalue the RMB further, as we discussed in February 7, 2018 report.2 In regards to equities, we are closing our long KOSPI / short Nikkei trade with a 1% loss since April 26, 2017. Within the EM universe, we continue recommending a neutral allocation to Korean stocks excluding technology. Despite their recent underperformance, EM-dedicated managers should continue overweighting Korean tech stocks. The reasoning behind this is that the potential currency depreciation will help their corporate profitability as tech shipments are not exposed to Chinese capital spending. The latter will be the epicenter of negative growth surprises in our opinion. Finally, Korean local bond yields will soon top out as the deflationary pressures from a stronger currency become more evident in the economy. Korean bonds will outperform U.S. Treasurys on a currency-hedged basis. 1 Please refer to Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "EM Equity Valuations (Part I)," dated January 24, 2018, the link is available on page 19. 2 Please refer to Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "A Regime Shift?," dated February 7, 2018, the link is available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The recent house price weakness in Tier 1 markets likely reflects past economic "information", and does not suggest that a more pronounced slowdown is forthcoming. In fact, while it is too soon to conclude that China's housing sector is about to enter a significant upturn, there are several signs of a potential pickup in activity that should be closely monitored. These signs suggest that, at a minimum, the risk of a material housing downturn has somewhat eased. This is consistent with an overweight stance towards Chinese investable stocks within an emerging market or global equity portfolio. The enormous rise in Chinese investable real estate stocks over the past year reflects a significant improvement in fundamentals and a re-rating from deeply depressed levels. Our Sector Alpha Portfolio suggests that cutting exposure is not yet warranted, but investors should tighten their stops given now lofty earnings expectations over the coming year. Feature We presented our framework for tracking the end of China's mini-cycle in an October 2017 Weekly Report,1 and noted at that time that a weakening housing market was a trend that needed to be monitored. We argued that a moderation in house price appreciation was all but inevitable given the magnitude of the boom over the prior 2 years, and was not concerning in isolation. But we also highlighted that home sales and prices were a key bellwether of the efficacy of policymakers' reflationary efforts over the course of the recent mini-cycle, and that an eventual stabilization of the pace of decline would be an important signal confirming the benign nature of China's economic slowdown. Chart 1A Sharp Decline In Tier 1 House Prices The rate of appreciation in Chinese house prices has moderated further since we wrote our October report (Chart 1), with prices in Tier 1 markets (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen) having recently decelerated to 0%. In this week's report we provide a brief update on China's housing market, and whether recent house price weakness is consistent with our benign slowdown view. We conclude that the softness in house prices, even in Tier 1 markets, has occurred due to the ongoing economic slowdown and does not likely reflect new information about the condition of the Chinese economy. In fact, while it is too soon to conclude that China's housing sector is about to enter a significant upturn, there are several signs of a potential pickup in activity that should be closely monitored. A Stylized View Of China's Housing Cycle Chart 2 presents a stylized description of the sequencing of China's housing market cycles since 2010, at the onset of China's "new normal" period of decelerating economic growth. Chart 3 presents these dynamics directly and illustrates the lag structure that has prevailed over the period. Chart 2A Stylized View Of China's Housing Market Dynamics: 2010 - Present Chart 3Residential Floor Space Sold And House Price Diffusion Indexes Lead ##br##Other Housing Market Data The charts highlight how residential floor space sold has tended to lead other major housing market data in China over the past several years, closely followed by house price diffusion indexes and the year-over-year house price index for Tier 1 markets. These series are, in turn, followed by residential floor space started, the growth rate of house prices in Tier 2 & 3 markets, and finally by land purchased for overall real estate development. Charts 2 & 3 present two noteworthy observations: While Tier 1 house prices have tended to lead prices in Tier 2 and Tier 3 markets, they themselves tend to be preceded by other important housing market series. The extent of the recent decline in Tier 1 house prices seems to simply be