Economy

Special Report

The aim of this Special Report is to elaborate on and explain the different views on China that have coexisted at BCA in recent years. Although BCA strives to achieve consensus among its strategists, this is not always possible, as has been the case with China. Peter Berezin of the Global Investment Strategy service and Yan Wang of China Investment Strategy have been positive, while Arthur Budaghyan of Emerging Markets Strategy has been negative on both China's business cycle and China-related plays. The focal points of divergence are centered on how Peter, Yan, and Arthur view and explain the relationship between savings, debt, and the misallocation of capital, as well as how they see China's potential roadmap going forward. The debate is moderated by BCA Global Strategist Caroline Miller. Caroline: Peter and Yan, the world - including the Chinese government - is climbing a wall of worry about China's debt load. Why are you guys still smiling? How many Maotai did you have last night? Peter: I don't know what a Maotai is, but I am sure that if I had more than one I wouldn't be smiling this morning. But yes, I am not as worried as Arthur that China is in the midst of an unsustainable credit bubble. Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors in the global equity market (Chart 1). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 2). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 3). Chart 1Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 2Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 3Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy Yes, there is a lot of debt in China. But there is a lot of savings too. In fact, to a large extent, China's high debt levels are just a function of its high saving rate. The evidence suggests that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies (Chart 4). China sits close to the trend line, implying that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 4Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Arthur: Allow me to both agree and disagree with Peter. No, there is no bubble in Chinese equities, but yes, there is a bubble and euphoria in China's property market. Property prices have risen exponentially and are extremely high by any metric. Chinese bank equity valuations have already adjusted, but bank stocks could still sell off if their profits shrink considerably, as I expect. Bank shares are not expensive, but not cheap either, if one adjusts for non-performing loans. I concur that China's property market adjustment will likely resemble that of Hong Kong as opposed to that of the U.S. As Peter noted, in Hong Kong in the late 1990s, property prices plunged by 70%, but few homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. Yet property starts/construction also collapsed by 80% (Chart 5). Chart 5Hong Kong's Property: ##br##Few Mortgage Defaults ##br##But Collapse In Construction Presently in China, the risk is not mortgage defaults but a renewed drop in property construction as well as other types of capital spending. Less construction/capital spending entails less demand for commodities, materials/chemicals and industrial goods. China's residential and non-residential construction activity will contract anew as speculative/investment demand for property weakens. Yan: I agree with Peter that China's rising debt is fundamentally a function of the country's abundant savings. Moreover, the fact that the country's massive savings pool is primarily intermediated via the banking sector and other debt instruments exacerbates the debt buildup. If a country's savings are primarily intermediated by the stock market through equity financing, then high savings do not necessarily lead to high debt, as "savers" become "shareholders" rather than "creditors." In China's case, the country's still relatively undeveloped and volatile equity market has not yet been able to play a meaningful role in financial intermediation. Instead, banks still play a dominant role channeling financial resources. In other words, China's high savings and a banking-centric financial intermediation system are key drivers of the ever-rising debt level. In fact, as long as these two features persist, the country's debt will inevitably continue to rise, as it simply reflects the accumulated savings. Caroline: Arthur, does this line up with how you think about the relationship between savings and debt? Arthur: My thesis has been that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, euphoric behavior among Chinese banks and the shadow banking system - and not the natural result of the country's "excess savings," as Peter and Yan have argued. What economists call "savings" or "excess savings," non-economists refer to as "overproduction" or "excess capacity." This is about concepts, not about China. In economic science, the term "savings" is used to denote the number of goods and services that a nation has produced but not consumed - i.e., they can be used for investment or exports. Peter and Yan are using this textbook definition of "savings." Hence, by "savings" or "excess savings" they mean "excess production." Logically, the glut of goods and services does not flow to banks and create deposits. In brief, "savings" or "excess savings" are real economic variables and have nothing to do with bank deposits - i.e., "monetary savings." Peter, Yan and many other commentators make this mistake by mixing up national savings - which is literally output of goods and services that were not consumed by households and government - with "monetary savings," i.e., deposits in the banking system. I have no doubt China has had a high savings rate, i.e., it has had overcapacity and over-production in a number of sectors. The textbook concept of national savings is calculated as a residual from the national accounts and balance of payments. In particular: Savings - Investments = Current Account Balance and Savings = Investments + Current Account Balance A few remarks on the economic interpretation of this equation are in order. First, in any country, "excess" national savings over investment, i.e., current account surpluses, lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but has no implication on domestic loan creation.1 Second, a country that invests a lot and does not run a large current account deficit will have a high savings rate as per the economic textbook's definition of national savings. The opposite also holds true. Critically, national or household savings are in no way linked to the amount of deposits at banks. When households decide to save a part of their income, they do not create new deposits or "monetary savings." They save deposits that already exist in the banking system. To sum up, the amount of deposits in the banking system does not change as a result of households' decision to save a part of their income. When a person gets paid in cash and deposits that cash in a bank as a savings deposit, there is no new money created either. That cash was a deposit and was withdrawn from a bank a few days before, and now this cash returns to the banking system as a deposit again. In this case, the amount of total outstanding money supply in the economy (cash plus deposits) has not changed. In general, when a bank receives a deposit, it does not create new money, or "monetary savings." The deposit simply moves from one bank to another or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. When a country enjoys a lot of overcapacity, strong bank loans or money growth will not cause inflation and interest rates will stay low, encouraging more borrowing. This is why in Peter's Chart 4 there is a positive correlation between the national savings rate and debt-to-GDP ratio across countries. Overcapacity entails low inflation; the latter keeps nominal interest rates low, which in turn entices more borrowing and debt build-up. In brief, the linkage between national savings/excess capacity and the credit-to-GDP ratio is indirect via subdued inflation and low interest rates that encourage debt build-up. Caroline: Arthur, you have made the case that savings are not a constraint to loan origination. Can you elaborate? Arthur: The banking system does not intermediate "savings" or "excess savings" from the real economy into loans. The commercial banking system as a whole creates deposits at the time it originates loans. This is true of all countries. Indeed, whenever commercial banks make a loan, they simultaneously create a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart 6). In other words, bank loan origination creates deposits and money.2 Chart 6Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits China's banking system has a lot of deposits because banks have created too many loans. In addition, a bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it originates. It still requires some liquidity to settle its net balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it may not require liquidity to "back up" the loan. There are many variables that constrain bank loan origination, but they do not include national savings or "excess savings." We discussed these constraints in detail in our EMS report titled Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses.3 Finally, when central banks opt to keep short-term interest rates steady, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. This point is greatly relevant to China. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money) (Chart 7). As a result, nowadays the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks. Chart 7The PBoC Has Begun Targeting Rates In Recent Years It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. The PBoC decides whether or not to accommodate banks' liquidity needs by allowing interest rates to rise or fall, or by keeping them steady.4 To conclude, what habitually drives credit booms in any country are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers - not national savings. This has been the case in China too. Caroline: Peter, do you agree with Arthur's assessment? Peter: I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds of monetary theory, but let me briefly address two distinct points that I think Arthur is making. The first is the claim that the ability of banks to create money "out of thin air" is somehow not constrained by the volume of bank reserves and cash in circulation (the so - called "monetary base"). The second is the claim that there is no meaningful link between savings and deposits. I think Arthur is wrong on both counts. On the first claim, it is true that when a bank issues a loan, it also creates a deposit. To the extent that bank deposits are treated as "money," this expands the money supply. This is simply the "money multiplier" taught in introductory economics classes. Where Arthur's logic falls short is in his implicit assumption that all lending translates into additional bank deposits. It doesn't have to. Some of the deposits will be withdrawn and kept as cash. Governments have complete control over how much cash there is in circulation by virtue of their monopoly over the printing press. As long as cash exists, central banks can influence the broad money supply via open market operations. By the way, this is true even in banking systems where there are no reserve requirements. Regarding Arthur's claim that lending can occur without savings, this is often true when someone is borrowing money to buy an asset. However, it is generally not true if they are borrowing money to finance new spending. Let me offer a concrete, albeit somewhat whimsical, example to illustrate this point. Suppose I am living in a closed economy where no one saves anything. Now, let's imagine that I decide to throw a party for myself and need to borrow $1000 to do this. Who is going to provide me with the resources? Well, we just said that no one wants to save, so "something" has to adjust for me to have my party. That "something" is the interest rate. In order to entice someone to spend a bit less, the bank (on my behalf) will offer depositors a higher interest rate. If rates rise by enough, someone will decide to forego a bit of consumption today in order to have more consumption tomorrow. In other words, my decision to borrow must result in someone else's decision to save. So do savings create debt or does debt create savings? The answer is both: interest rates adjust to ensure that the two end up being different sides of the same coin. Caroline: Yan, what's your perspective on China's high debt profile? What could you be missing? Yan: As you can see Arthur and I view China's debt profile through different theoretical lenses. I don't think we can fully reconcile our different frameworks on the matter, but we hope our debate can deepen clients' own understanding of this issue, so they can make up their own minds. What I do want to stress is that those analysts who fear that China's corporate debt problem constitutes an alarming systemic financial risk focus exclusively on the rapid increase in the country's debt-to-GDP ratio. While undoubtedly there is merit to this ratio, I think it is also important to validate this judgement by looking at other indicators. In our previous research, we looked beyond this widely cited conventional indicator for corroborating evidence of a "debt bubble." Our findings suggest that the level of Chinese corporate sector leverage is not as precarious as widely perceived. For example, in the Chinese corporate sector, the area of China's economy where investors worry most about leverage, the debt-to-asset ratio of China's industrial sector has been falling since the late 1990s, down to 56% from 62%, contrary to popular belief (Chart 8). State-owned enterprises have witnessed an increase in their debt-to-asset ratio since the global financial crisis, but it has barely reached late 1990s levels, and has actually rolled over in recent years. Meanwhile, SOEs are a shrinking part of the overall economy and therefore, when looked at in conjunction with the private sector, have not moved the needle on the broader trend of corporate balance sheet "deleveraging." This stands in stark contrast to Japan's corporate sector at the peak of its debt bubble. In the early 1990s, Japan's corporate sector debt-to-asset ratio topped out at 78% when the country's "balance sheet recession" began (Chart 9). Even after two decades of deleveraging, Japan's current corporate debt-to-asset ratio is comparable to China's. To validate this conclusion, we also calculated several other key ratios to compare the leverage situation of Chinese listed companies relative to their global peers. Ratios such as liability-to-assets, net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage assess both leverage levels and debt servicing capacity. As Chart 10 shows, our extensive survey, both from the top down and the bottom up, suggests that China's leverage situation is comparable if not superior to its global peers. Chart 8The Leverage Picture From A Balance Sheet Perspective Chart 9Japan's Debt Bubble And Deleveraging Chart 10Leverage Ratios: How China Compares Therefore, I think we should be skeptical about the widely held view that China's corporate sector leverage is precariously high. It is at a minimum inaccurate, if not misleading, to rely solely on the debt-to-GDP ratio to reach such an ominous conclusion. Caroline: Arthur, I take it you don't agree? Arthur: Since January 2009, China's corporate and household debt has risen by RMB 130 trillion (about US$ 19 trillion) or by 100% of GDP (Chart 11). I do not believe even the most sophisticated financial/credit systems can allocate such amounts of credit in such a short time and not misallocate capital. By capital misallocation, I am implying investments in projects that do not generate sufficient cash flow to service debt. The accounting value (valuation) of assets is irrelevant in these cases; the cash flow generation is critical. The debt-to-GDP ratio is a much more superior measure to debt-to-asset-ratio. The basis is that the GDP is a proxy for cash flow, while accounting value of assets could be extremely inflated during a credit bubble. To be sure, I am not suggesting that all investments in China have gone sour. Nobody knows the extent of capital misallocation in China. But I suspect it is large enough to make a difference for the macro outlook/business cycle. Caroline: Peter, you have made the comparison between China today and Japan in the 1990s. Could you expand on that? Peter: Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 12). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to run large budget deficits. In effect, the government ended up having to absorb the private sector's excess savings through its own dissaving. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 13). Chart 11China: The Credit Boom Chart 12Japan Relied On Fiscal Largesse And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 13China: Debt Increased When ##br##The Current Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (please see Chart 8). In effect, China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere": They are a necessary evil. Caroline: Arthur, your thoughts? Arthur: What Peter and Yan in effect propose is that Chinese banks should continue creating credit/money "out of thin air" in order to create demand for these "excess" goods, i.e., overcapacity sectors. In a nutshell, a number of Chinese companies made bad decisions by over expanding capacity, and now banks have to continue lending/creating demand to justify these bad investments. As a result, persisting explosive credit growth has allowed these unviable or zombie enterprises to survive, and they are not compelled to restructure. This is not how capitalism and markets work. This is de facto socialism. Socialism usually does not lead to prosperity. One of the key reasons behind the failure of socialist economic models is that productivity growth in socialist systems is very low, often close to zero. The basis is that productivity growth is generated not by government officials but by the private sector and entrepreneurs. China's economic success over the past 35 years or so has been due to allowing private enterprises to function and flourish - not because government officials necessarily made correct business and investment decisions. I am for countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. However, the credit boom in China has gone well beyond the countercyclical policy framework. The concept of countercyclical policies does not suggest that the government or public banks should continue to spend in perpetuity to support fundamentally unviable businesses that invested too much and created excess capacity. Besides, "countercyclical" means for a couple of years. China has been expanding bank/credit/money for about nine years - since January 2009. Peter and Yan argue that they should keep doing it further. If the authorities do what Peter and Yan propose, investors should be structurally - not cyclically - bearish on Chinese stocks. Chart 14There Has Been No Shortage ##br##Of Demand Since 2010 The basis is that a socialist growth model is not friendly for shareholders. Shareholders often lose money when companies operate for maximizing employment rather than profits. This is why Chinese SOEs and bank stocks trade at low multiples - because they destroy capital and value for their shareholders. Notably, "overproduction" and "excess capacity" could be an outcome of either a demand downturn or oversupply/overproduction. Keynes recommended countercyclical policies to fill the gaps when demand shrinks. Chart 15Fiscal Outlays & Credit Origination ##br##Are Close To 50% Of GDP In China's case, there has been no domestic demand downturn to warrant multi-year countercyclical policies. China did the right thing in early 2009 to offset its export plunge amid the Global Financial Crisis, and it helped the global economy recover. However, since 2010 global demand and mainland exports have been stable (Chart 14), making the extended and ongoing credit boom in China unwarranted and excessive. As to the argument that most credit should be counted as a form of fiscal spending, I do not think Chinese policymakers themselves would agree with this statement. In fact, if this is correct, it would mean that government officials are allocating about 50% of GDP each year. Chart 15 illustrates general (central plus local) government spending and annual credit origination as a share of GDP. How fast would productivity grow in an economy where government bureaucrats allocate 50% of GDP annually? It is true that China's central government has a low debt load so it can afford to take over a large chunk of corporate debt. If and when they do so, I will change my view. So far, they have not done this, and will likely only contemplate such a policy move when things get really messy. Investors do not want to be long China plays going into such a scenario. That said, a tactical buying opportunity could emerge when the government takes over a large chuck of corporate debt. Caroline: Yan, how worried should we be about the misallocation of capital in China? Yan: Every economy experiences some level of capital misallocation. The real question is whether China's level of capital misallocation is more serious than that of its global peers. Theoretically, if a country has a bigger capital misallocation problem than others, the economy should have systemically lower capacity utilization, weaker pricing power, and lower profitability. These metrics are easily cross-referenced: Chart 16 contextualizes China's industrial sector capacity utilization ratio relative to global peers. By and large, most countries' capacity utilization ratios hover around 80%, not much different from China's, especially since the 2000s. In fact, barring some obvious