the mirror image of the enormous boom that occurred in late-2015 / early-2016, when prices rose over 30% year-over-year. Given the significant slowdown in floor space sold that has occurred since mid-2016, and the enormous rise in prices that preceded it, it seems reasonable to conclude that the recent price weakness in Tier 1 markets likely reflects past economic "information". The more salient question for investors is what developments are likely to occur in China's housing market over the coming year, and what investment strategy conclusions emerge from the outlook. The Cyclical Outlook For Chinese Housing While it is too soon to conclude that China's housing sector is about to enter a significant upturn, there are several signs of a potential pickup in activity that should be closely monitored: Charts 2 & 3 highlight that residential floor space sold has had the best leading properties of the overall housing market cycle in China over the past several years, and there has been a modest pickup in this series since October (Chart 4). Admittedly, there have been two false starts in this series since mid-2016, so it is too early to tell from this data alone that China's housing market activity is about to pick up significantly. However, there has also been a notable improvement in our BCA China 70-City House Price Diffusion Index (Chart 5), which measures the share of cities with accelerating year-over-year house prices. We flagged the previous sharp decline in this measure in our October report, but the recent rebound has resulted in a complete round-trip from last summer's levels. Official diffusion indexes, based on the number of cities with positive month-over-month price gains, are also well above the boom/bust line and have not deteriorated to the same extent as our index has over the past year. Chart 4A Modest Pickup##br## In Housing Sales Volume Chart 5A Notable Pickup##br## In Our House Price Diffusion Index The recent pickup in house prices may be linked to the rolling back of purchase restrictions in some cities, but the correlation is far from perfect. For example, Shijiazhuang, Xiamen, Changsha, Xi'an, and Lanzhou have all been cited in various news reports as having adjusted their housing policies, but none of these markets have experienced a pickup in house price appreciation. We will be watching for more compelling signs over the coming months that local housing market deregulation is the root cause of the recent pickup in our diffusion index. The easing in "for sale" floor space inventory to sales over the past two years has reduced some of the housing overhang, which may cause a moderate boost to new housing construction. Chart 6 highlights that the ratio of residential floor space started to sold has fallen significantly over the past few years, as inventories have been drawn down. Since most of the economic impact from housing comes through the construction process, a pickup in floor space started could shift the growth outlook for China in a positive direction. On the negative side, while survey data suggests that Chinese consumers are upbeat and are looking to buy a home (Chart 7), other indicators suggest that this pickup in interest may be occurring due to unfounded optimism about future employment and/or income. First, we have highlighted in several reports over the past months that the Li Keqiang index is falling (driven significantly by monetary tightening, including rising mortgage rates), which suggests that China's business cycle is shifting down, not up. This clearly raises the risk that income and employment growth with downshift with it. Second, Chart 8 highlights that the employment components of the official manufacturing and services PMIs have stagnated again, after having picked up in 2016 and early-2017. Third, Chart 9 illustrates that while per capita disposable income growth for urban households did pick up during the same period as the employment PMIs, it may be in the process of peaking (especially given the weak Q4 print). Chart 6An Easing In Inventories May Boost##br## New Housing Construction Chart 7Chinese Consumers ##br##Are Upbeat... Chart 8...But Employment Prospects Aren't Great... Chart 9...And Neither Is Recent Income Growth Investment Strategy Implications The first investment strategy implication is that our analysis is consistent with a benign view of the ongoing economic slowdown in China, which supports an overweight stance towards Chinese investable stocks within an emerging market or global equity portfolio. While it is too soon to conclude that housing is about to enter a significant upturn, the risk of a material housing downturn has somewhat eased. Second, a potential pickup in China's housing sector raises the question of whether construction-related sectors are poised to significantly outperform China's investable benchmark over the coming year. We recently closed our long investable building materials / short investable benchmark trade as part of a stringent trade review process, based on the view that a significant upturn in the housing market was far from guaranteed. Our analysis in this report supports that decision, as signs of a significant pickup are tentative at best. However, we will be actively looking to re-open the trade at some point over the coming months were we to observe compelling evidence that a significant acceleration in housing construction is imminent. Third, signs of a potential inflection point in China's housing market would normally be positive for the investable real estate stocks, but the outlook for this sector is clouded by its massive outperformance over the past year. We last wrote about real estate stocks in a September Weekly Report,2 and argued that a positive re-rating from extremely discounted levels had further to run. Indeed, our composite valuation indicator highlights that real estate stocks have merely become fairly valued over the past year (Chart 10), despite a 95% US$ price return in 2017. While this underscores that there has been a major fundamental improvement for Chinese investable real estate companies, Chart 11 highlights that these stocks are now priced for another year of 20-30% EPS growth, which may be a tall order unless a very substantial pickup in Chinese housing market activity materializes. Chart 10Chinese Real Estate Stocks ##br##Are Not Overvalued... Chart 11...But They Are At Risk Of ##br##An Earnings Disappointment For now, the BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio that we introduced in our January 11 Special Report continues to support an overweight stance towards the investable real estate sector (Table 1),3 and we are reluctant to recommend that investors cut their exposure to these stocks. Still, tight stops may be warranted, especially if the recent pickup in residential floor space sold proves to be fleeting. Table 1Our Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio Still Favors Real Estate Stocks Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle", dated October 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Real Estate: Which Way Will The Wind Blow?", dated September 28, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "China: No Longer A Low-Beta Market", dated January 11, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The end of the low volatility regime could mark a leadership change in global equities away from EM to DM. The near-term risk to our negative stance on EM risk assets is a scenario where Beijing allows RMB appreciation to head off major protectionist threats from the U.S. This could delay the U.S. dollar rally and support EM risk assets. The EM and commodities equity rallies might be facing formidable technical resistances. These equity segments have to break out these technical resistances decisively to confirm the sustainability of the bull market. Feature Global stocks have corrected, and volatility measures have surged. The low volatility regime appears to have come to a decisive end. Even though in the short run volatility measures could well decline after their steep surge of the past week, the cyclical outlook points to higher volatility relative to last year. Financial markets are likely to be re-priced to adjust to the end of this low-volatility period. This entails more stress, and an additional selloff in risk assets. Periods of low volatility historically sow the seeds of their own reversal. Investors tend to embrace high-risk strategies amid low volatility, and take on more leverage. As a result, market excesses and froth arise, increasing the market's vulnerability in the event of a reversal. The latest period of low volatility lasted for more than a year, and no doubt facilitated the build-up of froth and excesses in global financial markets. Chart I-1 illustrates that the aggregate volatility measure of various financial markets was at its lows of the past 12 years before surging in recent days. Chart I-1Rising Volatility Coincides With A U.S. Dollar Rally What does rising volatility mean for emerging market (EM) relative performance vis a vis developed markets (DM)? It is primarily contingent on the U.S. dollar. If the U.S. dollar rebounds along with the rise in volatility, as it has done in the past (Chart I-1), EM equities will commence underperforming DM bourses. If the U.S. dollar fails to rebound and drifts lower, EM stocks are likely to outperform DM equities. With respect to exchange rates, we believe one of the major driving forces for currencies is the relative growth trajectory. The latter can be approximated by relative equity market performance in local currency terms. Chart I-2 shows that U.S. share prices - of both large and small caps - have been outperforming their global counterparts in local currency terms. Persisting periods of outperformance of U.S. stocks versus their global peers eventually, albeit sometimes