outliers, capacity utilization ratios across countries have been largely synchronized, reflecting the ebb and flow of the global business cycle. Chart 16Capacity Utilization: A Global Perspective Industrial sector output prices have shown similar swings (Chart 17). Almost all countries suffered producer price deflation in recent years, and are now experiencing a synchronized upturn in wholesale pricing power. China's falling PPI was widely regarded as a tell-tale sign of misallocation of capital. Conversely, this was in fact more a reflection of stagnating global aggregate demand and weak resource prices worldwide than structurally weak pricing power among Chinese manufacturers. Chart 17Producer Prices: A Global Perspective Similarly, Chinese listed companies' deteriorating Return on Equity (ROE) was again singled out as a sign of capital misallocation. This view is easily debunked by Chart 18, as ROEs have fallen in all major markets. In fact, Chinese companies' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global averages. Even some Chinese sectors that have been derided as being plagued by massive overcapacity and inefficiency such as materials and energy exhibit ROEs almost identical to their global peers. The important point is that we should put China in a global context, rather than analyzing it in isolation. Some Chinese firms' efficiency and profitability have weakened notably over the past several years, but to me, this is more of a reflection of the sluggish global macro backdrop, rather than an indictment of China's discrete growth model. Caroline: Turning to the investment implications, Yan, how does the debt bubble concern impact your view on Chinese equities? Yan: Global investors' widespread concerns over Chinese debt levels and other macro issues have contaminated Chinese stocks with a broad-brushed bearish undertone. Chinese equities have been unduly punished, underweighted and under-owned for many years. As shown in Chart 19, Chinese investable stocks' ROEs have been structurally higher than the global benchmark, and have followed similar cyclical fluctuations. However, their stock prices are trading at massive discounts to the global benchmarks, based on conventional yardsticks (Chart 19). This in my view represents the "China risk premium," which is unjustified and unsustainable. I expect the misperception will eventually unwind, and Chinese shares will be re-rated. This is the fundamental factor supporting my positive view on Chinese equities. Strategically it makes sense to overweight Chinese stocks against their global peers. Chart 18Chinese ROEs Are Not Inferior To Global Peers Chart 19Chinese Equities' Large Valuation Gap Caroline: Arthur, how does your view impact your outlook for investment prospects in China and the rest of the emerging markets space? Arthur: There has not been any adjustment in China's corporate leverage. Deleveraging in China has not yet started. On the contrary, the credit bubble is getting larger. I mean the credit-to-GDP ratio continues rising exponentially and credit and bank loan growth remain in double digits (Chart 20). It is very risky to be bullish on financial assets linked to a bubble when the adjustment has not yet begun. It is like running in front of a steamroller trying to collect pennies. Besides, when there is a major imbalance in the system like the credit bubble happening in China now, I tend to overplay the importance of marginal policy tightening and underplay the significance of easing. Recent marginal policy tightening in China - in particular the clampdown on shadow banking, including banks' off-balance-sheet asset expansion - will cause credit growth to decelerate. This is a major risk to Chinese and EM growth in the second half of this year (Chart 21). Chart 20China: Money/Credit Is Still Booming Chart 21Is China's Recovery At Risk? Even if China does not have a full-blown crisis, we are likely to experience another down leg in China plays, commodities and EM risk assets similar to the second half of 2015, when Chinese import volumes contracted and global markets tanked. A few words about the potential adjustment trajectory are in order. I have been negative on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets since 2010, but I have never used the word "crisis." China may or may not have a crisis, but investors holding risk assets exposed to China's growth will suffer considerable losses again similar to the 2011-16 period. It is essential to differentiate cyclical from structural growth drivers. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, China will move toward a socialist model and structural growth will tumble. That said, the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart 22. Chart 22Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation And Inflation If we assume China's productivity is currently growing at a rate of about 5.5-6% (which is already very high and hard to sustain), and if the country embarks on a socialist path, odds are that productivity growth will drop by 50-100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1-3%. This path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably one of these mini-cycles. How can investors invest in this scenario? The stylized mini-cycles depicted in Chart 22 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. In short, investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Caroline: Peter, is it all that bad? Peter: I think Arthur is too pessimistic. Investors have been predicting a Japanese debt crisis for years. It hasn't materialized and probably won't. They are making the same mistake about China. If China averts a debt crisis, as I think is likely, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions in local-currency terms. For global bonds, the implications are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Caroline: Yan, do domestic politics play into your outlook for the RMB versus the dollar and on a trade-weighted basis? What is your outlook for monetary policy given recent signs of improving economic momentum? Yan: How President Donald Trump will deal with China on the RMB issue is a wildcard. Recent rhetoric suggests that the new U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal protocol to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from Candidate Trump's repeated campaign trail promises. If the U.S. Treasury follows the formal process laid out in the statute, it is unlikely to label China a currency manipulator in the next semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the criteria for that label at the moment. The odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB have ebbed. From China's domestic perspective, how the People's Bank of China intends to manage the exchange rate is also a thorny issue. From a long term point of view, the PBoC clearly wants to achieve a free-floating exchange rate, but the recent downward pressure on the RMB due to elevated capital outflows has forced the PBoC to heavily intervene to prevent a vicious, disorderly cycle, in which currency depreciation and capital flight reinforce each other. In terms of monetary policy, China's improving economic momentum has allowed the PBoC to follow the Fed in raising short-term interest rates. However, tighter capital account control measures will remain in place until the downward pressure on the RMB from capital outflow dissipates. Moreover, investors have been overwhelmingly focused on the negative economic effects of a weaker RMB, somehow ignoring the reality that as the world's largest manufacturer and exporter, China also stands to benefit from a weaker currency. In my view, the depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB since 2015 has played a critical role in reflating the Chinese economy (Chart 23). A weaker RMB has helped producer prices to reflate, and lowered the real cost of funding for manufacturers, which in turn has eased China's monetary conditions and supported cyclical growth improvement. In this vein, the downside of the RMB should be self-limiting, as the reflationary impact of a weaker exchange rate will help boost Chinese growth, which in turn will reduce downward pressure on the currency. Caroline: Peter and Arthur, is rampant capital flight still a risk? Where do you see the RMB heading over the coming 12-18 months? Peter: I think the RMB will weaken somewhat over the coming year, but that is more a reflection of my bullish view on the dollar than a bearish view on the yuan. Much of the capital flight that China has experienced recently has just been an unwinding of the hot money flows that entered the country over the preceding four years. Despite all the talk about a credit bubble, Chinese corporate external debt has fallen by around $400 billion since its peak in mid-2014 - a decline of over 50% (Chart 24). At this point, most of the hot money has exited the country and hence, I expect the pace of capital outflows to subside. Chart 23A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery Chart 24The Rise And Fall Of Corporate Foreign Credit Nevertheless, the chronic shortfall of domestic demand that I described earlier will keep pressure on the Chinese government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. This requires a weak currency. Thus, while I don't expect the yuan to plummet, I don't expect it to soar either. Arthur: I believe the RMB is set to depreciate by 10% or more against the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months or so. The Chinese yuan is not expensive, but it will stay under downward pressure because the mainland banking system has created too many yuan. When the supply of money goes vertical, its price drops. It seems the Chinese people are sensing there is too much RMB floating around, and they are trying to get rid of local currency. They have been overpaying for properties and have been shifting their wealth into foreign currencies. Finally, in China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart 25, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate turned negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart 25, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Chart 25Real Deposit Rate Is Negative In brief, I expect capital outflows to persist and policymakers to allow the currency to depreciate further. Caroline: Peter/Yan/Arthur: Final thoughts: What are each of you watching for signs that China's macro landscape is evolving as you expect? Conversely, what would signal that your assessment has missed the mark? Peter: I am watching for signs of a policy mistake. Until China can reorient its economy towards one that is more consumer-centric, it will have to rely on high levels of investment to sustain aggregate demand. Any attempt to aggressively curb debt growth will only backfire. Arthur talks about resource misallocation from subpar investment projects, but there is no worse resource misallocation than a person who wants a job but can't find one. I am also watching trade policy. I don't think a trade war between China and the U.S. is in the cards for the time being, but if the U.S. economy turns down in 2019, as I expect, Trump will be backed into a corner. And with another election looming, he will strike out at China. That could trigger a global trade war. Yan: I agree with Peter that we should watch for policy mistakes and some sort of "Trump shock," both of which constitute downside risks. A less talked-about risk is potential growth overheating, which could require much tighter policy, leading to greater economic volatility. In fact, some cyclical indicators that are tightly linked to industrial activity have rebounded sharply, which is also reflected in the rebound in some raw materials prices. If exports get a further boost from continued improvement in the U.S. economy, the possibility of China's economy overheating cannot be completely dismissed. Another potential trouble spot is the housing market. The Chinese authorities have begun to tighten housing policy, but developers appear to be gearing up for another construction cycle. Sales of construction equipment such as heavy trucks and excavators have soared. Historically, construction machine sales have been tightly correlated with real estate development (Chart 26). If history is any guide, the renewed strength in construction equipment sales could be a harbinger of an impending boom in new home construction. This is good news for business activity and GDP growth, but probably antithetical to policymakers' broad agenda. We will follow up on these issues closely in our future reports. Arthur: The key variables to watch are various interest rates, credit/loan growth and inflation - in addition to keeping an eye on lending standards and credit demand. Recent increases in borrowing costs amid the enormous credit overhang give me confidence to argue that China's credit origination and economic growth are bound to decelerate later this year. A billion-dollar question is whether the recent rise in China's consumer inflation is transitory or the beginning of a notable uptrend (Chart 27). If consumer price inflation rises to 3% and higher, the game will be over - interest rates will need to go up and credit growth will tumble. If interest rates do not rise amid intensifying inflationary pressures, capital outflows will escalate and the currency will depreciate a lot. Chart 26An Upturn In Housing Construction? Chart 27China: Inflation Is Picking Up I will be wrong if policymakers manage to slow down credit growth from 11-12% toward 7-8% or so without generating notable economic weakness. This can occur only if productivity growth in China accelerates meaningfully. It is difficult to observe productivity growth in real time - it is a black box. 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?" dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Please note that today we are publishing an abbreviated Weekly Bulletin as tomorrow we will publish Great Debate: Does China Have Too Much Debt Or Too Much Savings? The latter report will elaborate on long-standing view differences on China within BCA. I will be debating my colleagues Peter Berezin and Yan Wang on the issues surrounding China's savings and debt as well as the growth outlook. Arthur Budaghyan Feature Singapore: MAS Will Cap Interest Rates Higher U.S. interest rates will temporarily place upward pressure on Singaporean local interest rates (Chart I-1). However, Singapore is not in position to tolerate higher borrowing costs due to lingering credit excesses and deflationary pressures that currently prevail in its economy. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will therefore respond by injecting liquidity to keep interbank rates low. The MAS operates monetary policy by guiding the exchange rate - and by default - often allowing interest rates to fluctuate freely. Yet higher interest rates are not an optimal policy option at the moment. If and as U.S. interest rates and the U.S. dollar rise, the MAS will intervene to cap local rates even if it entails a weaker Singapore dollar. While there is a recovery going on in non-oil export volumes and narrow money (M1) (Chart I-2), many other cyclical indicators are still negative. Chart I-1Rising Libor Rates Will Exert ##br##Upward Pressure On Singaporean Rates Chart I-2Singapore: Non-Oil ##br##Exports Are Picking Up The exchange rate-targeting system was introduced in the early 1980s when exports stood at 150% of GDP. Today, exports relative to GDP have fallen substantially to 115% of GDP (Chart I-3). On the other hand, total private non-financial sector debt levels have risen to 180% of GDP (Chart I-3). Therefore, the Singaporean economy has become much more leveraged to interest rates and somewhat less exposed to global trade. Improving exports will not be sufficient to offset the negative impact of rising borrowing costs. Moreover, our proxy for interest payments on domestic debt has also surged and now stands at close to 10% of GDP (Chart I-4). What is precarious is that the rise in interest payments relative to income has occurred in a period when rates are close to record-low levels. Chart I-3Singapore: Debt Is ##br##Overshadowing Exports Chart I-4Singapore: Interest Payments Are ##br##Large Despite Record Low Rates If borrowing costs rise, it will likely cause major debt deflation concerns. The MAS will not allow this to happen. Employment is stagnating, while employment in the construction and manufacturing sectors is contracting (Chart I-5). Weak employment has weighed on the consumer sector. Retail and department store sales are still shrinking (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Singapore: Employment Is Weak Chart I-6Retail Spending Is Contracting Importantly, the real estate sector, one of the major pillars of the Singapore economy, is depressed. Property prices across the board are deflating, while vacancy rates are rising (Chart I-7). Bank loan growth to property developers has also stalled (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Weak economic growth should be reflected on banks' balance sheets. Surprisingly, non-performing loans (NPLs) among Singapore's three largest banks still stands at a low 1.4%. If and as loan losses begin to rise, commercial banks will rush to increase provisioning for these losses, which will hurt their profits and keep credit growth subdued. Furthermore, Singaporean banks are also very exposed to Malaysia. Singapore's largest banks have extended loans to Malaysia of approximately 67 billion Singapore dollars - or 16% of GDP. Aggregate external loans stand at 137% of GDP (Chart I-8). Economic fundamentals are currently very weak and will continue to deteriorate in Malaysia. This warrants more assets write-offs among Singapore banks and less appetite to expand their balance sheet. Chart I-7Property Sector In Singapore Chart I-8Singaporean External Loans Are Enormous On the whole, if Singaporean interest rates begin to rise due to either depreciation of the Singapore dollar or higher U.S. interest rates, the central bank will intervene to bring local rates down. It would not be the first time the MAS has intervened to bring down interest rates. In 2015 when EM risks escalated, local interbank rates spiked. The MAS promptly injected liquidity in the banking system by buying back its outstanding MAS bills, and by also purchasing government securities, supplying liquidity to the banking system. This essentially placed a cap on interbank rates. Chart I-9Go Long Singapore Real ##br##Estate Stocks Vs. Hong Kong What is noteworthy is that the Singapore dollar weakened as a result of the intervention, although the MAS's official monetary policy stance was not stimulative - i.e. the monetary authorities did not target to weaken the trade-weighted SGD. In that instance, the MAS decided to focus on interest rates/funding market stability and ignore the exchange rate's response. This highlights that despite the MAS's official monetary policy framework of guiding the exchange rate, it will not allow interest rates to rise. Unlike Singapore, Hong Kong does not operate an independent monetary policy and as such will be forced to import higher U.S. rates. As a bet on higher interest rates in Hong Kong and the U.S. relative to Singapore, investors should consider going long Singaporean real estate stocks and shorting Hong Kong real estate stocks. Chart I-9 shows that Singaporean real estate stocks outperform Hong Kong's when the latter's interest rates/bond yields rise relative to Singapore and when Singapore's M1 growth accelerate relative to Hong Kong. As discussed above, the MAS has the capacity and will to inject liquidity to lower interest rates. Hong Kong, however, does not have this privilege due to the currency's peg to the greenback. Besides, Singapore's property correction is now much more advanced than Hong Kong's. In fact, Hong Kong property prices are still rising, i.e., the real estate market adjustment in Hong Kong has not yet started. While both city states are vulnerable to a potential slowdown in Chinese inflows, Hong Kong real estate prices will ultimately fall from a higher starting point. Bottom Line: A rising U.S. dollar and U.S. interest rates may exert upward pressure on Singaporean local interest rates. However, the Singaporean central bank will respond by injecting liquidity, which will cap rates relative to the U.S. and Hong Kong. This opens a tactical trade opportunity (for the next 3 months): Long Singapore real estate stocks / short Hong Kong real estate shares. Asian equity portfolio investors should have a neutral allocation to Singapore stocks within the EM/emerging Asian benchmarks. Ayman Kawtharani, Research Analyst ayman@bcaresearch.com Colombia: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Even though global economic growth has been improving and commodities prices have rallied, Colombia's growth is still bound to disappoint. We remain structurally bullish on the nation's longer-term prospects. That said, there will still be more downside this year. Credit growth will continue to decelerate, despite the beginning of a rate cut cycle (Chart II-1). Interest rates are still high, both in nominal and real terms (Chart II-2). This along with poor consumer and business confidence (Chart II-3) will depress credit demand and spending. Chart II-1Colombia: Negative Credit Impulse Chart II-2Borrowing Costs Are Still High Chart II-3Consumer & Business Confidence Are Weak Furthermore, the central bank's liquidity injections into the banking system have dropped considerably (Chart II-4). In the past few years, abundant liquidity provisioning by the central bank had allowed commercial banks to sustain robust credit growth. Hence, a withdrawal of banking system liquidity will cap loan origination. The current account deficit remains wide at $12.5 billion, or 5.2% of GDP. Financing such a wide deficit will prove challenging. Besides, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team believes oil prices are at risk of additional declines. Hence, we are bearish on the Colombian peso. Fiscal policy is set to tighten as the budget deficit has ballooned due to strong spending and shrinking revenues (Chart II-5). Recently introduced tax reforms represent a step forward with respect to the country's structural reforms agenda, as it will simplify the tax code and reduce corporate tax rates. Chart II-4Withdrawal Of Liquidity Will Cap Credit Growth Chart II-5Government Fiscal Balance Is Deteriorating However, redistributing the tax burden onto individuals, mainly by increasing the VAT from 16% to 19%, will reinforce the slump in household spending. In terms of high frequency data, there are little signs of economic revival (Chart II-6). Retail sales volume remain tame. The latest bounce in this series most likely reflects consumers front running the impending VAT hike. Furthermore, oil production is likely to decline further, and non-oil exports are still contracting. In terms of financial markets, we recommend the following: We are closing our bet on yield curve flattening - receive 10-year/pay 1-year swap rates. Initiated on September 16, 2015, this trade has produced a 190 basis-point gain (Chart II-7). At the moment, the risk-reward for this position is no longer attractive. Chart II-6Cyclical Economic Activity Remains Subdued Chart II-7Take Profits On The Yield Curve Trade We remain neutral on Colombian equities and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM universes. Even though our long Colombian bank stocks/short Peruvian banks bet has been deep in the negative, we are reluctant to cut it. The basis is that Colombia's central bank may opt to cut rates further, even if the peso depreciates anew. In contrast, the Peruvian central bank is more likely to hike rates if its currency comes under downward pressure. Bank share prices will likely react to marginal shifts in relative interest rates between the two countries. Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration & Fed Policy: The longer risk assets can withstand rising rates, the higher will be the ultimate resting place for Treasury yields. Maintain below-benchmark duration on a 6-12 month horizon and add a short fed funds futures trade to profit from increased Fed hawkishness in the near-term. Yield Curve: While the long-run trend will be for the yield curve to flatten as the Fed hiking cycle progresses, rising inflation expectations will cause the curve to steepen between now and the end of the year. Maintain a position long the 5-year bullet, short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell to profit from a steeper curve on a 6-9 month horizon. Feature Say Uncle Chart 1More Tightening To Come The Fed lifted rates last week but kept its median projected path for future rate hikes unchanged. Judging from the market's reaction, this was a more dovish outcome than was anticipated. Since last Wednesday's meeting the dollar is down 0.5%, junk spreads have tightened 10 basis points and the 2/10 yield curve has steepened 1 bp. In other words, financial conditions have continued to ease even as the Fed took another step toward more restrictive policy. All in all, money markets are now discounting only a slightly slower pace of rate hikes than the Fed's median forecast (Chart 1) and financial conditions suggest that further incremental tightening is in store. The financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor1 is above zero, meaning that financial conditions are more accommodative than the long-run average, and the Chicago Fed's Adjusted Financial Conditions Index also shows that conditions are easy relative to the strength of the economy (Chart 1, bottom panel). New York Fed President William Dudley has previously described how the Fed incorporates financial conditions into its decision making:2 Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop All else equal, if financial conditions tighten sharply, then we are likely to proceed more slowly. In contrast, if financial conditions were not to tighten at all or only very little, then - assuming the economic outlook hadn't changed significantly - we would likely have to move more quickly. In the end, we will adjust the policy stance to support financial market conditions that we deem are most consistent with our employment and inflation objectives. We have also described this process in the context of our Fed Policy Loop3 (Chart 2). In essence, the Fed will continue to nudge rate hike expectations higher until financial conditions tighten excessively. At that point - because with inflation below target the Fed still has an interest in supporting the recovery - it will quickly shift to a more dovish stance. Chart 3Short Jan 2018 Fed Funds Futures One implication of the Fed Policy Loop is that the longer risk assets can withstand rising rates, the higher will be the ultimate resting place for the fed funds rate and Treasury yields. As such, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration allocation on a 6-12 month horizon. Another implication is that because markets shrugged off the latest rate increase, Fed policy is likely to turn more hawkish in the very near term. We therefore recommend investors add a tactical trade: short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract (Chart 3). We calculate that this trade will return 11 bps in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates twice more before the end of the year and 37 bps in a scenario where the funds rate is raised three times. However, we do not expect to hold this trade until the end of the year. Rather, we expect the Fed will nudge rate expectations higher in the next month or two and that these gains will be realized over a much shorter horizon. We also add a caveat that, in the present environment, it is safer to implement any "hawkish Fed trades" in either fed funds futures or the overnight index swap market. The Eurodollar market does not provide the same potential for gains because the LIBOR / OIS spread is currently elevated and could tighten to offset the profits from rising fed funds rate expectations (Chart 3, bottom panel). Fed hawkishness also argues for a flatter yield curve in the very near term. While this could materialize, we continue to hold our position in the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/10 barbell - a trade designed to profit from a steeper 2/10 slope. For reasons described in the next section we believe the yield curve will steepen between now and the end of the year, although the risks are tilted toward flattening in the very near term and in 2018 and beyond. What Drives The Yield Curve? In this week's report we present an overview of the main drivers of the slope of the Treasury yield curve. Specifically, we identify (i) the fed funds rate, (ii) inflation expectations, (iii) implied volatility and (iv) unit labor costs as factors that correlate strongly with the slope of the yield curve on a cyclical horizon. We review the outlook for each of these factors and conclude that the Treasury yield curve has room to steepen between now and the end of the year. Beyond that, the curve will likely resume flattening as inflationary pressures start to bite and the Fed's rate hike cycle picks up steam. Chart 4Fed Rate Hikes Flatten The Curve 1. The Fed Funds Rate Not surprisingly, the slope of the Treasury curve correlates very strongly with the level of short rates (Chart 4). Typically, short-maturity yields are much more influenced by the expected path of Fed rate hikes than long-maturity yields. As such, when the Fed is lifting rates the yield curve tends to bear-flatten - both the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields rise, but the 2-year rises more quickly. In contrast, when the Fed is cutting rates the yield curve tends to bull-steepen - both the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields fall, but the 2-year falls more quickly. In a typical cycle the yield curve will start to flatten as the Fed lifts rates and will eventually become completely flat when the end of the rate hike cycle is reached and the fed funds rate is at its "equilibrium" or "terminal" level. Usually, at that point in the cycle, the Fed will keep policy too tight in an effort to rein in inflation. This causes the economy to slow and the yield curve to invert, signaling the start of the next recession. A recent BCA Special Report4 speculates that if the federal government succeeds in delivering sizeable fiscal stimulus, inflationary pressures could start to build next year, leading to a more rapid pace of Fed rate hikes and a flat or inverted yield curve by the end of 2018. This would be consistent with a recession in 2019. In terms of the behavior of the yield curve, this is not far off from the Fed's own projections. At present, the median FOMC projection calls for the fed funds rate to reach its equilibrium level of 3% by the end of 2019. If this forecast plays out, it means that the 2/10 Treasury slope must flatten by roughly 117 bps between now and then. Turning back to Chart 4, we see that the Treasury curve has already flattened considerably even though the Fed has only raised rates three times. This means that either the equilibrium fed funds rate is much lower than the Fed's 3% projection and the 2/10 slope will reach zero with a much lower fed funds rate, or that the curve flattening is overdone and the curve has room to steepen before it resumes its cyclical flattening trend. As is explained below, we favor the latter interpretation. 2. Inflation Expectations The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is also highly correlated with the slope of the yield curve (Chart 5). As long-dated inflation expectations increase the yield curve tends to steepen, and vice-versa. Interestingly, the positive correlation between long-dated inflation expectations and the slope of the Treasury curve persists even when the Fed is hiking rates. Notice that in the 1999 rate hike cycle, the yield curve did not start to flatten until the 5-year/5-year breakeven fell. Also, in the 2004-06 hike cycle, curve flattening ebbed just as the breakeven started to widen. Chart 5Rising TIPS Breakevens Steepen The Curve Charts 6 and 7 show the relationship between the 2/10 Treasury slope and the 5-year/5-year breakeven in more detail. Chart 6 shows the correlation between monthly changes in the 2/10 Treasury slope and the 5-year/5-year breakeven using all available data back to January 1999. We see that a positive correlation between the slope and the breakeven prevailed in 64% of monthly observations, while only 36% of months displayed a negative correlation. Chart 62/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven ##br##Inflation Rate 5-Year/5-Year Forward (February 1999 - Present) Chart 72/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate 5-Year/5-Year ##br##Forward During Fed Tightening Cycles (June 1999 To May 2000 & June 2004 To June 2006) In Chart 7, we focus exclusively on the past two Fed tightening cycles (1999-2000 & 2004-2006). Not only does a linear regression show an even stronger correlation than was achieved with the full sample, but we also see that a positive correlation between the slope and the breakeven existed in 73% of monthly observations, while only 27% of months displayed a negative correlation. At present, core PCE inflation is still below the Fed's 2% target and different measures of inflation expectations are all well below levels that prevailed during prior rate hike cycles (Chart 8). In other words, the Fed must proceed slowly enough with rate hikes to ensure that long-dated inflation expectations continue to trend higher, which argues for a steeper yield curve until inflation and inflation expectations are more firmly anchored around the Fed's target. For the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate we think a range of 2.4% to 2.5% would signal that inflation expectations are well anchored around the Fed's target. 3. Volatility Implied interest rate volatility - as measured by the MOVE volatility index - is another factor that correlates with the yield curve on a cyclical horizon (Chart 9). In theory, higher rate volatility should coincide with a steeper yield curve, all else equal, and this is exactly the correlation we observe. Chart 8Fed Wants Inflation Expectations To Rise Chart 9Higher Vol Steepens The Curve Let's consider that there is a risk premium applied to taking a unit of duration risk (usually called the term premium) and that said risk premium is larger for longer-maturity bonds that carry more duration risk. All else equal, the risk premium applied to one unit of duration risk should be larger when rate volatility is higher. This should also coincide with a steeper yield curve, since there is more duration risk at the long-end of the curve. In a recent report,5 we concluded that the level of disagreement among forecasters about future GDP growth and T-bill rates were the two most important drivers of cyclical swings in implied rate volatility, the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index has at times also played a role (Chart 9, bottom 3 panels). Chart 10Higher Unit Labor Costs Flatten The Curve At the moment, the amount of forecaster disagreement about future GDP growth is near its lows since 1990 and T-bill forecast disagreement has, until recently, been suppressed by the zero lower bound on interest rates. All this implies that the balance of risks favors higher implied interest rate volatility in the months ahead, which will apply steepening pressure to the yield curve. 4. Unit Labor Costs Unit labor costs are the final yield curve indicator we discuss in this report. Since faster wage growth tends to coincide with Fed tightening and slowing wage growth tends to correlate with Fed easing, it makes sense for wage indicators to be inversely correlated with the slope of the yield curve. While it is broadly true that all wage indicators show a reasonable inverse correlation with the slope of the curve, unit labor costs are the best. The reason is that unit labor costs (compensation per unit produced) actually measure both wage growth (compensation per hour) and labor productivity (output per hour) (Chart 10). It turns out that the yield curve can flatten in the traditional way - a bear-flattening driven by rising wages and Fed tightening - but occasionally it can also bull-flatten if the market starts to discount a lower equilibrium (or terminal) fed funds rate. We might expect this sort of curve behavior in an environment of extremely low productivity growth, and this is exactly what has occurred during the past few years. Notice in Chart 10 that compensation per hour does not explain the curve flattening that started in 2014, but unit labor costs do because they also factor in incredibly low productivity growth. In the longer-run, we would strongly expect unit labor costs to remain in an uptrend. Wage growth is accelerating and there are structural headwinds that will prevent productivity growth from returning to the levels seen at the height of the IT revolution in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As was discussed last year in a Special Report from our Global Investment Strategy service,6 the rate of human capital accumulation is in a secular downtrend as is the share of workers in their 40s - the age cohort when people are most productive. However, there has also been a cyclical component to the productivity slowdown and it is possible that productivity growth could accelerate somewhat in the near-term as the cycle matures. The capital stock per worker correlates strongly with productivity growth (Chart 11), and while capital investment has been depressed for most of the recovery there are finally some signs that it may return (Chart 12). Chart 11Productivity Held Back By Lack Of Investment Chart 12Getting Optimistic About Capex In fact, it is even conceivable that more rapid wage growth itself might encourage firms to replace labor with capital, causing traditional measures of wage growth to accelerate relative to unit labor costs. Also, the prospect of tax reform and regulatory relief could give capital spending a boost - it has already led to a jump higher in small business optimism (Chart 12, bottom panel). Unit labor costs will likely continue to accelerate on a cyclical investment horizon, applying flattening pressure to the yield curve. But this flattening pressure would be mitigated to the extent that there is any cyclical rebound in productivity growth. Yield Curve Strategy Upon consideration of the four factors described above, we conclude that while the slope of the yield curve will likely be close to zero sometime in late 2018, curve flattening won't start in earnest until late this year or early next year when inflation expectations are higher (2.4% to 2.5% on long-dated TIPS breakevens) and core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around the Fed's 2% target. This conclusion is based on our observations that: TIPS breakevens and the slope of the curve tend to be positively correlated, even during rate hike cycles. Interest rate volatility is more likely to rise than fall. Unit labor costs are likely to remain in an uptrend on a cyclical horizon, but there is scope for them to level-off if we see a modest late-cycle rebound in productivity growth. To position for a steeper yield curve between now and the end of this year we continue to recommend that investors favor the 5-year Treasury note relative to a duration-matched position in a 2-year/10-year barbell. Long bullet/short barbell trades tend to outperform when the yield curve steepens, and our model suggests that the 5-year yield is currently very cheap relative to the 2/10 slope (Chart 13). We have been recommending this trade since December 20, 2016 and it has so far returned +2 bps even though the 2/10 slope has flattened 13 bps during that time. The strong positive carry means that not much curve steepening is required for the trade to realize strong positive gains. Chart 13The 5-Year Bullet Is Cheap On The Curve Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 For further details on our Fed Monitor please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/dud150605 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession", dated March 7, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians", dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Dear Client, In addition to an abridged Weekly Report, we are also including a Special Report written by our Global ETF Strategy team. BCA's Global ETF Strategy, launched in September joins comprehensive ETF analysis with BCA's global macroeconomic thematic research: its aim is to help clients connect the dots from BCA themes to individual ETF ticker symbols with real-time market expressions of our views. The team is currently producing a series of reports on smart-beta ETF selection, whereby they examine the key factors recognized by academia and investment practitioners as persistent drivers of market performance. In this second installment, the team focuses on dividend-focused funds. Although the team finds that dividends do not qualify as a true standalone factor consistently explaining equity returns, dividend policy can add to multi-factor models' explanatory power at the margin. Given the popularity of dividend investing, we think dividend policy could be a fruitful subject for further research. Best regards, Lenka Martinek Feature U.S. financial markets breathed a collective sigh of relief last week when the FOMC followed through on a fully discounted 25 bps rate hike, but did not increase the number of expected rate hikes for the year. In other words, the Fed successfully delivered a "dovish hike", thus reassuring investors that the policy sweet spot - the period when interest rates are rising but have not become restrictive - will last a while longer (Chart 1). Chart 1A "Dovish Hike" Chart 2Low Structural Unemployment Rate The Fed's assessment of the economy is not very different from our own, though there were a few details in the economic projections worth highlighting. First, the estimate for the structural rate of unemployment was scaled down further by a tenth of a percentage point to 4.7%. This may seem minor, but it suggests that policymakers believe the labor market has more running room before wage inflation moves higher. Granted, any forecast for structural unemployment should be taken with a dose of salt, but our bias throughout this cycle - and as outlined in our November Special Report - has been to expect wage inflation to lag relative to past cycles due to structural factors (Chart 2). And as can be seen in Chart 3, Japan provides a roadmap: in that country, demographic factors helped push the unemployment rate to below 3% without creating inflationary pressures. Of course, the U.S. economy is very different from Japan and we do not expect unemployment to drop as low. However, as occurred in Japan, we would not be surprised to see the FOMC trim its forecast for the structural unemployment rate further in the coming quarters. A related point is that the Fed also adjusted the wording of the FOMC statement regarding its inflation targets. The statement said that the Fed was looking for a "sustained" return to 2% inflation, while also referring to its inflation target as a "symmetric" one. Our interpretation is that the Fed is trying to clarify that it will not react too aggressively if core inflation were to drift somewhat above 2%. Clearly, the Fed is beginning to see the balance of risks toward higher inflation. That makes sense, given that the economy is operating close to full employment. However, we maintain that a sustained rise in inflation above the Fed's 2% core PCE target is not imminent. Indeed, the message from last week' CPI report reinforces our view that with the exception of a few components, inflation is very well contained (Chart 4). Our diffusion index of the major inflation components is in negative territory. Importantly, price surveys continue to show that businesses are not able to easily raise prices. For example, despite the continued optimism in the headline components of the NFIB small businesses survey, small businesses have not been able to - and do not yet anticipate being able to - raise prices. This reinforces our long-held view that after a long period of disinflation - and outright deflation in the retail sector - inflation expectations are extremely well-anchored and savvy consumers know how to extract a better deal. Core PCE inflation may converge on the Fed's target of 2% in the second half of 2017, but an inflation overshoot should not be a major driver of investment decision-making over the next 6-12 months. Chart 3Japan: A Low Unemployment Rate ##br##And Little Wage Inflation Chart 4Inflation ##br##Still Low In the end, it is Fed Chair Yellen's least sophisticated remarks that provide the best summation. During the FOMC press conference, she stated that "the simple message is the economy is doing well". Indeed, the moderate pace of growth that has prevailed since the beginning of the recovery means that the typical imbalances and pressure points that accumulate in the advanced stages of a business cycle are so far still absent. The backdrop overwhelmingly favors stocks relative to government bonds on a cyclical horizon. To be sure, equities are expensive, but as we wrote last week, relative to competing assets, valuations are not extreme. The greater near-term risk continues to be a phase of economic and earnings disappointments that could develop later this year, since there remains a tremendous amount of optimism in the business community regarding regime change in Washington. Note that the policy uncertainty index remains very elevated (Chart 5) and Trump's "skinny budget", which aims to slash spending across all discretionary items save military and veterans affairs, will be contested. Our geopolitical team notes that Democrats could threaten a government shutdown later this year to try to force Republicans' hand at removing the most controversial elements of the budget. Democrats can filibuster parts of the appropriations process which makes the concrete budget allocations. Chart 5Political Uncertainty Still Elevated On this basis, we remain skeptical that fiscal policy will be clean fuel for the equity bull market. However, we adhere to Yellen's "simple message" that the economy is on a stable footing. That implies that Washington disappointments will most likely lead to equity setbacks rather than a painful breakdown. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommendation weightings for the major asset classes are unchanged: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), neutral Treasury allocation at 30% (benchmark 30%) and cash at 10% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral. The technical component "buy" signal strengthened, with sturdy advances for both the breadth & trend and momentum indicators. The monetary component, which measures overall liquidity conditions within the financial and economic system and designed to lead equity prices, is slightly more bullish and still favorable for equities. The earnings-driven component continues to give a cautious signal. Real operating earnings remain at a significant distance from positive economic expectations which have moved higher yet again. Moreover, earnings momentum is still sluggish, based on our earnings diffusion index, which compares nominal earnings growth relative to four key macro proxies for business costs. The model's recommendation for bonds remains at benchmark which still fits with our neutral qualitative stance for Treasuries in balanced portfolios since November 7, 2016. Although the cyclical component of the bond model is more constructive than the valuation component, the further deterioration in the technical component maintains the "sell" signal for Treasuries firmly in place. Chart 6Portfolio Total Returns Chart 7Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009. Highlights Factor attribution began a half-century ago with the Capital Asset Pricing Model ("CAPM"). Although the CAPM itself has been superseded, selected factors have exerted a consistent influence on equity performance. The empirical evidence does not support including dividends among the proven factors, yet dividend-focused funds are the most numerous in the smart-beta universe. The ambiguity surrounding dividends' effect on equity performance leaves plenty of room for smart-beta purveyors to build a better mousetrap, but our own research suggests that they will have to do so with something other than purely dividend-related metrics. Reflecting the fact that many of the dividend funds already incorporate multi-factor inputs, we evaluate them based on their exposure to all of the metrics within our Equity Trading Strategy service's multi-factor model. Feature Welcome to the second installment of our series on smart-beta ETF selection. Over the course of the series, we intend to examine the factors widely recognized by academia and investment practitioners as persistent drivers of equity performance. Each Special Report will weigh the evidence for the factor's efficacy, consider the metrics that best reveal its presence and compare our ideal metrics with the metrics utilized by our proprietary Equity Trading Strategy ("ETS") multi-factor model. It will then evaluate the menu of smart-beta ETFs using either our ETS model's metrics or an augmented version of them. The series began last month with a review of the Value factor, enshrined by Fama and French's research, and the current subset of Value smart-beta ETFs.1 This month we examine Dividend smart-beta ETFs. Subsequent installments will examine Quality, Momentum and Volatility,2 and we will likely wrap up the series with a review of Multi-Factor smart-beta ETFs. This installment provides some background on factor investing and the smart-beta process before subjecting Yield (Dividends) to scrutiny to determine whether or not it really constitutes a standalone equity factor. Back To The Beginning The ubiquity of beta in discussions of investing performance originates from the Capital Asset Pricing Model ("CAPM"), as advanced by William Sharpe and other researchers in the early 1960's. The CAPM posits that the expected return of stock XYZ is solely a function of XYZ's riskiness relative to the overall equity market. XYZ's riskiness is a function of its covariance with the market, and is represented in the CAPM's simple linear model as the coefficient "beta.3" The elegantly simple CAPM holds that any stock's expected return (E(rs)) is the sum of the risk-free rate (rf) and the product of its beta (ßs) and the difference between the expected market return (E(rm)) and the risk-free rate (rf): E(rs) = rf + ßs x (E(rm) - rf) As noted by several researchers, including Eugene Fama and Kenneth French,4 CAPM's return predictions are woefully errant when applied to stocks. As Chart 1 indicates, the returns projected by the CAPM bear little relationship to empirical results. It turns out that low-beta stocks have systematically outperformed high-beta stocks on a risk-adjusted basis (Chart 2), just as low-book-multiple stocks have crushed high-book-multiple stocks without regard for beta (Chart 3). This is powerful evidence for value, and for the low-volatility factor that we will examine in a subsequent report, but it is damning for the simple application of the CAPM to stocks. Chart 1CAPM Sounded Great In Theory ... Chart 2... But It Flopped In Practice Chart 3Low-Book-Multiple Stocks Systematically ##br##Flout CAPM Predictions A New Vocabulary Despite its empirical shortcomings, the CAPM provides an intuitive way of conceptualizing the risk-return tradeoff, and it paved the way for the asset-pricing research that followed it. The notion that individual securities' risks come in two flavors, market and idiosyncratic, is a critical element of portfolio theory and its thou-shalt-diversify commandment. It is also the basis, as we shall see, for beta, alpha and the factor-investing approach enabled by smart-beta ETFs. For that application, let us add an alpha term to the CAPM to account for the component of realized returns that cannot be explained by market exposures: rs = rf + ßs x (E(rm) - rf) + a Rearranging terms to solve for alpha shows it to be the difference between the realized return and the return expected by CAPM: a = rs - (rf + ßs x (E(rm) - rf)) From CAPM To Factors To Smart Beta In today's accepted usage, alpha is the ex-post difference between portfolio and benchmark return, adjusted for risk. It is the component of return attributed to portfolio manager skill, whereas beta is the return accruing to simple market exposure. As return-attribution research has uncovered the systematic factors underpinning performance, beta has claimed an increasing share of the pie from alpha. The salubrious effect for investors, especially those who employ third-party managers, has been to demystify the sources of portfolio returns. Beta's expanding share has also opened the door to a middle course between purely active and purely passive portfolio management strategies. Factor research has made it possible to join the main advantages of passive strategies - transparency, predictability and low cost - with active strategies' aim of delivering a risk-adjusted return profile distinct from those offered by cap-weighted benchmarks. Investors have embraced the factor approach and traditional asset managers have obliged them with a torrent of smart-beta ETF choices. Both should put investors on alert: according to the late Barton Biggs, there is no investment idea so good that it can't be destroyed by too much money, and fund company enthusiasm may correlate more closely with its own profits than its clients'. Biggs' admonition is always on our mind, but we don't think the established factors are in imminent danger of losing their zest. Factor excess returns are not new news. 25 years after Fama and French's paper, low-book-multiple stocks continue to outperform high-book-multiple stocks and smaller stocks continue to outperform larger stocks. We do not see the comparatively modest aggregate smart-beta ETF AUM as a catalyst for bidding away the returns that have durably accrued to factors. Are Dividends Really An Equity Factor? For the purposes of this report, our first objective is to determine whether or not Dividends can properly be considered a factor alongside the big five (Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility and Size). Unable to find compelling evidence for their inclusion, we do not think they should. Yield may be a promising factor in fixed income, but extending the concept to equities is problematic. Across all capitalization buckets for the last 20 years, it cannot even be said that dividend payers outperform non-dividend payers (Chart 4). The empirical record for more sophisticated slicing and dicing is mixed, depending on the level of granularity. Breaking the universe of U.S. equities into non-dividend payers and dividend payers, and then segmenting the latter by yield into the lowest three deciles, the median four deciles and the highest three deciles, Fama and French's 90-year dataset supports the idea that higher-yielding stocks generate higher total returns (Chart 5). The breakout is neatly consistent, with dividend payers outperforming non-dividend payers, and each yield cohort of the dividend payers outperforming the lower-yielding cohorts beneath it (Chart 6, top panel). Zoom into the dividend payers at the quintile and decile levels, however, and the consistency disappears as the tidy staircase pattern begins instead to resemble a jagged picket fence (Chart 6, lower panels). Chart 4Dividends Have Been Hazardous To Investors' ##br##Wealth Over The Last 20 Years ... Chart 5... Though They've Rewarded Investors ##br##Over Nine Decades Chart 6Not Ready For A Close-Up Adjusting for risk makes the picture even murkier. While the non-payers and the lowest-yielding cohorts always post the smallest risk-adjusted returns, they are the only cohorts the highest-yielders manage to beat. The median 40 is the winner among our 30-40-30 cohorts, while the fourth and the second quintiles bracketing the median 40 easily outpace the top quintile, and the eighth, fourth and seventh deciles break away from the rest of the decile pack (Chart 7). It should come as no surprise that our long top 30%/short bottom 30% litmus test failed to reveal any viable excess return strategies based on dividend yields. Our attempts to develop simple portfolio construction rules based on markers of dividend quality and sustainability failed to conclusively advance the dividend cause. Long/short strategies founded on dividend growth added no value to a simple portfolio built from dividend yield and change in share count (Chart 8). Payout ratio metrics, which might shed some light on both quality and sustainability, provided pretty solid results, but they weren't enormous winners (Chart 9). Our analysis left us unable to conclude that Yield merits inclusion among the established equity factors. Chart 7No Theme To Risk-Adjusted Return Profiles Chart 8No Viable Long/Short Dividend-Growth Strategy ... Chart 9... But Payout Ratios Work Pretty Well An Ideal Dividend Index The fact that the way forward for dividend strategies is not obvious is good news for smart-beta sponsors. The ambiguity leaves plenty of room for developing better index-construction methods. Some sources of improvement might include: A means of identifying and sidestepping "yield traps," high and/or growing yields that are actually a distress signal. A way to review historical metrics to gain a sense of ongoing dividend growth. An evaluation of a dividend's source, valuing dividends supported by operating cash flows more highly than those supported by financing activities or asset dispositions. A process for limiting sector exposures, and an awareness of the most auspicious backdrops for taking on exposure to specialized yield plays like mortgage REITs, MLPs and BDCs. Ticking off every item on this wish list, however, would necessarily involve infringing on other factors' turf. Quality, Value, Size and Volatility could all spill into the process of assessing dividend quality and sustainability. Given that our attempts at creating our own tests to measure up to the wish list came up empty, it seems that a cross-disciplinary approach might be the only option. Even if the indexes are not based completely on dividend-derived metrics, it may be possible for a few dividend accents to add some incremental value to the overall stew. Smart-Beta Fund Evaluation These issues were on our mind when we set out to define the metrics that we would use to evaluate the indexes created by our Dividend smart-beta ETF subset. The two payout metrics in the ETS model, dividend yield and change in shares outstanding, are pretty thin gruel for evaluating the dividend ETFs. The ETS payout metrics were selected based on their interaction with the Value, Safety, Quality, Momentum and Sentiment metrics, 23 in all, that comprise the rest of the stock-level inputs into our model. They were not intended to be stand-alone measures. Many of the ETFs in our subset explicitly screen for Quality, Value and/or Low Volatility. They could just as accurately be described as multi-factor funds in a dividend-first wrapper, and we have therefore deployed the entire ETS model to evaluate them. To assess whether or not their constituent selection process consistently improves upon a simple dividend strategy, we compare their ETS scores to those of VIG, the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF, which tracks the NASDAQ US Dividend Achievers Select Index of stocks (ex-REITs and LPs) with at least 10 consecutive years of dividend increases. First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF (RDVY) RDVY's ETS scores have stood out from its smart-beta peers' since the fund's inception at the beginning of 2014. Its concentrated 50-stock portfolio allows it to focus on exposure to its preferred growth and sustainability metrics. Only stocks that have grown their dividends over 3- and 5-year periods, and their non-zero earnings per share over a 3-year period, make it through the growth filters. The sustainability filters admit only stocks with cash-to-debt ratios of at least 50% and dividend payout ratios of 65% or less. Chart 10Good Things Come To Those Who Wait Although the fund has outperformed VIG since inception, its relative performance has not been nearly as consistent as its relative ETS scores (Chart 10). It has taken a 40% surge over the 12 months ended February 28th to put RDVY over the top. We recognize that performance can be capricious, however, and place more weight on RDVY's consistently stellar relative ETS scores, which are 20% more, on average, than its smart-beta peers'.5 RDVY's 50-basis-point ("bps") expense ratio exceeds the 36-bps group average, but we think its screens and concentration are worth the incremental 14 bps. The fund is on the smaller side with $127 million of AUM, and daily turnover of just over $2 million, but larger investors can make use of the creation/redemption unit process to transact in larger volumes without concern. We recommend RDVY for investors seeking large- and mid-cap dividend exposure. FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) QDF stands second to RDVY on an ETS score basis. Its relative scores have been remarkably stable, rarely falling below 110% en route to averaging 113% of the aggregate Dividend smart-beta score. QDF's selection process is proprietary, and it incorporates measures of cash flow, profitability, and management's skill at deploying capital and financing its activities. The mix has enabled QDF to outperform VIG from the get-go, and steadily pad its lead ever since (Chart 11). Its 37-bps expense ratio is right in line with the group's and its $1.7 billion AUM and $5 million average daily turnover provide a nice sense of ballast. We recommend QDF, along with RDVY, as the best Dividend smart-beta options. Chart 11Wire-To-Wire Outperformance WisdomTree MidCap Dividend Fund (DON) O'Shares FTSE US Quality Dividend ETF (OUSA) WisdomTree has been a pioneer in creating dividend-weighted indexes, but the formula it's applied to selecting constituents for DON, its mid-cap dividend ETF, has not found favor with the ETS model. The fund's constituents have repeatedly earned an aggregate ETS score below 40, holding its relative score below 80% for extended periods. OUSA is a newer fund, with less than a year of history, but its ETS scores have been noticeably weak. We would avoid OUSA until it compiles enough of a track record to permit more conclusions about its process and we would advise investors seeking targeted mid-cap exposure to gain it via funds other than DON. Dividends' Curious Attraction Our work in researching this Special Report has brought dividends' many contradictions to light. In countries like the U.S., where ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains, dividends represent an especially tax-inefficient way of redeeming a portion of one's investment. Either share buybacks or sales to third parties would yield more after-tax cash. Humans feel a strong pull to book gains, and steadily redeeming portions of a successful investment has an intuitive emotional appeal: "Let's quit while we're ahead, let's go while the getting is good." It's exactly the wrong thing to do with investments, however. If the quarterly dividend flow assuages the remorse over a mistaken investment, encouraging an investor to stick with a losing position, it's even worse. It is possible that dividends, even though they're small, help reinforce our innate resistance to selling losers and letting winners run. From management's perspective, legacy dividend payments can act as handcuffs. Fearful of issuing a signal that is sure to be interpreted negatively by the market, firms take pains to refrain from cutting dividends. Dividend declarations, then, are a part of the capital budgeting process that is not rooted in economics. A rigorously utility-maximizing visitor from outer space may have found the oil majors' borrowing to fund their dividends in the midst of the severe downturn in crude prices to be very odd indeed. All of these shortcomings may help explain why we were unable to find clear evidence that dividends exert a clear and consistent influence on stock prices. And yet, dividends are enormously popular, with dividend funds by far outnumbering every other flavor of smart-beta ETF. We, too, like to think of positions in balanced portfolios on a total-return basis, as does our U.S. Investment Strategy service, which has successfully recommended the Dividend Aristocrats much longer than we have. Total return is important, but we are increasingly leaning toward the view that specialty dividend plays, purchased at the right point of the cycle, are the best way for an investor to capture income from equity holdings. Such an all-or-nothing approach may well be superior to the one-foot-in, one-foot-out stance that is embodied by the average 2% large-cap dividend yield. Our U.S. Investment Strategy service has successfully surfed the cyclical wave in mortgage REITs, and we are attempting to do so now with the inclusion of BIZD, the business development company ETF, in our U.S. portfolios. Adding cycle analysis would make our smart-beta studies too long, but we are conducting research into the interaction between factor performance and cycle phases, and we will share our findings with our clients in standalone Special Reports if they are insightful enough to merit their attention. Doug Peta, Vice President Global ETF Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe, Research Analyst Global ETF Strategy Jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Philippe Morissette, Associate Vice President Equity Trading Strategy philippem@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part I - Value Funds," published February 15, 2017, at etf.bcaresearch.com. 2 Size may be too straightforward to allow for an index-construction edge. 3 Stock XYZ's beta is equal to the covariance of its returns with the market's returns, divided by the variance of the market's returns, where its covariance with the market equals its returns' correlation with the market's times the product of XYZ's volatility and the market's volatility. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R., "The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 18, Number 3 (Summer 2004), pp. 25-46. 5Befitting its benchmark status, VIG’s ETS scores have averaged 99.8% of the entire subset’s since inception.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Contrary to popular perception, non-cyclical sectors have led the market so far this year, while deep cyclical sectors are breaking down, in relative performance terms. Our models point to more of the same ahead. The oversold rebound in the pharmaceutical group may soon run into resistance so we recommend trimming positions to neutral. Put the proceeds into restaurants, a quasi-defensive group that enjoys a brightening sales outlook without pharma's political and regulatory risk. Recent Changes S&P Pharmaceuticals - Downgrade to neutral. S&P Restaurants - Upgrade to overweight. Table 1 Feature Equities are exhibiting signs of mild fatigue. Breadth has begun to narrow, and new highs have sagged compared with new lows (Chart 1). Both of these technical developments have warned of previous tactical pullbacks. The recent reset in oil prices may also test investor nerves. Oil prices have been a critical macro variable, because they influence inflation expectations and the corporate bond market (high yield bond spreads shown inverted, Chart 1). Crude oil price corrections have accurately timed equity retreats (Chart 1), and general risk aversion phases. To be sure, the global economy is no longer on a deflationary precipice, suggesting that weaker oil prices may not foreshadow a soft patch, but they may be a good enough excuse for profit taking in the equity market after a good run. Contrary to popular perception, cyclical sectors have not led the broad market so far in 2017. In fact, energy, materials and industrials have all broken down in relative performance terms (Chart 2), after peaking in mid-December. Only the technology sector has stayed resilient. Chart 1Short-Term Fatigue Chart 2Cyclicals Have Broken Down Chart 3Overshoot Renormalization Insipid cyclical sector performance has occurred within the context of a synchronized lift in global economic growth and recovering corporate sector pricing power. So why are cyclical sectors lagging? It may simply be a digestion phase. However, a different interpretation is that a number of key macro factors fail to confirm the durability of last year's outperformance, suggesting that defensive outperformance could last. Concerns that the current global inventory cycle may not morph into a broad-based upturn in global final demand continue to linger: the global credit impulse remains anemic, the Fed and China are tightening monetary policy and commodity markets are cracking (Chart 3). The lack of any meaningful improvement in Chinese loan demand signals that the economy may be quick to cool as the authorities tap the breaks on credit growth. It would take a decisive depreciation in the U.S. dollar to boost the relative profit fortunes of capital spending-dependent cyclical sectors on a sustainable basis. On a more positive note, the Fed's benign forward guidance last week bears close attention. If the U.S. dollar loses upside support, particularly with the ECB contemplating a retreat from full throttle easing, it could change the investment landscape. By reminding markets that their inflation target is symmetric, the Fed signaled it will be willing to tolerate a modest inflation overshoot, which is positive for risk assets in the short run. A softer U.S. dollar would take the pressure off of developing countries, support commodity prices, and bolster our cyclical sector sales models and Cyclical Macro Indicators. However, Chart 4 shows that the objective message from our models remains consistent with continued defensive sector outperformance. With a more protectionist U.S. Administration, we remain reluctant to position exclusively for a much weaker dollar. The ongoing underperformance of emerging market equities relative to U.S. and global benchmarks reinforces that foreign-sourced profit growth continues to lag (Chart 5). Positioning for cyclical sector earnings outperformance requires healthier profits abroad, to spur a new capital investment cycle. Chart 4Heeding The Message From Our Models... Chart 5... And The Markets We will look to selectively add cyclical exposure when the objective message from our Indicators provides confirmation that earnings-driven outperformance lies ahead. At the moment, there is no such confirmation. In fact, the elevated reading in the SKEW index continues to signal that a defensive posture will optimize portfolio performance (Chart 5). In sum, we continue to characterize the broad market's current momentum as an overshoot phase, with additional technical upside potential, but the rally is starting to fray around the edges. In this environment, holding a mostly defensive basket with selective beta exposure is still recommended. Importantly, within the defensive universe, there are tweaks to be made, especially if the U.S. dollar stops rising. Fade The Pharmaceuticals Rebound Health care has been the second strongest of the eleven broad sectors year-to-date, contrary to popular perception. That is in line with the flattening yield curve, cresting in inflation expectations and a modest correction in oil prices (Chart 6), all of which have revived the allure of non-cyclical sectors. Moreover, our Cyclical Macro Indicator (CMI) for the health care sector remains firm, supported by the ongoing large pricing power advantage. Relative value is the most attractive it has been in five years. While the latter provides little timing help, it indicates low risk, especially with technical conditions still deeply oversold (Chart 7). Chart 6Health Care Is Storming Back Chart 7Still Cheap And Oversold The heavyweight pharmaceutical group has led the sector's tactical charge, recouping the ground lost, in relative performance terms, leading up to the U.S. election. While we were caught off guard by the severity of the pullback last September/October, we refrained from selling into an oversold market and noted our intention to lighten positions whenever the inevitable relief rally occurred. The time has come to execute on this thesis. Pharmaceutical stocks are very cheap and have discounted a hostile regulatory environment. The relative forward P/E is well below its historic mean, even though both 12-month and 5-year relative forward earnings growth expectations are depressed (Chart 8). Typically, the latter would serve to artificially inflate valuations. These conditions exist even though free cash flow growth remains strong; merger activity has been solid, albeit ebbing in recent months; and companies have used excess capital to reduce total shares outstanding (Chart 8). In other words, relative forward earnings would have to decline substantially to validate these expectations. Is this plausible? Much depends on the regulatory environment. While details of the U.S. Administration's proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act have started to leak out, final details are still elusive and legislative action is not imminent. So far, it appears as if a worst case scenario would see an increase in the number of uninsured Americans, with a rising cost of insurance (to the benefit of managed care companies). According to the Department of Health & Human Services, the uninsured rate of the U.S. population nearly halved from 16% in 2010 to 9% in 2015. That led to a lift in the number of procedures performed and bolstered hospital bottom lines. Hospitals are a major pharmaceutical buying group. Higher utilization rates fed increased pharmaceutical demand for a number of years. However, drug spending growth has dropped off, and if the legion of uninsured patients rises anew in the coming years, then hospital utilization rates will decline, taking drug consumption growth down with it. Moreover, Trump wants to streamline the FDA's approval process, which would ultimately boost the number of high margin new drugs coming to market. Drug stocks boomed back in the mid-1990s, the last time FDA approval rates accelerated meaningfully (Chart 9). Chart 8Full Capitulation Chart 9Full Capitulation But at the same time, if government is given leeway to negotiate drug prices directly with drug companies, then pricing power will continue to converge down toward overall corporate sector pricing power, especially if drug consumption rates ease (Chart 9). At the moment, drug consumption growth remains above the rate of overall consumption growth, but that is much slower than during the boom following the introduction of the Affordable Care Act. Retail sales at pharmacies are growing robustly, and hospitals are still adding staff, signaling that they continue to position for expansion, i.e. rising procedure volumes (Chart 10). On the downside, the strong U.S. dollar is a big drag on top-line growth. Drug imports exceed exports by a wide margin, resulting in a negative trade balance and a drag on U.S. drug company profits, all else equal. The combination of a sales growth deceleration and adequate channel inventories has capped drug output growth (Chart 10). That is a productivity and profit margin headwind. Against this background, the industry will need an external assist to deliver profit outperformance. Relative profit estimates rise when disinflationary forces reign supreme, as measured by the NFIB planned price hikes series (shown inverted, Chart 11). This measure of future corporate pricing power intentions has rolled over, but broader measures of inflation are creeping higher. Ergo, drug earnings forecasts may be challenged to keep pace with the overall corporate sector. Chart 10... But Growth Rates Are Slowing Chart 11Mixed Signals The good news is that even though U.S. dollar strength is an export drag, the negative drug trade balance suggests that it will hurt other industries more. Indeed, a rising currency often coincides with profit outperformance (Chart 11). There is not enough evidence that exogenous factors will offset slowing domestic drug consumption growth. In all, the case for a further and sustained relative performance recovery has weakened, and we are taking advantage of this year's oversold bounce to move to the sidelines. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P pharmaceuticals index to neutral. This position was deep in the money initially, but last year's downdraft pushed it into a loss position of 10%. BLBG: S5PHARX-JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, LLY, AGN, ZTS, MYL, PRGO, MNK. Restaurants: Increasing Appetite The broad consumer discretionary sector has been treading water, largely owing to fears that a border adjustment tax (BAT) will undermine the retailing sub-component. This consolidation has restored value and created an attractive technical entry point (Chart 12, bottom panel). Importantly, industry earnings fundamentals are on the upswing. Our consumer discretionary sector Cyclical Macro Indicator has perked up (Chart 12), supported by an increase in wages, and more recently, the decline in oil prices. The latter is freeing up disposable income, which consumers have an incentive to spend given that household net worth (HNW) has climbed to all-time highs as a percent of disposable income (Chart 13). Chart 12A Good Place To Shop Chart 13Piggyback The Wealth Effect While we remain overweight housing related equities (homebuilders and home improvement retailers) in addition to our upbeat view on the media and advertising complex, a buying opportunity has surfaced in the neglected S&P restaurants index. We booked gains on an underweight position and lifted exposure to neutral back in late-October. Since then, value has improved further, while leading sales indicators continue to firm. Stronger consumer finances should flow into the casual dining industry. Sales have already started to reaccelerate, and should climb further based on the leading message from HNW (Chart 14). The lower income, $15K-$35K, cohort is also feeling increasingly confident, according to the latest Conference Board survey data (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the National Association of Restaurants Performance Index has regained momentum (Chart 15), signaling increased activity and rising confidence among restaurateurs. While the gap between the cost of dining out and dining in remains wide, it has begun to narrow, which is a plus for store traffic, all else equal. Chart 14Buy Into Weakness Chart 15At A Turning Point Domestically... Chart 16... And Globally? Our restaurants profit margin proxy (comprising restaurants CPI versus a blend of the industry's wage bill and food commodity costs) is trending higher. That is notable because it has a good track record in leading relative earnings growth estimates (Chart 15). Nevertheless, it is not all good news. International exposure remains a headache. Typically, soft EM currencies warn of translation drags on foreign sourced revenue (Chart 16). This cycle, there is an offset, as EM interest rates have come down, which is a plus for domestic demand (Chart 16). Thus, the headwind from outside the U.S. should abate as the year progresses. Adding it all up, factors are falling into place for a playable rally in the under-owned and unloved S&P restaurants index. This group offers attractive quasi-cyclical defensive exposure to replace the S&P pharmaceuticals index, without the political and regulatory risks. Bottom Line: Redeploy funds from the pharma downgrade and boost the S&P restaurants index to overweight. BLBG: S5REST-MCD, YUM, CMG, SBUX, DRI. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).

Highlights ­­The U.S. Treasury is unlikely to label China as a currency manipulator in the upcoming semi-annual assessment in April. A bigger threat is the possibility that President Trump unilaterally imposes punitive tariffs or import quotas on Chinese goods through administrative powers. The risk of that at the moment is low. The current episode of Chinese capital outflow can be largely viewed as the unwinding of the RMB "carry trade". The PBoC's official reserves have functioned as a reservoir to buffer volatile cross-border capital flows driven by short-term speculative incentives. Beyond the near term, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to encourage domestic entities to directly acquire foreign assets to improve the returns of the country's overall international investment positions. The grand trend of increasing Chinese overseas investment by the private sector will resume once the downward pressure on the RMB dissipates. Feature As we go to press this week, the Federal Reserve has just released its interest rate decision. The 25-basis-point rate hike was well anticipated, and the markets should be assuaged by the fact that the Fed does not anticipate a more rapid pace of rate hikes than it did in December. As far as China is concerned, the RMB, which has been put on the backburner by global investors in recent months, is once again back in the spotlight, as its descent against the dollar has resumed after a relatively calm period. Both Chinese interest rates and the USD/CNY have been pushed higher by the latest moves in U.S. Treasury prices and the broad dollar trend (Chart 1). Chart 1The U.S. Connection Beyond The Currency Manipulator U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin signaled late last month that he wants to use a regular review process of foreign-exchange markets to identify currency manipulators, which means the U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal procedure to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from President Donald Trump's repeated campaign trail promises, and has reduced the odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB. If the Treasury follows the formal process laid out in statutory law, it is unlikely to label China as a currency manipulator in the upcoming semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the conditions required for being charged with currency manipulation, as discussed in detail in our previous report.1 Even if China was indeed labeled a currency manipulator in the April assessment, the existing procedure does not authorize the administration to immediately impose punitive measures. Instead, the law requires the Treasury to negotiate with the allegedly "guilty" party to correct the currency manipulation and remove unfair trade practices. Even if negotiations fail, the punitive measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are largely symbolic for a country like China. The recommended remedial measures such as prohibiting federal procurement from offending countries and seeking additional surveillance through the International Monetary Fund are hardly biting for China. In short, a "currency manipulation" charge, even if it were imposed, would mostly be a symbolic move, and the real economic consequences would be limited. A bigger threat is the possibility that President Trump unilaterally imposes punitive tariffs or import quotas on Chinese goods through administrative powers, which would be far more unpredictable and would inevitably lead to harsh retaliation from the Chinese side. The risk of that at the moment is low. President Trump appears to be occupied with domestic issues and has notably toned down his anti-China rhetoric. Meanwhile, President Xi is reportedly scheduled to visit the U.S. next month, at which time he will likely seek to improve bilateral ties. We expect both sides will try to set up a new high-level mechanism for effective communication and negotiations over key policy issues to replace the annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialog (S&ED) under the Obama administration. Given the numerous "China hawks" in President Trump's inner circle, trade frictions between the two countries will likely increase, but the risks appear to be pushed out to at least next year. Where Did The Money Go? China's official foreign reserves have stabilized at around US$3 trillion in recent months, compared with a peak of over US$4 trillion in the second quarter of 2014. The common perception is that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has been fighting a constant bleed of domestic capital, and the rapid decline in its foreign reserves means an ever-smaller war chest, which will eventually force the PBoC to surrender. There has been open debate within China's policy-making circles and prominent think-tanks on whether the PBoC should protect the RMB exchange rate or preserve its official reserves. While the decimal changes in China's official reserves have been grabbing headlines among the financial media of late, much less known is China's total international investment positions. In fact, China having a hefty current account surplus means the country's domestic savings exceed its domestic investment, and subsequently the excess savings become holdings of foreign assets - the PBoC's official reserves are just a part of the country's growing total foreign claims. Therefore, it is important to have a closer look at China's total foreign investment positions to understand cross-border capital flows. On the asset side, since the second quarter of 2014 when official reserves peaked out, China's total foreign assets have continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace (Chart 2). The decline in official reserves has been more than offset by increases in other forms of investments. Specifically, direct overseas investments, foreign loans and holdings for foreign securities increased by US$503 billion, US$170 billion and US$79 billion, respectively, between Q2 2014 and Q3 2016, the latest available data points, compared with a US$792 billion decline in official reserves during the same period. In other words, the country as a whole has continued to accumulate foreign assets, but the corporate sector and households have been increasing their holdings at the same time that the public sector has been trimming positions. On the liability side, the Chinese corporate sector has been paying back foreign debt aggressively since Q2 2014, which also increased demand for foreign currencies and contributed to the decline in the PBoC's official reserves. Loans and trade credit taken by Chinese firms dropped by US$423 billion between Q2 2014 and Q3 2016. The outstanding balance of total foreign loans and trade credit at the end of Q3 2016 stood at US$583 billion, almost half the US$1 trillion peak in Q2 2014 (Chart 2, bottom panel). Regarding foreigners' claims in China, the RMB fluctuation has had no meaningful impact on both foreign direct investments (FDIs) and foreigners' investments in Chinese domestically listed securities such as stocks and bonds. In fact, both FDIs and foreign investments in Chinese securities have continued to rise despite heightened anxieties on the RMB (Chart 3). However, foreigners' liquid holdings of Chinese financial assets, cash and savings deposits have dropped by US$100 billion from a peak of US$441 billion in Q2 2014 to US$340 billion at the end of Q3 2016. This could well be the withdrawal of foreign "hot money" that flew into China in previous years. Chart 2Where Did The Money Go? Chart 3Foreign Investment In China: The Ins And Outs Taken together, the decline in China's official reserves appears less disconcerting. Chinese companies' debt repayments and foreign "hot money" repatriation accounted for the lion's share of the decline in Chinese foreign reserves since 2014. Therefore, the current episode can be largely viewed as the unwinding of the RMB "carry trade": In previous years, when the RMB was appreciating against the dollar, Chinese firms undertook loans in dollars and foreign 'hot money" also rushed into China - the tide has been reversing as the USD/CNY trend has shifted. The PBoC's official reserves have functioned as a reservoir to buffer volatile cross-border capital flows driven by short-term speculative incentives. Chinese Foreign Reserves: The Big Picture While the dominant concern at the moment is that Chinese official reserves, still by far the largest in the world, are not enough to maintain exchange rate stability, easily forgotten is that the consensus was the opposite a mere three years ago (Chart 4). Back then the prevailing view was that the country had too much foreign reserves, which was both a waste of resources and an economic burden. While popular perceptions in the marketplace always swing dramatically, it is important to keep the big picture in mind. At the onset, official reserves currently account for 50% of China's total international investment positions. This is a notable decline from a peak of 71% in 2009, but still far higher than any other major economy (Chart 5). For example, Japanese official reserves account for 16% of total international claims, 26% for Taiwan, and a mere 2% for the U.S. Chart 4Chinese Official Reserves Are ##br##Still By Far The Largest Chart 5Chinese International Assets Are ##br##Primarily Official Reserves As China's foreign assets are primarily represented in official reserves, the return of China's foreign claims is extremely low, as official reserves are mainly invested in risk-free highly liquid assets, with achieving higher returns always having been of secondary consideration. The average return of Chinese foreign assets has been hovering around 3%, not much higher than U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 6). By contrast, foreign investments in China are primarily engaged in the real economy and are able to garner much higher yields. This mismatch, ironically, has led to a net loss in China's international investment position. In other words, even though China is a massive net creditor to the rest of the world, the country's net investment income has in fact been negative, as the country pays a lot more to foreign investors than it gets from its own overseas investments. Chart 6China Gets Less Than It Pays This mismatch has been one of the key reasons why the PBoC in previous years tried to encourage domestic entities to hold foreign assets directly rather than through official channels in the form of foreign reserves. The more recent rapid increase in capital outflows from the Chinese corporate sector and households has challenged the PBoC's near-term priority to maintain exchange rate stability, prompting the authorities to tighten capital account controls to support the RMB. From a big-picture point of view, however, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to encourage domestic entities to directly acquire foreign assets to improve the returns of the country's overall international investment positions. All in all, the near term CNY/USD cross rate will remain largely determined by the Fed action and the broad trend of the dollar, but the PBoC will continue to intervene to prevent major currency depreciation. The RMB is unlikely to depreciate against the greenback more than other major currencies in a period of dollar strength. The grand trend of increasing Chinese overseas investment by the private sector will resume once the downward pressure on the RMB dissipates. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China As A Currency Manipulator?," dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Once the Brexit starting gun is fired, the EU27's high-level guidelines and red lines will create more vulnerabilities and uncertainties for the U.K. than for the euro area. The BoE will be more boxed in than the ECB. Brexit trades have more legs. We describe four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets (on page 6). Our favourite structural investment themes are Personal Product equities, euro/yuan, and real estate in Spain, Ireland and Germany. Feature "Many in Great Britain expected a major calamity... but what happened was near enough nothing ." The citation above perfectly describes the 9 months that have elapsed since the U.K.'s June 23 2016 vote to exit the EU. In fact, it refers to the 9 months that elapsed after Britain declared war on Germany on September 3 1939 - a period of calm, militarily speaking, which became known as the 'Phoney War'.1 But outside the military sphere a lot did happen in the Phoney War. Most notably, a propaganda war ensued. On the night of September 3 1939 alone, the Royal Air Force dropped 6 million leaflets over Germany titled 'Note to the German People'. Chart of the WeekOne Big Correlated Trade: Pound/Euro And Eurostoxx600 Vs. FTSE100 Brexit Phoney War And The Markets Fast forward 77 years. The 9 months since the Brexit vote has also been a period of calm, economically speaking. Indeed, the U.K. economy has sailed along remarkably smoothly. And this has fuelled a propaganda war for those who believe that Brexit's economic impact will be near enough nothing. But outside the economic sphere, a lot has happened in the Brexit Phoney War: The pound has slumped 12% versus the euro and 17% versus the dollar. The FTSE100 has surged 16%, substantially outperforming the 8% gain in the Eurostoxx600 The U.K. 10-year gilt yield is down 40 bps when the equivalent German bund yield is up 40 bps and the equivalent U.S. Treasury yield is up 90 bps. These relative moves appear to reflect different asset class stories, but it is crucial to realise that: All of these relative moves are just one big correlated trade. The relative moves in bond yields have just tracked the expected differences in central bank policy rates two years ahead (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). This is exactly in line with the theory that a bond yield just equals the expected average interest rate over the bond's lifetime. Chart I-2Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. Bund Yields Chart I-3Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. T-Bond Yields Likewise, the moves in pound/dollar and pound/euro have also closely tracked the same expected differences in central bank policy rates (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Again, this is exactly in line with theory. Over short horizons, the biggest driver of exchange rates is fixed income cross-border portfolio flows - which always seek out the highest yield adjusted for hedging costs. Chart I-4Difficult Brexit = Pound/Euro Falls Chart I-5Difficult Brexit = Pound/Dollar Falls In turn, FTSE100 performance versus the Eurostoxx600 has near-perfectly tracked the inverse direction of pound/euro. Once more, this is exactly as theory would suggest. The FTSE100 and Eurostoxx600 are just a collection of multinational dollar-earning companies quoted in pounds and euros respectively. So when pound/euro weakens, the dollar earnings increase more in FTSE100 index terms than in Eurostoxx600 index terms, resulting in Eurostoxx600 underperformance (Chart of the Week). Now that the Brexit battle is about to begin in earnest, what will happen to these Brexit trades? Brexit Battle Begins It is not our intention here to forecast all the twists and turns of the Brexit battle. We will leave that to a later report. Instead, we just want to list the likely opening salvos. With Parliamentary approval now sealed, Theresa May is due to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in the week commencing March 27 and thereby formally begin the Brexit battle. Expect the first EU27 response within 48 hours, probably through the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. In this response, Tusk may also give the date for the first European Council 'Brexit' summit. This EU27 Brexit summit will take place within 8 weeks of the Article 50 trigger, and likely after the two-round French Presidential Election in April/May. At the Brexit summit, the EU27 will establish its strategy, high-level guidelines and red lines for the Brexit negotiations. The European Council will present these negotiating guidelines to the European Commission. Drawing upon its own legal and policy expertise, the Commission will then draft a mandate which sets out more technical details of each area of negotiation. Next, the Council of the EU2 must approve this draft mandate by qualified majority vote (obviously excluding the U.K.) Once approved, the European Commission can begin the detailed negotiations with the U.K., keeping within the final mandate's guidelines. But what does all this mean for investors? The preceding analysis showed that the dominant driver for all Brexit trades is the expected difference in central bank policy interest rates two years ahead. Recall that not long ago the BoE was vying with the Fed to be the first to hike rates in this cycle, while the ECB was likely to ease further. But after the Brexit vote and the resulting uncertainty about the U.K.'s position in the world, the tables have turned. The EU27's high-level negotiating guidelines and red lines are likely to create more vulnerabilities and uncertainties for the U.K. than for the euro area. And now, these vulnerabilities and uncertainties are amplified by Scotland First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, calling for a second referendum on Scottish Independence. For central bank policy, this means that the BoE will be hamstrung; whereas, absent any tail-events, the ECB can continue to back away from its extreme dovishness - a process that Draghi verbally started at the ECB Press Conference last week. Therefore, at least into the early summer, stay: Overweight U.K. gilts versus German bunds. Long euro/pound. Long FTSE100 versus Eurostoxx600 (or Eurostoxx50). Long U.K. Clothes and Apparel equities versus the market (Chart I-6). Short U.K. Real Estate equities versus the market (Chart I-7). But a word of warning for risk control. Remember that all five positions are in effect just one big correlated trade. So they will all work together, or they will all not work together! Chart I-6Difficult Brexit = U.K. Clothes And Apparel Outperforms Chart I-7Difficult Brexit = U.K. Real Estate Equities Underperform Four Disruptors The final section this week takes a wider-angle view of the world, and briefly highlights four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets in the coming years. Disruptor 1: Protectionism. Since the Great Recession, an extremely polarised distribution of economic growth has left most people's standard of living stagnant - despite seemingly decent headline economic growth and job creation (Chart I-8). Looking to find a scapegoat, economic nationalism and protectionism have resonated very strongly with voters in the U.K. and U.S. - resulting in Brexit and President Donald Trump. Other voters could follow in the same vein. But history teaches us that protectionism ends up hurting many more people than it helps. Disruptor 2: Technology. The bigger danger is that people are misdiagnosing the illness. The vast majority of middle-income job losses are not due to globalization, but due to technology. Specifically, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is replacing secure middle-income jobs and displacing workers into insecure low-income manual jobs - like bartending and waitressing - which AI cannot (yet) replace (Table I-1). And AI's impact on middle-income jobs is only in its infancy.3 The worry is that by misdiagnosing the illness as globalization and wrongly taking a protectionist medicine, the illness will intensify, rather than improve. Chart I-8Disruptor 1: Protectionism Table I-1Disruptor 2: Technology Disruptor 3: Debt super-cycles have reached exhaustion. The protectionist medicine carries a further danger. Major emerging market economies are coming to the end of structural credit booms and need to wean themselves off their credit addictions (Chart I-9). At this point of vulnerability, aggressive protectionism risks tipping these emerging economies into a sharp slowdown. Chart I-9Disruptor 3: Debt Super-Cycles Have Reached Exhaustion Disruptor 4: Equities are overvalued. Disruptors one, two and three come at a time when equities are valued to generate feeble total nominal returns over the next decade (Chart I-10). Risk premiums are extremely compressed. And if investors suddenly demand that risk premiums rise to average historical levels, it necessarily requires equity prices to adjust downwards. Chart I-10Disruptor 4: Equities Are Overvalued The long-term investment message is crystal clear. With the four disruptors in play, we strongly advise long-term investors not to follow passive (equity) index-tracking strategies. Instead, we advise long-term investors to stick to bespoke structural investment themes. Our favourite structural investment themes are Personal Product equities, euro/yuan, and real estate in Spain, Ireland and Germany. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 C N Trueman 'The Phoney War'. 2 The Council of the EU should not be confused with the European Council. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Superstar Economy: Part 2," dated January 19, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model This week's trade is to short Netherlands equities, but wait until after the election result. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Dear Client, In addition to this brief note concerning Wednesday's FOMC meeting, we will be sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Brian Piccioni, head of BCA's Technology Strategy service. Brian discusses the investment implications of what could be one of the most profound technological developments of the 21st century: CRISPR, a radical new technique for genetic engineering. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy The dollar and U.S. Treasury yields fell sharply in the aftermath of Wednesday's FOMC meeting, while equities rallied. Indeed, so pronounced was the asset market reaction that financial conditions eased markedly for the day, making the Fed's actions an "unhike" of sorts. The FOMC meeting produced several dovish surprises. First, the number of participants who expected four rate hikes or more did not increase, as some observers had anticipated. Second, the estimate for the structural rate of unemployment was scaled down further by a tenth of a percentage point to 4.7%. Third, the FOMC statement said that the Fed was looking for a "sustained" return to 2% inflation, while also referring to its inflation target as a "symmetric" one. Fourth, Minneapolis Fed President Kashkari dissented in favor of keeping rates unchanged, which few people had expected. Having said all this, the market's reaction still seems rather excessive. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target. This was reflected in the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. Consistent with this, the FOMC raised its growth forecast for 2018 from 2.0% to 2.1%. In addition, it lifted its inflation forecast for this year from 1.8% to 1.9%. The median projection for the funds rate also edged up from 2.9% to 3% for 2019. The mean dot rose 9 bps in both 2018 and 2019, while the modal dot increased by 25 bps in both years. None of this is particularly dovish. As far as the reference to the Fed's "symmetric" target is concerned, this is something that Chair Yellen and other FOMC officials have stressed many times before. All it means is that the Fed will not react too aggressively if core inflation were to drift somewhat above 2%. It does not mean that the Fed will purposely try to engineer an inflation overshoot. If the Fed had wanted to do that, it would have lifted its 2019 inflation forecast. It didn't do that and the inflation forecast remains stuck at 2.0%. Why, then, did the FOMC bother massaging the language? The answer is that the Fed simply wanted to reassure the public and the investment community that it would maintain its "go slow" approach to raising rates. After all, investors were pricing in only a small probability of a March hike just a few weeks ago. A "hawkish hike" could have led to an excessive tightening in financial conditions, similar to what happened during the taper tantrum. However, given that financial conditions actually eased significantly in response to the FOMC's decision, it is likely that Fed speeches will lean in a less dovish direction over the coming weeks. The implication for investors is that the dollar is likely to rebound. Indeed, the longer-term risk to the dollar is not that the Fed turns out be too dovish, but that it turns out to be too hawkish - that it raises rates so much that the economy begins to roll over. However, with interest rates still low in absolute terms, this is more of a risk for late 2018 or 2019 than it is for the next 12 months. As such, investors should continue to cyclically overweight global equities, favouring stock markets such as those in Europe and Japan that have a "higher beta" to global growth than the U.S. A modest bearish tilt towards long-term government bonds is also warranted. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Global stocks and bonds have priced in a goldilocks scenario - strong growth and low inflation/interest rates. In the short term, global bond yields are set to rise further. Risk assets, especially EM ones, are vulnerable on the back of higher bond yields. Thereafter, global bond yields will roll over decisively as inflation worries subside. Risk assets will probably recover some lost ground in this phase. Toward the end of this year, growth disappointments in EM/China will resurface and EM risk assets will sell off again. Feature The near-term risks to emerging markets (EM) and global stocks over the next three months or so are potential inflation anxieties in the U.S. and around the world, and a further rise in U.S./global interest rate expectations. Yet looking beyond the short-term, it is not clear that the rise in global inflation will be lasting. Timing zigzags in financial markets is almost impossible. However, if we were to try to speculate on potential swings in financial markets over the next 12 months, our prediction would be that the current growth acceleration will soon lead to heightened inflation worries, and global bond yields will climb further. Having already rallied a lot, global share prices will likely relapse, with EM risk assets being hardest hit on the back of rising U.S. bond yields. Thereafter, there will likely be a period of calm when inflation worries subside due to growth disappointments, and bond yields roll over decisively. Risk assets will probably recover some lost ground in this phase. Yet this calm phase might not last too long as EM/China growth will relapse considerably again toward the end of this year. In short, another global growth scare driven by EM/China is likely to transpire later this year. Any potential U.S. trade protectionist measures will play into this scenario - augmenting U.S. inflation expectations initially when adopted and then, when implemented, dampening global growth. Please note that this is the view of BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service, which differs from BCA's house view that is cyclically positive on global stocks/risk assets. Neither the inflation fears/higher interest rates episode nor the growth scare phase that we believe is in the cards later this year are bullish for EM risk assets. Therefore, we maintain that the risk-reward for EM risk assets is extremely unattractive at the current juncture, even if global growth stays firm for now. More Upside In Bond Yields Inflation has been accelerating in the U.S. and China: The average of U.S. trimmed-mean CPI and PCE, median CPI and market-based core CPI inflation has risen above 2% (Chart I-1). The individual components are shown in Chart I-2. Chart I-1U.S. Inflation Measures Are In Uptrend Chart I-2Broad-Based Rise In U.S. Inflation BCA's U.S. wage tracker - a mean of four different wage series - is also accelerating (Chart I-3, top panel), signaling a tightening labor market. Wages are critical to inflation dynamics because not only are wages the largest cost component of a business but also higher wages entail more consumer spending, making it easier for companies to raise prices. That said, what drives cost-push inflation is not wages but unit labor costs. In the U.S., unit labor costs have been rising signaling accumulating pressure on businesses to raise prices (Chart I-3, bottom panel). In China, core (ex-food and energy) consumer, retail and trimmed mean consumer inflation are in an uptrend (Chart I-4). Chart I-3U.S. Wages And Unit Labor ##br##Costs Argue For More Inflation Upside Chart I-4China: Inflation Is Picking Up However, disposable income (a proxy for wages) growth in China remains subdued, given economic growth has been very weak (Chart I-5, top panel). Hence, there are no imminent wage pressures in China like there are in the U.S. That said, unit labor costs in China are still rising because output per hour (productivity) growth has decelerated notably (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Real (adjusted for inflation) interest rates have not yet increased much and remain low worldwide. As global growth conditions remain robust and inflation data surprise on the upside, interest rates both in nominal and real terms will likely rise. In the U.S., 10-year Treasury yields adjusted for the average consumer price inflation (currently running at 2.0%) stand at 0.35% (Chart I-6, top panel). Consistently, U.S. 10- and 5-year TIPS yields are 0.6% and 0.2%, respectively (Chart I-6, bottom panel). Provided U.S. growth remains robust and the labor market continues to improve, there are no reasons for U.S. TIPS yields to stay at these low levels. Chart I-5China: Wage Proxy And Unit Labor Costs Chart I-6U.S. Real Yields Are Low A strong U.S. dollar could have been an impediment to a potential rise in real rates, but year-to-date the greenback has been tame. In addition, U.S. share prices and high-yield corporate bonds are handling the news of Federal Reserve tightening well. All of this opens a window for both nominal and real U.S. bond yields to rise in the near term. On the whole, either the U.S. dollar will spike soon or U.S. interest rates will climb further. The latter will eventually cause the greenback to appreciate. This will be especially troublesome for EM risk assets. In China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart I-7, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate was negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart I-7, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Considering the above as well as improved growth in China and higher bond yields globally, we expect mainland policymakers to tolerate marginally higher interest rates. Notably, China's onshore domestic corporate bond yields, swap rates and the interbank repo rate have already been rising since last autumn - a trend that will likely persist for now (Chart I-8). Chart I-7China: Real Deposit Rates Have Turned ##br##Negative China: Real Deposit Rate Is Negative Chart I-8China: Interest ##br##Rates Are In Uptrend We do not have strong conviction on how persistent and pervasive the nascent inflation uptrend will be in the U.S. and China. Inflation is driven by numerous structural and cyclical variables, and they often work in opposite directions. The outlook for these variables is not identical to draw a definite conclusion about the inflation trajectory in the long run. In this report, we cover just one aspect of inflation - how liquidity and money relate to and drive consumer prices (please see the section below). Bottom Line: Odds are that there could be a global inflation/interest rates scare in the near term, and bond yields will continue rising in the next two to three months. Monetary-Liquidity Approach To Inflation As Milton Friedman famously stated: Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output. Yet a relevant question is which monetary aggregates do really impact inflation. Identifying specific monetary aggregates that impact inflation will help us gauge the outlook for the latter. Central bank liquidity provisioning to banks does not necessarily cause inflation to rise. It is money/credit creation by commercial banks that generates higher inflation. In any banking system, it is commercial banks that create loans. Central banks emit and supply banks with liquidity - commercial banks' reserves held at the central bank - but the monetary authorities do not create money directly, except when they finance the government or non-bank organizations directly or buy financial assets from them. Money is created by commercial banks when they originate loans. Similarly, money is destroyed when a loan is repaid to a bank. Commercial banks do not need savings and/or deposits to originate loans. They create a deposit themselves when they grant a loan. Yet banks require liquidity (reserves at the central bank) to settle their payments with other banks. Banks seek liquidity in various ways, such as by attracting deposits, borrowing money from the central bank and in interbank markets as well as raising funds abroad, among other methods. When a bank attracts deposits, these deposits constitute outflows of deposits from other banks, or a drainage of cash in circulation that was once a deposit at another bank and was cashed out. In short, these deposits do not fall out of the sky, and do not constitute new deposits/savings in the banking system and the economy. On the whole, when a commercial bank extends a loan it creates a new deposit, and thereby new money - i.e. it increases money supply. When a bank attracts a deposit, it does not create a new deposit or new money. The existing money/deposit simply moves from one bank to another, or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. A bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it generates. It requires liquidity (reserves at the central bank) only to settle its balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it might not require liquidity to "back up" the loan.1 This is the reason why quantitative easing programs implemented by central banks in the advanced countries did not produce high inflation. Even though central banks conducting QEs - the Fed, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan - supplied a lot of banking system liquidity, and commercial banks' reserves at the central bank skyrocketed, commercial banks initially were reluctant to originate new loans. Where are we presently in money/credit cycles in major economies? Chart I-9 demonstrates broad money growth for the U.S., the euro area, China and EM ex-China. Broad money growth is still strong across the world. In addition, there is a reasonable, albeit not perfect, correlation between broad money and inflation as depicted in Chart I-10. In China, money aggregates in 2015-16 were distorted by the LGFV debt swap. Outside this episode, there is a reasonable relationship, as one would expect: broad money growth explains swings in inflation. The key message from this chart is that the rise in inflation is possible in the near term but is unlikely to prove sustainable and lasting in these largest three world economies if broad money growth continues downshifting. The reason behind the drop in broad money growth is a notable slowdown in bank loans in the U.S. and China (Chart I-11). Chart I-9Broad Money Growth Across World Chart I-10Broad Money Growth And Inflation Chart I-11Bank Loan Growth Slowdown In The U.S. And China It is a safe bet that with more upside in global and local interest rates, bank loan growth is likely to slump in China/EM. Furthermore, given the credit bubble in China and the authorities' efforts to contain risks, odds are that bank loan and overall credit growth will decelerate by the end of this year. On another note, the sheer size of the credit bubble in China is also corroborated by the amount of outstanding broad money. In common currency (U.S. dollar) terms, the outstanding amount of broad money (M2) is almost two times larger in China than M2 in the U.S. and M3 in the euro area (Chart I-12). This is despite the fact that China's nominal GDP is US$11 trillion, smaller than U.S. GDP of US$19 trillion, and comparable to euro area GDP of US$12 trillion. In fact, the outstanding broad money supply in China in absolute U.S. dollar terms is only slightly less than the combined broad money supply in the U.S. and euro area. Chart I-13 illustrates broad money as a share of country GDP in all three economies. The upshot is that Chinese commercial banks have created much more money relative to GDP than U.S. and euro area banks. Chart I-12China's Money Supply Is ##br##Enormous In U.S. Dollars And... Chart I-13...Relative To GDP The question is why China has not had high inflation despite such immense money overflow. The answer is that China has been investing a lot, and the supply of goods and services in China has risen very rapidly too. That said, this money has created a property market bubble in China. We will discuss/debate the issues surrounding China's money, credit and savings in a forthcoming China Debate piece with our BCA colleagues. Bottom Line: What ultimately drives economic cycles and inflation is money created by commercial banks, not central bank liquidity provisioning to banks. China/EM broad money growth is still unsustainably strong and it will fall further. Growth Scare Before Year End? Chart I-14China: Corporate Bond Prices Are Falling If EM/China credit growth decelerates, as we expect to happen toward the end of this year, it will not only cap inflation but also cause a growth scare. Although U.S. and euro area growth could soften a notch from current levels, the main downside to global growth stems from EM/China, as we have repeatedly written. Given China's onshore corporate bonds rallied dramatically in 2015-'16 on the back of massive investor-buying, a further drop in these bond prices might trigger an exodus of funds and a meaningful push-up in corporate bond yields. In fact, the price of onshore corporate bonds continues to make new lows, and is already down 8% from its peak in November 2015 (Chart I-14). Chart I-15U.S. And German Bond Prices More Downside? This will in turn cause corporate bond issuance and other non-bank financing to slump. This will occur at time when bank loan growth is already decelerating, and the authorities are aiming to reduce speculative activity in the financial system via a regulatory clampdown. Ultimately, higher borrowing costs along with regulatory tightening of banks' off-balance-sheet operations will cause a slowdown in China's domestic credit flows in the second half of 2017. The rest of EM will decelerate on the back of a China slowdown, which will reverberate via lower mainland imports and declining commodities prices. In addition, the banking systems in many EMs have not adjusted following the credit boom of the preceding years. Unhealthy banking systems and higher global interest rates will cause further retrenchment in domestic credit creation. Bottom Line: A renewed slump in China/EM growth later this year will trigger growth disappointments globally. Investment Strategy It seems global stocks and bonds have priced in a goldilocks scenario - strong growth and low inflation/interest rates. DM bond yields will likely rise further. Remarkably, both U.S. and German 30-year bond prices have already fallen by 23% from their July highs and there might be more downside (Chart I-15). BCA's Relative Risk Indicator for U.S. stocks versus U.S. Treasurys is over-extended at a very high level (Chart I-16). When this indicator has historically been at similar levels underweighting stocks versus bonds has paid off. Notably, when inflation is rising equity multiples should shrink. This has often been the case in the U.S., though not lately (Chart I-17). Chart I-16U.S. Stocks-To-Bonds Relative Risk Indicator Chart I-17Rising Inflation = Compressing Multiples Chart I-18A Number Of EM Currencies Are Facing Resistance EM risk assets warrant an underweight position across equities, credit and currencies. The list of our country allocation within the EM universe for stocks, credit and local bonds is provided on page 14. Commodities prices in the near term are at risk from a strong U.S. dollar and later in the year from a slowdown in Chinese growth. Several EM currencies are at a critical technical juncture (Chart I-18). We expect these resistance levels not to be broken. We recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, CLP and COP. On a relative basis, we overweight RUB, MXN, THB, TWD, INR, PLN, HUF and CZK. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 For more detailed discussion on the process of money and credit creation, please refer to Trilogy of Special Reports on money/loan creation, savings and investment, titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses" dated October 26, 2016, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB", dated November 23, 2016 and "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?", dated January 18, 2017, links available on page 16. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Geopolitics will not spoil the stock rally yet; European election risks remain overstated; In China, look beyond the National Party Congress; China's reforms could re-launch in 2018 ... ... But India's reforms are gaining momentum now. Feature The global economy continues to surprise to the upside, with the latest round of global purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) confirming that the business cycle continues to accelerate (Chart 1). In the context of firming global growth, the Fed's decision to hike rates may not produce as violent of a reaction from the dollar as last year, giving way to further upside in stocks. And while investors continue to fret about valuations, U.S. stocks are expensive only relative to history, not relative to competing assets, as our colleague Lenka Martinek of the U.S. Investment Strategy service points out (Chart 2).1 Chart 1Because I'm Happy Chart 2U.S. Stocks Pricey By History, Not Peers What geopolitical news could break up the party over the next six months? Europe: As we argued three weeks ago, the European electoral calendar is unusually busy (Table 1).2 However, we have also posited in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that Europe will be a red herring this year, allowing risk assets to "climb the wall of worry."3 The first test of this thesis comes today, with the Dutch general elections taking place. The polls suggest that the Dutch electorate is not following the populist trend of the Brexit referendum and U.S. election (Chart 3), but rather in the footsteps of the little noticed Austrian presidential election in December, which saw the populist presidential candidate defeated. Dutch Euroskeptics, who have led the polling throughout the last twelve months, are bleeding support as election day approaches. Meanwhile, in France, Marine Le Pen is struggling to keep momentum going with only a month and a half to the first round. Thus far, our thesis on Europe is holding. Table 1Busy Calendar For Europe This Year Chart 3Dutch Euroskeptics Are An Overstated Threat The U.S.: Investors will finally get to put numbers to President Trump's rhetoric when the White House announces its budget on March 16. As we argued last week, President Trump is who we thought he was: an economic populist looking to shake up America's status quo. That suggests he will err on the side of greater deficits and large middle-class tax cuts. We do not think Congress will bar his way, as it has rarely restrained a Republican president from profligacy (Chart 4). We could be wrong, but it is unclear if a more fiscally responsible budget would be negative for the markets. On one hand, it may disappoint optimistic growth projections, but on the other, it would mean that the Fed would have no reason to err on the side of more rate hikes in 2017. Meanwhile, while we continue to fear protectionism's impact on the market, it is unlikely that the Trump White House will focus on trade when so many domestic priorities are looming this summer. Russia: As we argued in a Special Report with the Emerging Markets Strategy group last week, Russia may be entering a low-beta paradigm - escaping from its close embrace with oil prices - due to the combination of orthodox monetary policy, modest structural reforms, and growing confidence in its geopolitical predicament.4 This is not the time for President Putin to rattle nerves in the West. He does not want to give Europe and the U.S. a reason to cooperate. We therefore expect Russia's geopolitical risk premium to continue to decline, a boon for European risk assets (Chart 5). Chart 4Budgets: Republican Presidents##br## Get What They Want Chart 5Russia's Calm##br## Is Europe's Profit From a tactical perspective, we believe that the confluence of geopolitical forces supports our continued overweight of developed-market equities versus those of emerging markets. Within developed markets, the BCA House View is to prefer euro-area equities due to overstated geopolitical risks and favorable valuations relative to the U.S. equity market. BCA's Global Investment Strategy has pointed out that euro-area equities are one standard deviation undervalued relative to the U.S., when one applies U.S. sector weights to them (Chart 6). In addition, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service believes that Treasury yields have more room to rise, with growth putting upward pressure on inflation and the Fed in a rate-hike cycle. This makes sense to us given that no major geopolitical risk is materializing and considerable upside risk exists in U.S. growth due to Trump's populist policies. Chart 6European Stocks Still A Buy Relative To U.S. In what follows, we take a break from poring over geopolitical risks in Europe and the U.S. and focus on emerging markets. Since January, very few investors have asked us about EM politics, save for the occasional question about Brazil. However, the two Asian giants - China and India - are both a source of risk: the first a downside, left-tail risk and the second an upside, right-tail risk. China: What Comes After The Party Congress This Fall? Since 2013, we have been outspoken in our low expectations for China's structural reforms.5 This view was confirmed with a series of stimulus efforts that displaced reforms, including the local government debt swap program in 2014 and extensive fiscal and monetary easing in 2015 and especially 2016.6 The upside of weak reforms was better-than-expected growth in the short run, as stimulus took effect. Indeed, China has pulled off a remarkable economic turnaround since early last year: infrastructure and housing investment have increased, the weaker yuan has boosted exports, and the global recovery in commodity prices has helped producer prices to recover, easing deflationary pressures (Chart 7). Chart 7Deflationary Pressures Easing Chart 8Stimulus Dropped Off Accordingly, Chinese policymakers, who are attempting to strike a balance between stimulus and restructuring, have begun leaning against the economy's gathering momentum. Government spending has collapsed now that a 6.5% GDP growth "floor" has been established (Chart 8). A new round of property market regulatory tightening began last fall, though it has had little impact so far. Also, the People's Bank of China has begun draining some liquidity (Chart 9). Signals coming out of the "Two Sessions" over the past two weeks, namely the National People's Congress, suggest that the Chinese leadership is content with the current state of affairs. Policymakers set their growth targets for 2017 a little lower than last year's targets and a little higher than last year's actual performance (Table 2).7 It is a line so thin that it is almost imperceptible. They do not want significant change. Chart 9PBoC Draining Liquidity Table 2China's Economic Targets For 2017 This stance fits with a deeper desire to keep the economy on an even keel during a pivotal year for Chinese politics. The legislative session took place under the shadow of the Communist Party's impending 19th National Party Congress - the "midterm" meeting of the party that happens every five years and features extensive promotions, rotations, and retirements for the party leadership. This year's congress promises to be especially influential because of Xi Jinping's ascendancy and the fact that around 70% of the upper tier of leaders will be replaced. Chart 10, which we have been showing clients over the past year to dampen expectations of stimulus, reveals that the party congress is not normally an excuse to throw open the floodgates of credit and government spending. Rather, it is a reason to avoid anything that might rock the boat, whether stimulus or reform. Chart 10Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Five-Year Party Congresses Thus while government spending has declined, it should be expected to rise again if growth slows down too much for too long. There may be a period of slowdown and market jitters before the leaders reach for the fiscal lever again, but the "Socialist Put" remains in place. Meanwhile, we are not surprised that structural reforms continue to suffer. It is not that China has eschewed all reforms but rather that its reforms have focused on centralizing power for the ruling party and alleviating some outstanding social grievances. These are positive in themselves but they do not address the key concerns of foreign investors relating to economic openness, financial stability, and the role of the state. The recent imposition of capital controls and a host of non-tariff barriers in the name of "state security" exemplify a negative trend. The delayed rollout of the property tax is also a sign of Beijing's proclivity to delay policies that may be financially risky.8 And Beijing has only tentatively attempted to cut back state-owned enterprises. Simply put, a push to overhaul any significant sector or sub-sector does not fit Beijing's priorities at the moment. However, if growth, debt, or asset prices should climb too rapidly, then we expect countermeasures to tamp them down. Even on the geopolitical front - where we have a high conviction view that tail risks to financial markets are higher than the market perceives them to be, both in China and the broader Asia Pacific - there have been some signs of the U.S. and China playing ball on a shared desire for "stability," at least for the moment.9 While we expect a negative geopolitical shock, the market will only believe it when it sees it. All of the above suggest that China will focus on "maintaining stability" this year even more than usual due to the party congress. This is clearly bullish, especially given improving U.S. and global growth. However, the mantra of "stability" and "party congress" should not prevent investors from looking beyond October or November of this year. Chart 11China Needs More##br## Credit For Same Growth Chart 12China Gets Old ##br##Before It Gets Rich Even assuming that China experiences no significant internal or external economic shocks from now until this fall, it is important to remember that China's growth potential is still slowing for structural reasons. Productivity is collapsing and credit dependency is rising (Chart 11). The slowdown stems from deep shifts such as the end of the debt supercycle in the U.S. (weak external demand), the tipping point in Chinese demographics (higher dependency ratio) (Chart 12), and the extremely rapid build-up in corporate debt (Chart 13). Chart 13Corporate Debt Skyrockets Chart 14As Good As It Gets This is what leads our colleague Mathieu Savary, of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, to surmise that China is at the peak of its current economic mini-cycle. This is "as good as it gets," as he shows in Chart 14. Barring a situation in which Xi somehow fails to consolidate power at the party congress, the market impact will depend on which of two scenarios follows: First scenario: Xi achieves a dominant position in all party and state organs, yet 2018 sees a continuation of the current pattern of mini-cycles of stimulus, lackluster reform, and foreign policy aggressiveness. Xi implicitly deems the strategic cost of reform too great, as we argued he would do over the past four years, and dedicates his stint in office to the accumulation of power. Perhaps a successor will be able to use these powers to enact painful reforms in the mid-2020s; that is not Xi's immediate concern. This is short-term bullish for global and Chinese growth, long-term bearish for Chinese assets. Second scenario: Xi achieves a dominant position and uses his power to reinvigorate the country's stalled reforms. Hints of big measures emerge in the wake of the party congress in November or December, and January 2018 begins with a bang. This would necessarily mean that Xi accepts slower growth, or even that he imposes it through tighter fiscal policy, real credit control, SOE failures, and aggressive overcapacity cuts. However, Chinese productivity would begin to recover. This is short-term bearish for Chinese and global growth. However, it is the most bullish outcome for the long-term performance of Chinese assets. In China's current state - with capital controls newly reinstituted (Chart 15), Xi lauding the "central role" of SOEs in development, and Xi's administration still focused on purging the party and controlling the media - the second scenario admittedly seems far-fetched. Chart 15Are Capital Controls Working? Moreover, Xi seems averse to risky experiments at home that could weaken the country in the face of unprecedented strategic threats from the United States and Japan. Nevertheless, a 2018 reform push should not be dismissed out of hand. Why? Because an overbearing state, credit excesses, and weak productivity really do threaten the sustainability of the Chinese economy and hence the Communist Party's grip on power. Xi must keep them in check, as the current gestures toward tighter policy indicate. The government has overseen a massive monetary and credit expansion to protect the country from faltering external demand since 2008. As the current account surplus has declined, the country's massive savings have built up at home in the form of debt (Chart 16).10 Yet the investment avenues are restricted by the role of the state. As a result, the inefficient state-supported sector is getting propped up while the shadow financial sector grows wildly and creates murky systemic risks that are difficult to monitor and control. The PBoC has undertaken further extraordinary actions to keep financial conditions loose (Chart 17). Chart 16Savings Invested At Home Chart 17PBoC Lends A Helping Hand What signposts should investors watch for to see which path Xi will take after the party congress? Jockeying ahead of the party congress: The latest NPC session saw some political maneuvering. Several sixth generation leaders made appearances and spoke to media.11 Xi's supposed favorite, Chen Min'er, Party Secretary of Guizhou, distinguished himself by cutting reporters short at a press conference. Meanwhile former President Hu Jintao appeared publicly alongside his apprentice, Hu Chunhua, Party Secretary of Guangdong. Elite party gatherings in the summer, especially any retreat at Beidaihe, should be watched closely for any clues of who may be up and who down, and what general policy trajectory may be forthcoming. Xi's future: First, will Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang establish clear successors for their top two positions in 2022?12 A failure to do so will suggest that Xi intends to stay in power beyond his de facto term limit of 2022. This would mean that Xi will prioritize his own future over painful structural reforms. On the other hand, a clear commitment to a leadership transition in five years may re-focus the Xi-Li administration towards their initial commitment to economic restructuring. National Financial Work Conference: This conference is held every five years, usually connected with a major new financial reform or regulatory push, and due sometime in 2017. The government is looking into serious changes to financial regulation - including the creation of a super-ministry to house the various regulatory agencies. This, or the broader attempt to ensure adequate capitalization of banks, could be behind the delay. New central banker: Central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan, in office since 2002, may step down this fall. He could be replaced with another technocrat to little fanfare, but his exit introduces the opportunity for shaking up the PBoC regime as a whole. Other new officials: A slew of other appointments and reshuffles will take place this year as a generation of leaders born before the Revolution retires. A new director of the state economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, was just named, while late last year a new finance minister took his post. These officials have yet to make their mark. Their statements should be watched closely for any shifts in economic policy emphasis. Time frames for reforms: The market is still waiting for concrete proposals and time frames for major reform initiatives, particularly opening up to foreign competition and restructuring state-owned enterprises. Overcapacity cuts have also had mixed results. We do not expect major advances on big structural reforms this year due to the party congress, but details that can be gleaned about the process and timetables could be important. Bottom Line: Watch for signs of a renewed reform drive after the nineteenth National Party Congress. Xi is not going to reverse what he has done so far. And China is not going to become a market economy on the ideal western model. But a pivot point could be in the cards next year for China to pursue some pro-efficiency reforms that it has already set out for itself in a more resolute way. Xi's decision to stay in power beyond 2022 would be bearish for reforms as it would incentivize the current "Socialist Put" model of policymaking over a genuine paradigm shift. India: What Comes After Modi's Big Win? Prime Minister Narendra Modi has won a crushing victory in India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, positioning himself, his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition very well for the 2019 general elections. Policymaking is going to become easier for the ruling party - though there are still serious political and economic constraints. We have been long Indian equities relative to EM equities since the "Modi wave" began with Modi's victory in the Lok Sabha or lower house in 2014.13 The end of the commodity bull market signaled an opportunity for India, which imports about a third of its energy. The decline of global trade also heralded the outperformance of domestic demand-driven economies like India. Further, Modi's sweeping victory held out the promise for a reform agenda of tighter monetary and fiscal policy that would reduce inflation and make room for private investment to grow. This would make Indian risk assets attractive, especially relative to other EMs, which were at that time either lagging at reforms or failing to undertake them entirely. Since then we have seen Modi rack up a key legislative victory - the passage of the Goods and Services Tax, in the process of implementation - and engineer a surprise "demonetization" effort late last year to increase bank deposits, bring the country's gray markets into the open, and flush out crime and corruption.14 The ruling coalition's gains in Uttar Pradesh and a few other state elections this year are a striking vindication of popular support after this highly unconventional and controversial maneuver.15 Uttar Pradesh is the most important of these elections. It was slated to be a grand testing ground for Modi well before demonetization. It is the most populous Indian state, with about 200 million people, and the third largest state economy (producing about 10% of GDP). It is the second-poorest state, with a GDP per capita of about $730, it has the highest proportion of "scheduled castes" (untouchables), and ranks around the middle of states in terms of the Hindu share of population - all challenges for the landed, pro-business, Hindu nationalist BJP (Map 1). Politically, aside from its inherent heft in population and centrality, Uttar Pradesh sends the most representatives of any state to India's upper house (31 seats), the Rajya Sabha, where Modi lacks a majority. It is thus a key source of federal power and an important state ally. Map 1Modi's Saffron Wave Takes The Indian Core Given the above, it is hugely bullish that Modi's BJP romped to a historic victory in the state election, winning 312 out of 403 seats (about 39.7% of the vote), up from 47 seats previously. His coalition rose to 324 seats total (Chart 18). The BJP now has the largest majority of any party in the state since 1980. These results were not anticipated. A close election was predicted and opinion polls had BJP winning 157 seats, short of the 202 needed for a majority. This was only slightly ahead of its closest rival, an alliance made up of the local Samajwadi Party and its national partner, the left-leaning Indian National Congress (INC). Exit polls even suggested that the Samajwadi-INC coalition had edged ahead of the BJP. The immediate takeaway is that Modi will have better luck governing Uttar Pradesh itself now that the state government is on his side. Individual states hold the key to reform in India because of the country's size and socio-economic disparities. The state will now be expected to implement Modi's policies faithfully and push approved policies forward on its own. The second takeaway is that while Uttar Pradesh will not give Modi control of India's upper house of parliament, the Rajya Sabha, it will give him a better position there. The BJP has 56 seats in the upper house (fewer than the INC's 59), and the ruling coalition has 74, out of a total of 250. The coalition needs 52 seats for a simple majority. Uttar Pradesh will deliver 10 seats at most by the 2019 general election. Modi would have to win almost every seat of the 56 non-allied seats coming open between now and 2019 in order to win the upper house by that time (Chart 19). That is unlikely, but Modi is moving in the right direction and an upper-house majority cannot be ruled out in the long run. Chart 18Modi's Big Win In Uttar Pradesh Chart 19Modi's National Position Improves Of course, Modi has already shown with the Goods and Services Tax that he can pass very difficult legislation through the upper house without controlling a majority there. This achievement last year was perhaps an even greater surprise than the victory in Uttar Pradesh, which reinforces it. Modi also has a secret weapon: in case of a national emergency, however defined, he can call a joint session of parliament, where his coalition would carry the day. This is now more likely because it is the Indian president who is responsible for calling a joint session, and Modi is now more likely to get his candidate into that position due to the win in Uttar Pradesh. President Pranab Mukherjee, who is affiliated with the INC, will step down on July 25. Though Modi does not have all the votes in the electoral college to choose the president outright, smaller parties may fall in line now that the BJP has so much national momentum.16 Controlling the presidency will also give Modi greater influence over constitutional obstacles and gradually over the legal system. Separately, in August, Modi's alliance will be able to choose the vice president as well. More broadly, the Uttar Pradesh election marks a victory for Modi's style of appealing to voter demand for greater economic development as a general priority over longstanding religious and caste grievances that frequently determine electoral outcomes in state elections. This is a hugely significant indication for India's economic structural reform and nation building. Bottom Line: Modi's victory in Uttar Pradesh is proof that for all of India's sprawling inefficiencies, its political system is capable of responding to the large public demand for economic development. Do not underestimate reform momentum now. Modi's political capital remains high. Investment Conclusions The conventional wisdom has for decades been that China is better at reforming its economy because of its authoritarian regime, whereas India democratized too early and has thus lagged at reforms. We have never agreed with this simplistic view of economic reforms. Structural reforms are always and everywhere painful. As such, they require political capital. As our "J-Curve of Structural Reforms" posits, reforms deplete political capital as the pain spreads through the economy and opposition mounts among both the elite and the common man (Chart 20). Eventually, the government is faced with a "danger zone" in which the pain of reforms lingers, the benefits remain beyond the horizon, and all political capital is exhausted. Many leaders chose to water down the reforms, or back off from them altogether, at this point. Chart 20The J-Curve Of Structural Reform On the surface, authoritarian regimes have massive political capital with which to burst through the danger zone of reform. But this assumption is not entirely correct. In China's case, the political capital for reform came after disastrous performances by the "conservative" political forces. Reformers in China were buoyed by the failures of the "Cultural Revolution" (which ended in 1976) and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Each political and social crisis gave the reformers an opening - following a consolidation period - to pursue controversial economic reforms at the expense of "conservative" forces. The fruit of these reform efforts has been the growth of China's middle class. And while this middle class expects reforms in the delivery and quality of public services, it is not interested in seeing a slowdown in economic growth, no matter how temporary or healthy it may be. As such, Chinese leaders are faced with a significant hurdle to their reform preference: how to convince the public that a slowdown is needed in order to restructure the economy. We are unsure whether the upcoming party congress will make a difference. However, we can see a scenario where President Xi decides to pursue market-friendly reforms because he sees an increase in his political capital. In particular, he may feel that he has cemented his personal dominance over his intra-party rivals and that the aggressive foreign and trade policy emanating from the Trump White House gives him a foil to blame for any downturn in growth. Reform would also be a return to Xi's original agenda, and would conform to the playbook of former president Jiang Zemin, whose precedents Xi has followed in some other areas. Given Xi's modus operandi, a post-consolidation reform drive would be executed relatively effectively and would therefore present short-term risks to Chinese and hence global growth, despite the long-term improvement. Markets are definitely not expecting such a policy pivot at the moment. China bulls are content with the current reforms, while China bears see no chance of the Xi administration changing tack. While we are just beginning to see the potential for a turn in Chinese policymaking towards reforms, India is a much clearer example of a reformist administration. Modi will feel empowered by the Uttar Pradesh election, a political recapitalization of sorts. Foreign investment will likely continue cheering Modi's ongoing revolution (Chart 21). The question now is whether Modi intends to use the infusion of political capital for genuine reforms. After all, the economy is not looking up (Chart 22). Chart 21Foreign Investors Cheer On Modi Chart 22Indian Economy Still Weak The evidence is mixed. First, Modi has not maintained strictness on fiscal spending and the budget deficit is creeping back to where it was when he took over the reins (Chart 23). Rising government spending along with higher commodity prices suggest that inflation will continue making a comeback (Chart 24). Poor food production is also driving up inflation. And higher spending and inflation pose a key threat to the sustainability of the reform agenda, since rising government bond yields will crowd out private investment. Chart 23Losing Budgetary Discipline? Chart 24Inflation Makes A Comeback Second, the RBI will be less likely to pursue a tighter monetary policy with both political influence and weak growth pressing on it. Moreover, Indian stocks are not all that cheap. In 2014, valuations were favorable and the backdrop included cheap commodities, fiscal prudence, and Modi's electoral success. Today, India is trading at its historical mean relative to EM (Chart 25), but using the equal sector weighted P/E ratio, by which India was very cheap back in 2014, India is at a 52% premium now (Chart 26). Chart 25Indian Stocks Trading##br## At Mean Against EM Chart 26Indian Stocks Pricey##br## Versus EM Sector-Weighted We are therefore taking this opportunity to close our long India / short EM trade for a 28% gain (since May 2014). We will reassess Modi's structural reform priorities in future research and gauge whether a new entry point is warranted. We remain optimistic on India in the long run as Modi certainly has the political capital for reforms. The question is whether he plans to use it. Meanwhile, we remain skeptical about China's long-term trajectory. To become fully optimistic about Chinese risk assets in absolute terms, we need to see the Xi administration chose short-term pain for long-term gain. For the time being, China continues to repress its structural problems rather than deal with them head on, relying on minimal openness, high and rising leverage, and state-owned banks and companies. India may be lagging in its reform effort, but it has at least established market reforms as a priority. And the Modi administration has built political capital through the slow and painful democratic process. Over the long term, India's approach is more sustainable. If President Xi wastes the opportunity afforded to him by the upcoming party congress, we suspect that China will face a much higher probability of left-tail economic risks than India over the long term. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "How Expensive Are U.S. Stocks?," dated March 13, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: Entering A Lower-Beta Paradigm," dated March 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and "China: The Socialist Put And Rising Government Leverage" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "Messages From The People's Congress," dated March 9, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Chong Koh Ping, "No plans for NPC to discuss property tax," Straits Times, March 5, 2017, available at www.straitstimes.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 China's leadership is typically referred to in terms of "generations," with Mao Zedong and his peers the first generation, Deng Xiaoping and his cohort the second, Jiang Zemin the third, Hu Jintao the fourth, and Xi Jinping the fifth. The fifth generation was born in the early 1950s, the sixth generation was born in the early 1960s. 12 Xi may tweak retirement norms to let close allies, like Wang Qishan, the anti-graft attack dog, stay on the Politburo Standing Committee. This might also suggest that Xi himself intends to overstay his age limit in 2022. 13 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Long Modi, Short Jokowi," dated August 28, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Long Indian / Short Indonesian Stocks," dated July 30, 2014, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "India: Demonetization And Opportunities In Equities," in Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Untenable Divergences," dated December 21, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 15 Though the mixed results also indicate persistent regional differences. Modi's coalition won seats in Uttarakhand and Manipur but lost them in Goa and Punjab. Gujarat, Modi's home state, will hold elections later this year. Himachal Pradesh will also vote this year and will be a subsequent testing ground. 16 Please see Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar, "BJP Sweep in UP Will Impact Decision on President, Rajya Sabha Numbers," The Wire, March 12, 2017, available at https://thewire.in/116044/bjp-sweep-will-impact-decision-president/