with a considerable time lag, instigates a stronger trade-weighted U.S. dollar. U.S. large-cap share prices are making new highs versus their global peers in local currency terms. This entails that the selloff in the broad trade-weighted dollar is at a very late stage. The dollar rebound is a missing trigger for EM relative equity outperformance to reverse. A Risk To Our View: The U.S. Dollar One risk to our negative stance on EM risk assets and our recommendation of underweighting EM versus DM is the continuation of the U.S. dollar selloff. The greenback has been trading very poorly despite jitters in global equity markets. The recent surge in the RMB versus the U.S. dollar may be indicative that the Chinese authorities are tolerating RMB appreciation to defuse a threat of major protectionist measures from the U.S. (Chart I-3). If the RMB continues to appreciate versus the greenback, Asian and other EM currencies will stay well supported, and EM outperformance will persist. Chart I-2U.S. Relative Equity Outperformance ##br##Warrants A Stronger Dollar Chart I-3Will Beijing Tolerate A Stronger RMB? We suspect that Chinese policymakers are reluctantly allowing the RMB to appreciate. Indeed, Chinese policymakers have been both vocal and public about their understanding of Japan's experience with deleveraging, and specifically the mistake made by Japanese policymakers of allowing the yen to appreciate in the early 1990s. As most know, deflationary forces stemming from the combined effects of deleveraging and currency appreciation set off a formidable deflationary adjustment in Japan in the 1990s. Given Japan's experience, our conjecture is that Chinese policymakers would rather opt for a stable-to-mildly weaker currency. This has been one of the cornerstones of our bullish bias on the U.S. dollar versus emerging Asian currencies. If China allows the RMB to appreciate further versus the U.S. dollar, a potential U.S. dollar rally versus EM currencies will be delayed. In turn, this will likely allow EM equity, currency and credit markets to outperform their DM peers. That said, a strong currency will add to the ongoing policy tightening in China. The cumulative impact of this policy tightening combined with currency appreciation will weigh on China's growth later this year. As such, our fundamental thesis on China-slowdown is still valid in the medium term. However, political interference in the currency markets could delay EM risk assets' response to it. Bottom Line: The near-term risk to our negative stance on EM risk assets is a scenario where Beijing allows further RMB appreciation to head off potentially major protectionist threats from the U.S. May 2006 Redux? The current riot in global stocks resembles the May 2006 correction to a certain extent. Back in the spring of 2006, then Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had just taken the helm at the Fed. Global growth was strong, the U.S. dollar was selling off, and global share prices were surging and overbought. Chart I-4May 2006 And Now: EM Stocks, ##br##U.S. Bond Prices And U.S. Dollar In May-June 2006, markets sold off because of the then-prevailing narrative that Chairman Bernanke would be too dovish and would allow U.S. inflation to get out of hand. U.S. bond yields spiked, inflicting particular damage on EM. It seems that February 2018 may play out like May 2006. It will not be exactly the same, but there are enough similarities to draw parallels: Global growth is robust, inflationary pressures are accumulating. DM bond yields are rising and the greenback is selling off. The new Fed Chairman, Jerome Powell, just took over the reins at the Fed, and there are growing odds that U.S. inflation will soon begin to rise, justifying more Fed rate hikes. Chart I-4 illustrates the similarities between financial market dynamics in 2005-2006 and now. If we take 2006 as a guide, we can infer that the selloff is not yet over. In a matter of only five weeks EM share prices plunged by 25% in U.S. dollar terms, and the S&P 500 dropped by 7%. From a big-picture perspective, the May 2006 selloff was a sharp correction in a bull market that lasted for another year or so. Importantly, the 25% plunge in EM share prices that took place in 2006 occurred despite EM corporate profit growth expanding at a double-digit rate in 2006-'07. All that said, the 2006 selloff marked an important regime shift in the global economic landscape - the rate of U.S. growth peaked in the second quarter 2006, and began to decelerate. We believe that the current equity market riot will likely mark a bottom in U.S. inflation and the beginning of a slowdown in China. The U.S. Bond Market Selloff Is Not Over... Yet The selloff in the U.S./DM bond markets has not yet run its course: The U.S. inflation model - constructed by our colleagues in the Foreign Exchange Strategy service and based on U.S. capacity utilization and broad money supply - is pointing to higher inflation in the months ahead (Chart I-5). U.S. bond yields will likely move higher as forthcoming inflation prints validate our expectations for higher U.S. inflation. Fiscal stimulus amid robust growth and a tight labor market in the U.S. as well as record-high optimism among consumers and businesses have created fertile ground for rising inflation. The weak dollar of the past 12 months will also manifest in rising inflationary pressures. The U.S. bond term premium is still extremely low. Yet, budding uncertainty over inflation and the gradual end of QE programs in DM, will likely cause the U.S. bond term premium to rise from current depressed levels. Finally, simple DM bond markets technicals are still pointing to higher yields ahead (Chart I-6). Chart I-5U.S. Core Inflation Set To Rise Chart I-6U.S. Bond Yields: The Path ##br##Of Least Resistance Is Up Overall, the path of least resistance for DM bond yields is up. This will make EM local currency bond yields less attractive versus DM and especially versus U.S. Treasurys. Yield differentials between EM and the U.S. are already at a 10-year low (Chart I-7). Low risk premiums on EM local bonds and rising global financial market volatility suggest that flows to EM fixed income markets will slow over the course of this year. That said, near-term risks still remain due to the massive inflows that previously went into EM funds, and might not have been deployed yet. China's Tightening And Pending Slowdown It is not unusual for an equity market riot to begin with inflation and high-interest-rate fears and then culminate with a growth scare - with a rebound in between. 2018 may shape up to fit this pattern. Global equity markets seem to be immersed with inflation and policy tightening in the U.S. - and potentially in China. At some point, share prices could well stage a rebound but then relapse again as materially slower Chinese growth spills over to global trade.1 We have discussed our view on China and its spillover effect on EM in past reports, and will not reiterate our views and analysis here. We will only bring to clients' attention that manufacturing production volume in Asia has already been weakening for a couple of months (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Local Currency Bonds Over ##br##U.S. Treasurys: Yield Differential Chart I-8Asia's Manufacturing ##br##Production Growth Is Slowing Leadership changes in the equity markets occur amid selloffs. Hence, it is reasonable to expect a leadership shift within global equity market sectors and countries as well as currency markets. One major equity leadership shift could be that EM begins underperforming DM. A combination of rising U.S. inflation and bond yields and a slowdown in China are negative for EM financial markets, especially relative to DM ones. Reading Markets' Tea Leaves It remains to be seen how much further this selloff in global equities will last and whether this is the beginning of a major downtrend in EM risk assets. It is impossible to have perfect foresight. To help investors in their portfolio decisions, we combine our fundamental analysis with tools that assist us in forecasting business cycles as well as various chart patterns that may be indicative of the market's potential trajectory. The following charts illustrate that the EM and commodities equity rally may be facing formidable technical resistance. These equity markets have to break out decisively through these technical resistance lines to confirm the sustainability of the bull market. Global energy stocks have corrected after reaching their long-term moving average (Chart I-9, top panel). The latter served as a floor in the 2008 crash. It was a key technical level in the 2014-'15 bear market that did not hold up and was followed by a collapse in crude prices. Similarly, global steel stocks are exhibiting the same pattern (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Relative performance of emerging Asian share prices versus the global equity benchmark is also at a similar critical juncture (Chart I-10, top panel). Chart I-9Global Energy And Steel Stocks: ##br##A Technical Resistance Chart I-10Select EM Equity Markets ##br##Are Facing A Critical Test Finally, Brazilian share prices in U.S. dollar terms have also reached a crucial technical threshold (Chart I-10, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Share prices of a few equity sectors and markets that are imperative to the EM equity outlook are at important technical junctures. Failure to break above these technical resistance lines will corroborate our negative stance on EM/China growth and related financial markets. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 We elaborated the relationship between China/EM and DM growth in November 29, 2017 Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, the link is available on page 12. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations