Emerging Markets

Highlights The Chinese government will be applying more scrutiny and tighter oversight over lending for ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative (BRI) projects going forward. As a result, total BRI investment with Chinese financing will fall moderately – by 5% to US$135 billion in 2020 from US$142 billion in 2019. BRI investment is too small relative to mainland capital spending. Hence, the global outlook for capital goods and industrial commodities will be driven by Chinese capex, not BRI. BRI Overview Chart I-1Chinese BRI Investment: Likely To Decline In 2020 China has been promoting and implementing its strategic ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative (BRI) since late 2013. The country has so far signed about 200 BRI cooperation documents with 137 countries and 30 international organizations. The government’s strong push has resulted in a surge in Chinese BRI investment, albeit with a major downturn in 2018 (Chart I-1). BRI projects center on infrastructure development such as transportation (railways, highways, subways and bridges), energy (power plants and pipelines) and telecommunications infrastructure in recipient countries covered by the BRI program. Chart I-2 demonstrates the geographical reach of the BRI as well as transportation linkages/routes being built and funded by it. We discussed the BRI in great detail in a special report published in September 2017. Chart I-2The Belt And Road Program The cumulative size of the signed contracts with BRI-recipient countries over the past six years is about US$700 billion, of which US$460 billion has already been completed. However, the value of newly signed contracts in a year does not equal the actual project investment that occurred in that year, as these contracts generally take several years to be implemented and completed. In this report, “BRI investment” encompasses realized investments for BRI projects, which we derive from the official data of “BRI newly signed contracts.” Based on our calculations, Chinese BRI investment reached about US$142 billion in 2019, equaling about 2% of nominal gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) in China. The latter in 2019 was about US$6 trillion. Yet, BRI is much larger than multilateral funding for the developing world. For example, current annual financing disbursements from the World Bank are only about US$50 billion. Looking into 2020, due to a number of considerations, the Chinese government’s attitude towards BRI project financing will continue to shift from aggressive to a stricter and more-cautious stance. Looking into 2020, due to a number of considerations, the Chinese government’s attitude towards BRI project financing will continue to shift from aggressive to a stricter and more-cautious stance. Consequently, we expect a 10% decline in the total value of annual newly signed contracts in 2020, slightly less than the 13% decline in 2018. In addition, we also expect the average implementation period for BRI projects to be slightly longer this year than last year. Based on these expectations, our projection is that realized Chinese BRI investment in 2020 will likely fall moderately – by 5% to US$135 billion this year from US$142 billion in 2019 (Chart I-1 and Table I-1). Table I-1Projection Of Chinese BRI Project Investment In 2020 BRI Investments: More Scrutiny Ahead The Chinese authorities are constantly recalibrating their BRI implementation strategy. The lessons learned over the past six years as well as shifting domestic macro and global geopolitical landscapes all suggest even more scrutiny ahead. First, the Chinese government has learned hard lessons that easy large lending/financing can result in unanticipated negative consequences. In the past six years, the Chinese government has actively promoted the BRI by providing considerable amounts of financing to BRI projects. The main objectives of the BRI have been: (1) to export China’s excess capacity in heavy industries and construction to other countries; and (2) to build transportation and communication networks to facilitate trade between China and other regions. Although the projects have indeed improved infrastructure and connectivity and boosted both current and potential growth rates in the recipient countries, there have been numerous cases of debt restructuring demand by borrowers as well as growing criticism on China’s BRI as “debt trap diplomacy.” The argument is that China makes loans and uses the debt as leverage to secure land or strategic infrastructure in the recipient countries – in addition to the Middle Kingdom promoting its own geopolitical interests. History will eventually reveal whether BRI constituted “debt trap diplomacy.” As of now, China has either renegotiated or written off debt for some debt-strapped BRI- recipient countries rather than seize their assets. Among all BRI projects spreading over 60 countries in the past six years, there has been only one asset seizure case in Sri Lanka. Crucially, increasingly more BRI-recipient countries are now demanding to renegotiate the terms of their loans and financing, asking China for more favorable concessions, debt forgiveness and write-offs. The reasons run the gamut: from BRI projects not generating enough cash flow to service debt to simple requests among recipient countries for better financing terms. These demands are reducing the value of China’s claims on both BRI projects and recipient countries, and curtailing its willingness to finance more BRI projects. In general, China has learned again that substantially augmenting investments in a single stroke – whether on the mainland or in other countries – produces capital misallocation. The latter results in unviable debtors and bad assets on balance sheets of financiers. Second, many BRI investment projects have suffered delays or cancellations due to changes in the recipient countries’ governments. Reducing both unanticipated negative consequences and unexpected delays/ cancellations requires more scrutiny and tighter oversight on BRI projects by the Chinese government, which is on the way. In April 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for high-quality, sustainability and transparency in implementing BRI projects, as well as a zero-tolerance policy towards corruption. He also stressed that China would only support open cooperation and clean governance when pursuing BRI projects. China’s Ministry of Finance last year released a new document titled, The Debt Sustainability Framework for Participating Countries of the Belt and Road Initiative, in order to identify debt stress among recipient countries and prevent defaults. China, in April, rejected the Kenyan government’s request of US$3.7 billion in new loans for the third phase of its standard gauge railway (SGR) line amid concerns about the country’s finances. In Zimbabwe, the Export-Import Bank of China backed out of providing financing for a giant solar project due to the government’s legacy debts. To be sure, like any lender, the risks and costs fall to Chinese banks and financing providers in the event of a default. Therefore, increasing scrutiny of such projects is in the best interests of China as a whole. That said, the BRI is a signature initiative of President Xi and still has many positives for China. Specifically, it helps the country export its excess capacity, increase its trade with the rest of the world and expand the country’s geopolitical influence. Therefore, any slowdown in the BRI will be marginal. China will tweak and may reduce the pace of BRI investment moderately, but it will not halt it outright. Like any lender, the risks and costs fall to Chinese banks and financing providers in the event of a default. Therefore, increasing scrutiny of such projects is in the best interests of China as a whole. Bottom Line: There will be increasing scrutiny of BRI projects by the Chinese government. Consequently, it will become incrementally more difficult for BRI countries to obtain financing from China in 2020. Nevertheless, the pace of BRI will slow somewhat but not plunge, given the program’s strategic benefits for China. BRI Financing: Switching From Dollar- To Yuan-Denominated Chinese banks have been the major BRI funding providers. Table I-2 shows Chinese policy banks and large state-owned commercial banks accounted for about 51% and 41% of BRI funding in the past five years, respectively. Table I-2China's BRI Funding Sources During 2014-2018 Debt and equity financing are the two major types of BRI funding, with the former playing the dominant role in the form of bank loans and BRI-specialized bond issuance. While the majority of BRI financing to date – about 83% of the total, according to our estimates – has been denominated in foreign currency (mainly in US dollars), there has been a noticeable rise in loans and bond issuance denominated in yuan. In May 2017, President Xi encouraged domestic financial institutions to promote overseas RMB-denominated financing for BRI projects. In the past two and a half years, about 17% of BRI financing has been in yuan. Before May 2017, such yuan-denominated loans for BRI projects were insignificant. Yuan-denominated BRI loans: The two Chinese policy banks have provided more than RMB 380 billion (equivalent to US$55 billion) in BRI-specialized loans in RMB terms over the past two and half years. Offshore yuan-denominated BRI-related bond issuance by Chinese banks and companies: There has been an increasing amount of BRI-specialized bond issuance in RMB terms offshore over the past several years as well. Onshore yuan-denominated BRI-related bond issuance by governments and organizations/companies of recipient countries: Since 2018, foreign private companies and government agencies have been allowed to issue RMB-denominated BRI bonds onshore in China. There are three reasons why the Chinese authorities will continue to encourage more yuan-denominated financing for BRI projects. Chart I-3China: Few FX Reserves Compared With RMB Money Supply First, balance-of-payment constraints make RMB funding for BRI more desirable. US dollar financing for BRI initiatives inevitably creates demand for the People’s Bank of China’s increasingly precious foreign-exchange resources. The main risk to China’s balance of payments is the 177 trillion of local currency deposits of households and enterprises. The PBoC’s US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves accounts for only 12% of Chinese total deposits (Chart I-3). Chinese households and private enterprises prefer to hold a higher proportion of their assets in foreign currencies than they do now. This will continue to generate capital outflows, and risks depleting the nation’s foreign currency reserves. Given potential capital outflows from the domestic private sector, China will be careful in expanding state-sponsored capital outflows, including US dollar-denominated BRI financing. Therefore, increasing RMB-denominated funding will reduce US dollar outflows and diminish pressure on China’s foreign exchange reserves. Second, providing BRI financing in yuan promotes RMB internationalization, which is a major long-term objective of China. When a borrower (whether Chinese or foreign entity) with a BRI project obtains yuan-denominated financing, it is encouraged to also pay its suppliers in yuan. As a result, more global trade is settled in renminbi, promoting its internationalization. This is especially convenient when the borrower buys goods and services from China, as they can easily pay in yuan. In cases where a borrower has to buy services and equipment from other countries and is required to pay in US dollars, the renminbis will go into foreign exchange markets. On margin, this will drive the yuan’s value versus the US dollar lower. Provided China has excess capacity in many raw materials and industrial goods, there is a lot of scope to expand RMB financing for BRI projects, with limited downward pressure on the yuan’s exchange rate. In short, RMB-denominated funding will be used to buy Chinese goods. Chart I-4Low Odds Of Acceleration In Bank Financing In 2020 Finally, in any country, banks originate local-currency denominated loans “out of thin air,” – i.e., bank balance sheet expansion is not constrained by national savings. We have written about this extensively in numerous past reports. Theoretically, there is no hard limit on much in yuan-denominated loans Chinese commercial banks can originate, nor how many yuan-denominated bonds they can buy. What constrains commercial banks from expanding their assets infinitely is banking regulation, liquidity constraints (their excess reserves at the central bank rather than deposits), worries about asset impairment and a lack of loan demand among borrowers. Among these, the most pertinent that could cap the amount of BRI financing originated by Chinese banks is macro-prudential bank regulation that is being implemented by regulators in a piecemeal way to cap leverage among enterprises, households, local governments and banks themselves. Chart I-4 illustrates that banks’ asset growth is on par with nominal GDP, and has recently rolled over. The Chinese authorities target bank assets, bank broad credit and broad money growth at the level of potential nominal GDP growth. This entails low odds of acceleration in bank financing in general and BRI projects in particular. Meanwhile, the need for BRI debt restructuring and provisioning will also lead mainland commercial banks to become slightly more cautious in BRI financing. Bottom Line: Both RMB- and US dollar- denominated financing for BRI projects will marginally diminish in 2020. Macro Implications Chart I-5Deep Contraction In Chinese Property Construction... Implications For Commodities And Capital Goods The size of BRI investments in 2019 – US$142 billion – accounts for only about 2% of China’s nominal GFCF. Hence, BRI investment is too small relative to mainland capital spending. This is why we often do not incorporate BRI when analyzing China’s capital spending cycle. In 2020, we are still negative on China’s property construction activity due to weak real estate demand and increasing difficulty for indebted property developers to secure financing (Chart I-5). There will likely be a moderate growth rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment. However, it will not be able to offset the negative impact on commodities and capital goods from weaker BRI investment and mainland contracting property construction. All in all, the recovery in Chinese capital goods imports will be moderate (Chart I-6). Notably, prices of steel, industrial metals and other raw materials do not signal widespread and robust recovery as of now (Chart I-7). Chart I-6...And In Chinese Capital Goods Imports Chart I-7Commodity Prices Do Not Signal Widespread And Robust Recovery     Impact On Chinese Exports Chinese exports to BRI countries have done much better than its shipments elsewhere (Chart I-8). For example, Chinese exports to ASEAN countries showed a strong 10.4% year-on-year growth in 2019, versus a 1% contraction in overall exports. The ASEAN countries that received significant amounts of BRI investments posted double-digit growth in imports from China. There are two primary reasons behind the stronger growth in Chinese exports to BRI-recipient countries. 1. As most of China’s BRI investment has focused on infrastructure projects, it has significantly increased recipient countries’ imports of capital goods and raw materials. Chart I-9 shows that Chinese exports of digging and excavating machines have gone vertical. Chart I-8Strong Growth In Chinese Exports To BRI Countries Chart I-9Surging Chinese Exports Of Digging And Excavating Machines   2. Considerable BRI investment has propelled recipient countries’ income growth. Chart I-10 reveals a positive correlation between capital spending as a share of GDP and real GDP growth across 33 BRI-receiving developing economies during the BRI implementation period of 2014-2018. Hence, BRI investments have considerable impact on both potential and current growth of recipient countries. Chart I-10Strong Capital Spending Tend To Facilitate Real Economic Growth Chart I-11BRI Helped Boost Chinese Consumer Goods Exports Robust income growth has boosted demand for household goods (Chart I-11). China has a very strong competitive advantage in consumer goods production, especially in low-price segments that are popular in developing economies. Despite a slight drop in overall BRI investment, we still expect solid growth (albeit less than in 2019) in Chinese exports to BRI countries in 2020. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes

Highlights 2020 Model Bond Portfolio Positioning: Translating our 2020 global fixed income Key Views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio comes up with the following conclusions: target a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. Country Allocations: The cyclical improvement in global growth heralded by leading indicators should put upward pressure on overall global bond yields in 2020. With central banks likely to maintain accommodative policy settings to try and boost depressed inflation expectations, government bond allocations should reflect each country’s “beta” to global yield changes. That means favoring lower-beta countries (Japan, Germany, Spain, Australia, the UK) over higher-beta countries (the US, Canada, Italy). Spread Product: Better global growth, combined with stimulative monetary conditions, will provide an ideal backdrop for growth-sensitive spread product like corporate bonds to outperform government debt this year. We are maintaining an overweight stance on US high-yield credit, while increasing overweights to euro area corporates (both investment grade and high-yield). With the US dollar likely to soften as 2020 evolves, emerging market hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, is poised to outperform – we are upgrading both to overweight. Feature Welcome to our first report of the New Year. Just before our holiday break last month, we published our 2020 “Key Views” report, outlining the thematic implications of the BCA 2020 Outlook for global bond markets.1 In this follow-up report, we turn those themes into specific investment recommendations for the next twelve months. We will also make any necessary changes to the allocations in the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio to reflect our themes. The main takeaway is that 2020 will be a much different year than 2019, when virtually all global fixed income classes delivered solid absolute returns. The unusual combination of rapidly falling government bond yields and stable-to-narrowing spreads on the majority of credit products – especially in developed market corporate debt – will not be repeated in 2020. Absolute returns from fixed income will be far lower than in 2019, forcing bond investors to focus on relative returns across maturities, countries and credit sectors to generate outperformance. With global monetary policy to remain stimulative, alongside improved global growth, market volatility should remain subdued over the next 6-12 months. Being more aggressive on overall levels of portfolio risk, particularly through higher allocations to markets like high-yield corporates and emerging market (EM) credit, is a solid strategy in a world of low risk-free interest rates and tame volatility. Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views As a reminder, the main fixed income investment themes from our 2020 Key Views report were the following: Global growth will rebound in 2020, led by the US and China, putting upward pressure on global bond yields. Central banks will stay dovish until policy reflation has clearly turned into inflation, limiting how high bond yields can climb in 2020 but sowing the seeds for a far more bond-bearish backdrop in 2021. Accommodative monetary policy and faster growth will delay the peak in the aging global credit cycle. Returns on global fixed income will be far lower in 2020 than in 2019, given rich valuation starting points. Country and sector selection will be more important in driving fixed income outperformance. We now present the specific fixed income investment recommendations that derive from those themes, described along the following lines: overall portfolio risk, overall duration exposure, country allocations within government bonds, yield curve allocations within countries, and corporate credit allocations by country and credit rating. Overall Portfolio Risk: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE Global growth is in the process of bottoming out after the sharp manufacturing-driven slowdown in 2019. The cumulative lagged impact of monetary easing by central banks last year, led by the US Federal Reserve cutting rates and the European Central Bank (ECB) restarting its Asset Purchase Program, is a main reason why growth is set to rebound. Reduced trade uncertainty between the US and China should augment the impact of easier monetary policy through improved business confidence. Our global leading economic indicator (LEI), which has increased for nine consecutive months, is already heralding this improvement in the global economy. Our global LEI diffusion index – which measures the number of countries with a rising LEI and is itself a leading indicator of the LEI – suggests more gains ahead as 2020 progresses. The LEI diffusion index is also a reliable leading indicator of bond market volatility, with the former signaling that the latter will remain quiescent in 2020 (Chart 1). At the same time, cross-asset correlations across fixed income sectors should drift a bit higher alongside a more broad-based upturn in global economic growth and expanding monetary liquidity via central bank asset purchases (Chart 2). This pickup in correlations suggests that there is scope for markets that lagged the 2019 global credit rally, like EM USD-denominated sovereign debt, to make up for that underperformance in 2020. Chart 1Improving Global Growth Will Keep Volatility Subdued Chart 2Cross-Asset Correlations Should Increase In 2020 The combination of better growth, stable volatility – but with only a mild rise in correlations – is a good backdrop to take a somewhat more aggressive investment stance in fixed income portfolios in 2020.  The combination of better growth, stable volatility – but with only a mild rise in correlations – is a good backdrop to take a somewhat more aggressive investment stance in fixed income portfolios in 2020. We prefer to take that additional risk by adding to our recommended overweight to global credit, rather than further reducing our below-benchmark overall duration exposure. Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: BELOW BENCHMARK Chart 3Global Bond Yields Poised To Move Higher The improvement in global growth that we are anticipating in 2020 would normally be expected to put upward pressure on the real component of global government bond yields (Chart 3, top panel). This would initially manifest itself through asset allocation shifts out of bonds into equities and, later, through expectations of rate hikes and tighter monetary policy. However, with all major developed market central banks now expressing a desire to keep policy as easy as possible to try and boost inflation expectations, the cyclical move higher in real yields is likely to be more muted in 2020. However, given our expectation that the US dollar is likely to see a moderate decline, as global capital flows move into more growth-sensitive markets in EM and Europe, there is scope for global bond yields to rise via higher inflation expectations – especially with global oil prices likely to move a bit higher, as our commodity strategists expect (bottom two panels). We recommend only a moderate below-benchmark overall duration exposure in global fixed income portfolios in 2020, given that real yields will likely stay relatively muted. Investors should maintain core allocations to inflation-linked bonds, however, to benefit from the pickup in inflation expectations that is likely to occur this year. We recommend only a moderate below-benchmark overall duration exposure in global fixed income portfolios in 2020, given that real yields will likely stay relatively muted. Investors should maintain core allocations to inflation-linked bonds, however, to benefit from the pickup in inflation expectations that is likely to occur this year. Government Bond Country Allocation: UNDERWEIGHT HIGHER-BETA MARKETS, OVERWEIGHT LOWER-BETA MARKETS At the country level, we would typically let our expectations of monetary policy changes guide our recommended allocations. Yet in 2020, we see very little potential for any change in monetary policy outside of Australia (where rate cuts can happen early in the year) and Canada (where a rate hike may be possible later in the year). Thus, we think that a more useful framework for making fixed income country allocation decisions in 2020 is to rely on the “yield betas” of each country to changes in the overall level of global bond yields. Chart 4 shows the three-year trailing yield betas for 10-year government bonds of the major developed markets. Changes in the 10-year yields are compared to the yield of the 7-10 year maturity bucket of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index (as a proxy for the unobservable “global bond yield”). On that basis, the higher-beta markets are the US, Canada and Italy, while the lower-beta markets are Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Australia and the UK. Thus, we want to maintain underweight positions in the former group and overweight positions in the latter group. At the moment, we already have most of those tilts within our model bond portfolio, with two exceptions: we are currently neutral (benchmark index weight) in the UK and Canada. For the UK, Brexit uncertainty has made it difficult to take a strong view on the direction of Gilt yields - a problem now compounded further with Andrew Bailey set to take over from Mark Carney as the new Governor of the Bank of England. Staying neutral, for now, still seems like the best strategy until all the policy uncertainties are fully resolved. Canadian bond yields are more likely to maintain their “higher-beta” status as global yields rise, as we discussed in a recent report.2 Thus, this week, we move our recommended allocation for Canadian government bonds to underweight from neutral. For Canada, the growth and inflation data continue to print strong enough to keep the Bank of Canada on a relatively more hawkish path than the other developed market central banks. This suggests that Canadian bond yields are more likely to maintain their “higher-beta” status as global yields rise, as we discussed in a recent report.2 Thus, this week, we move our recommended allocation for Canadian government bonds to underweight from neutral. Applying Our Global Golden Rule To Government Bond Allocations In September 2018, we published a Special Report introducing a government bond return forecasting methodology called the “Global Golden Rule.”3 This is an extension of a framework introduced by our sister service, US Bond Strategy, that links US Treasury returns (versus cash) to changes in the fed funds rate not already discounted in the US Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. That relationship also holds in other developed market countries, where there is a clear correlation between the level of bond yields and our 12-month discounters, which measure the change in policy rates over the next year priced into OIS curves (Chart 5). Chart 4Favor Lower-Beta Government Bond Markets In 2020 In Table 1, we show the expected returns generated by the Global Golden Rule (shown hedged into US dollars) for the countries in our model bond portfolio universe, based on monetary policy scenarios that we deem to be most plausible for 2020. Chart 5Monetary Policy Expectations Will Remain Critical For Bond Yields In Table 2, we show the returns on a duration-adjusted basis (expected total return divided by duration). We then rank the return scenarios for overall country indices, aggregating the returns of the individual yield curve maturity buckets shown in those two tables, in Table 3. Table 1Global Golden Rule Forecasts For 2020 The results in Table 1 show that expected returns are still expected to be positive across most countries, although this is largely due to the gains from hedging into higher-yielding US dollars. The duration-adjusted returns shown in Table 2 look most attractive at the front-end of yield curves across all the countries. This is somewhat consistent with our view, discussed in the 2020 Key Views report, that investors should expect some “bear-steepening” of global yield curves over the course of this year as inflation expectations drift higher (Chart 6). Table 2Global Golden Rule Duration-Adjusted Forecasts For 2020   Chart 6Expect A Mild Reflationary Bear Steepening Of Global Yield Curves Table 3Ranking The 2020 Return Scenarios The results in Table 3 show that the best expected returns would come in rate cutting scenarios – an unsurprising outcome given that there is very little change in policy rates currently discounted in OIS curves in all countries in our model bond portfolio universe. We see rates more likely to remain stable across all countries, however, making the “rates flat” scenarios in the middle of Table 3 more likely in 2020. After our downgrade of Canada this week, our recommended country allocations now reflect both yield betas and the results of our Global Golden Rule. Spread Product Allocation: OVERWEIGHT GLOBAL CORPORATES VERSUS GOVERNMENT BONDS, IN THE US, EURO AREA AND EM Chart 7Stay Overweight US High-Yield Turning to credit markets, the shift of global central banks to a more accommodative stance – with global growth improving – has opened a window for another year of outperformance versus sovereign bonds in 2020. With market volatility likely to remain low, as discussed earlier, there is a strong case to increase credit allocations relative to government debt as 2020 begins. Turning to credit markets, the shift of global central banks to a more accommodative stance – with global growth improving – has opened a window for another year of outperformance versus sovereign bonds in 2020. We already have a recommended overweight allocation to US high-yield corporate debt within our model bond portfolio. As we discussed in a recent report, the conditions that would lead us to become more cautious on US junk bonds – deteriorating corporate health, restrictive Fed policy and tightening bank lending standards – are currently not in place (Chart 7).4 If US economic growth starts to rebound in the first half of 2020, as we expect, then the case for US junk bond outperformance is even stronger. We are maintaining only a neutral allocation to US investment grade corporates, however, but this is part of a relative value view versus US Agency mortgage backed securities, which look more attractive on a volatility-adjusted basis.5 We are comfortable with our US credit views, but we are making the following changes this week to raise the credit allocation in our model bond portfolio: Upgrade EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt to overweight. The two conditions that typically must be in place before EM hard currency debt can outperform – a softer US dollar and improving global growth – are now both in place. The two conditions that typically must be in place before EM hard currency debt can outperform – a softer US dollar and improving global growth – are now both in place (Chart 8). The momentum in the US dollar has clearly rolled over and even in level terms, the trade-weighted dollar is peaking. Add in the improvement in both our global LEI and the global manufacturing PMI (and the China PMI, most importantly) and the case for upgrading EM hard currency debt for 2020 is a strong one. Increase the size of overweights to euro area investment grade and high-yield corporate debt. We already have a modest overweight stance on euro area corporate bonds in our model bond portfolio, based on our expectations that the ECB will maintain a highly-accommodative stance – which could include buying more corporate debt in its Asset Purchase Program. Yet with an increasing body of evidence highlighting that the sharp downturn in European growth seen in 2019 is bottoming out, the argument for raising euro area corporate bond allocations for this year is compelling. This is especially true for euro area high-yield, where the backdrop looks even more constructive (Chart 9) compared to US junk bonds using the same metrics described above – corporate health (not deteriorating), monetary policy (not restrictive) and lending standards (not tightening). Chart 8Upgrade EM Credit To Overweight Chart 9Increase Overweights To European Credit Summing It All Up: Our Model Bond Portfolio Adjustments To Begin 2019 The outlook described in our 2020 Key Views report, and in this week’s report, lead us to make several adjustments to our model bond portfolio weightings seen in the table on Pages 15 and 16. The results of those changes are the following: Duration: We are maintaining an overall portfolio duration of 6.5 years, which is 0.5 years below that of our custom benchmark portfolio index (Chart 10). Credit Allocation: We are increasing the allocation to EM USD-denominated debt, funded by reducing exposure to US Treasuries. We are also increasing the size of the overweight positions in euro area investment grade and high-yield corporate debt, funded by cutting allocations to German and French government bonds. The net effect of these changes is to increase our total spread product weighting to 57% of the portfolio (Chart 11), which represents an overweight tilt versus the benchmark of +15% (versus a +8% overweight prior to this week’s changes). Chart 10Stay Below-Benchmark On Duration Exposure Chart 11A Larger Recommended Allocation To Spread Product For 2020 Country Allocation: We are cutting the Canadian government bond allocation to underweight, while making additional modest adjustments to yield curve positioning in the US, Japan, and the UK to reflect the output from our Global Golden Rule. The net result of these changes, combined with the increased allocation to corporate bonds, is to boost the overall portfolio yield to 3%, which represents a positive carry of +43bps versus our benchmark index (Chart 12). Chart 12Greater Portfolio Yield To Begin 2020 Chart 13Move To A Moderately Aggressive Level Of Portfolio Risk Overall Portfolio Risk: All of the above changes represent an increase in the usage of the “risk budget” of our model bond portfolio, which is now running a tracking error (or excess volatility versus that of the benchmark) of 73bps (Chart 13). This is higher than the 58bps prior to this week’s changes, but is still below the maximum allowable tracking error of 100bps that we have imposed on the model portfolio since its inception. This is consistent with our view that investors should maintain a “moderately aggressive” level of risk in fixed income portfolios in 2020.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “2020 Key Views: Delay Of Reckoning”, dated December 12th 2019, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How Sweet It Is”, dated November 6, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated September 25th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Lowdown On Low-Rated High-Yield”, dated November 27, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Big Mo(mentum) Is Turning Positive”, dated October 29, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Feature One of BCA Research’s key geopolitical views since May 2019, outlined recently in our 2020 Outlook, is rapidly materializing: a dramatic escalation in the US-Iran conflict. On January 3 the United States successfully conducted a drone strike against a convoy carrying two high-level targets near the Baghdad International Airport. These were Iranian General Qassim Soleimani and his key Iraqi associate, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes. The former, Soleimani, was Iran’s most influential military and intelligence leader, and one of its most powerful leaders overall. He was the head of the formidable Quds Force, the overseas arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the staunchest military wing of the regime at home and abroad. The latter target, al-Muhandes, was the head of Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah militia and the broader coalition of pro-Iran Shiite militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This coalition was partly responsible for defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Since then it has sought to consolidate Iranian influence in Iraq, pushing back against Iraqi Sunnis and Shia nationalists, and their allies in the US and Persian Gulf. Chart 1Bull Market In US-Iran Tensions The US assassinations follow a significant increase in Iranian and Iran-backed militant attacks against US allies in the Middle East this year. These stem from a breakdown in the US-Iran diplomatic detente that was enshrined in the 2015 nuclear agreement. President Donald Trump revoked this agreement in 2018 and in May 2019 imposed crippling sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and economy — initiating a “bull market” in US-Iran strategic tensions (Chart 1). Recent events show a clear path of strategic escalation — even in the wake of a summer of “fire and fury” and the extraordinary Iran-backed attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery in September. Widespread popular unrest has dissolved the Iraqi government, creating intense competition between Iraqi nationalists, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and Iran’s proxies, led by al-Muhandes and the PMF. This unrest marked a significant challenge to Iran’s sphere of influence and necessitated an Iranian backlash. For instance, al-Sadr’s enemies attacked his headquarters with a drone in early December. Meanwhile Kataib Hezbollah launched a spate of rocket strikes against US and Iraqi bases that culminated in the death of an American contractor near Kirkuk on December 28 — crossing an American red line. The US retaliated with damaging air strikes against Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria on December 29, prompting a PMF blockade of the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. While this was a limited blockade, the US has now retaliated by assassinating Soleimani and al-Muhandes, taking the conflict to a new level. There is every reason to expect tensions to escalate further in the new year. First, the Iranian regime is under severe economic stress due to the US sanctions and broader global slowdown (Charts 2A&B). Domestic protests have erupted in recent years, while the regime struggles with economic isolation, a restless youth population, and a looming succession when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei eventually steps down. This is an existential struggle for the regime, while President Trump may only be in office for 12 months. Public opinion polls show that the Iranian populace blames the government for economic mismanagement, and yet that the renewed conflict with the US under the Trump administration is shifting the blame to US sanctions (Chart 3). Hence the regime will continue to distract the populace by resisting Trump’s pressure tactics. Chart 2ARegime Survival ... Chart 2B... An Existential Challenge     Chart 3US Conflict Distracts From Domestic Woes This tendency will be reinforced by the death of Soleimani, which heightens the regime’s vulnerability while rallying domestic support due to Soleimani’s popularity as a leader (Chart 4). The regime is looking to its survival over the long run. It would be a remarkable shift in policy for Tehran to enter negotiations with Trump, since it would then risk vindicating his “maximum pressure” doctrine, possibly helping him secure a second term in office. Chart 4Hard-Line Soleimani Was Popular (Reformist President Rouhani Is Not) Meanwhile President Trump’s circumstances are apparently urging him to double down on his aggressive foreign policy against Iran. First, while he will not be removed from office by a Republican Senate, his impeachment trial threatens to mar his re-election chances. This is a prime motivation to pursue foreign policy objectives to distract the public and seek policy wins. Chart 5Falling Oil Import Dependency Emboldens US Second, the Trump administration may feel emboldened by the rise of US shale oil production and decline in US oil import dependency (Chart 5). Simulations we published in our December 6 Strategic Outlook show that Iran would have to sustain an oil supply cutoff as large as the Abqaiq attack for four months in order to drive gasoline prices high enough to harm the US economy as a whole. This buffer may have convinced Trump he has plenty of room for maneuver in confronting Iran. Third, Trump undoubtedly feels the need to maintain the credibility of his threats against Iran, North Korea, and other nations given his impeachment, widely known electoral and economic vulnerability, and his recent capitulation to China in the trade war. The clear threat by Iran to create a humiliating US embassy crisis in Baghdad likely struck a nerve in the White House, reviving memories of Saigon under Gerald Ford, Tehran under Jimmy Carter, and Benghazi under Barack Obama. By taking the offensive, President Trump has reinforced the red line against the death of American citizens or attacks on US assets. Nevertheless he now runs the risk of driving Iran into further escalation rather than negotiation. Iran is not yet likely to court a full-scale American attack by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. It is more likely to retaliate via regional proxy attacks, including cutting off oil production, pipelines, and shipping — at a time of its choosing. If Trump’s pressure tactics succeed, it will advance its nuclear program rather than staging large-scale attacks. Investment Conclusions Iraqi instability will worsen as a result of the past month’s events, bringing 3.5 million barrels of daily oil production under a higher probability of disruption than when we first flagged this risk. Supply disruptions there or elsewhere in the region would hasten the drawdown in global inventories and backwardation of prices occurring due to the revival in global demand on China stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. Continued oil volatility, as in 2018-19, should be expected, but the risk for now lies to the upside as Middle East tensions could cause an overshoot. We remain long Brent crude and overweight energy sector equities. Second, the US election — and hence US domestic and foreign policy over the next five years — could hang in the balance if the Iran conflict escalates to broader and more open hostilities as we expect. President Trump is favored for re-election. Yet we have contended since 2018 that the revocation of the Iran nuclear deal was a grave geopolitical decision that could jeopardize Trump’s economy and hence re-election — and that remains the case. Chart 6Trump 'Maximum Pressure' A Gamble In 2020 Trump was elected in part because he is viewed as strong on terrorism, and the confrontation with Iran and its proxies will reinforce that reputation in the short run. Iranian attacks will also boost Trump’s approval rating, other things being equal. However, much can change by November. Jimmy Carter’s election troubles with Iran point to a serious risk to Trump, as the initial surge in patriotic support could turn sour over time if unemployment rises as a result of any oil shocks (Chart 6). Even George Bush Jr saw a dramatic fall in approval, from a much higher base than Trump, despite foreign policy conditions that were more transparently favorable to him in 2004 than any conflict with Iran will be to Trump in 2020. Trump has campaigned against Middle Eastern wars to a war-weary public, so the rally around the flag effect will not necessarily play to his favor in the final count. It is too soon to speculate about these matters — our view remains unchanged — but the Iran conflict is now much more likely to be a major factor in the US election and Iran is certainly capable of frustrating US presidents. This reinforces our base case that Trump is only slightly favored to win. Moreover his foreign policy conflicts — in Asia as well as the Middle East — ensure that global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated despite dropping off from the highs reached last year amid the trade war. We remain long pure play global defense stocks on a cyclical and secular basis. We see gold as the appropriate hedge given our expectation that the trade ceasefire and China stimulus will reinforce a global growth recovery despite Middle Eastern turmoil. Higher oil prices push up inflation expectations and limit any benefit to government bonds.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Feature One of BCA Research’s key geopolitical views since May 2019, outlined recently in our 2020 Outlook, is rapidly materializing: a dramatic escalation in the US-Iran conflict. On January 3 the United States successfully conducted a drone strike against a convoy carrying two high-level targets near the Baghdad International Airport. These were Iranian General Qassim Soleimani and his key Iraqi associate, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes. The former, Soleimani, was Iran’s most influential military and intelligence leader, and one of its most powerful leaders overall. He was the head of the formidable Quds Force, the overseas arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the staunchest military wing of the regime at home and abroad. The latter target, al-Muhandes, was the head of Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah militia and the broader coalition of pro-Iran Shiite militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This coalition was partly responsible for defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Since then it has sought to consolidate Iranian influence in Iraq, pushing back against Iraqi Sunnis and Shia nationalists, and their allies in the US and Persian Gulf. Chart 1Bull Market In US-Iran Tensions The US assassinations follow a significant increase in Iranian and Iran-backed militant attacks against US allies in the Middle East this year. These stem from a breakdown in the US-Iran diplomatic detente that was enshrined in the 2015 nuclear agreement. President Donald Trump revoked this agreement in 2018 and in May 2019 imposed crippling sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and economy — initiating a “bull market” in US-Iran strategic tensions (Chart 1). Recent events show a clear path of strategic escalation — even in the wake of a summer of “fire and fury” and the extraordinary Iran-backed attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery in September. Widespread popular unrest has dissolved the Iraqi government, creating intense competition between Iraqi nationalists, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and Iran’s proxies, led by al-Muhandes and the PMF. This unrest marked a significant challenge to Iran’s sphere of influence and necessitated an Iranian backlash. For instance, al-Sadr’s enemies attacked his headquarters with a drone in early December. Meanwhile Kataib Hezbollah launched a spate of rocket strikes against US and Iraqi bases that culminated in the death of an American contractor near Kirkuk on December 28 — crossing an American red line. The US retaliated with damaging air strikes against Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria on December 29, prompting a PMF blockade of the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. While this was a limited blockade, the US has now retaliated by assassinating Soleimani and al-Muhandes, taking the conflict to a new level. There is every reason to expect tensions to escalate further in the new year. First, the Iranian regime is under severe economic stress due to the US sanctions and broader global slowdown (Charts 2A&B). Domestic protests have erupted in recent years, while the regime struggles with economic isolation, a restless youth population, and a looming succession when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei eventually steps down. This is an existential struggle for the regime, while President Trump may only be in office for 12 months. Public opinion polls show that the Iranian populace blames the government for economic mismanagement, and yet that the renewed conflict with the US under the Trump administration is shifting the blame to US sanctions (Chart 3). Hence the regime will continue to distract the populace by resisting Trump’s pressure tactics. Chart 2ARegime Survival ... Chart 2B... An Existential Challenge     Chart 3US Conflict Distracts From Domestic Woes This tendency will be reinforced by the death of Soleimani, which heightens the regime’s vulnerability while rallying domestic support due to Soleimani’s popularity as a leader (Chart 4). The regime is looking to its survival over the long run. It would be a remarkable shift in policy for Tehran to enter negotiations with Trump, since it would then risk vindicating his “maximum pressure” doctrine, possibly helping him secure a second term in office. Chart 4Hard-Line Soleimani Was Popular (Reformist President Rouhani Is Not) Meanwhile President Trump’s circumstances are apparently urging him to double down on his aggressive foreign policy against Iran. First, while he will not be removed from office by a Republican Senate, his impeachment trial threatens to mar his re-election chances. This is a prime motivation to pursue foreign policy objectives to distract the public and seek policy wins. Chart 5Falling Oil Import Dependency Emboldens US Second, the Trump administration may feel emboldened by the rise of US shale oil production and decline in US oil import dependency (Chart 5). Simulations we published in our December 6 Strategic Outlook show that Iran would have to sustain an oil supply cutoff as large as the Abqaiq attack for four months in order to drive gasoline prices high enough to harm the US economy as a whole. This buffer may have convinced Trump he has plenty of room for maneuver in confronting Iran. Third, Trump undoubtedly feels the need to maintain the credibility of his threats against Iran, North Korea, and other nations given his impeachment, widely known electoral and economic vulnerability, and his recent capitulation to China in the trade war. The clear threat by Iran to create a humiliating US embassy crisis in Baghdad likely struck a nerve in the White House, reviving memories of Saigon under Gerald Ford, Tehran under Jimmy Carter, and Benghazi under Barack Obama. By taking the offensive, President Trump has reinforced the red line against the death of American citizens or attacks on US assets. Nevertheless he now runs the risk of driving Iran into further escalation rather than negotiation. Iran is not yet likely to court a full-scale American attack by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. It is more likely to retaliate via regional proxy attacks, including cutting off oil production, pipelines, and shipping — at a time of its choosing. If Trump’s pressure tactics succeed, it will advance its nuclear program rather than staging large-scale attacks. Investment Conclusions Iraqi instability will worsen as a result of the past month’s events, bringing 3.5 million barrels of daily oil production under a higher probability of disruption than when we first flagged this risk. Supply disruptions there or elsewhere in the region would hasten the drawdown in global inventories and backwardation of prices occurring due to the revival in global demand on China stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. Continued oil volatility, as in 2018-19, should be expected, but the risk for now lies to the upside as Middle East tensions could cause an overshoot. We remain long Brent crude and overweight energy sector equities. Second, the US election — and hence US domestic and foreign policy over the next five years — could hang in the balance if the Iran conflict escalates to broader and more open hostilities as we expect. President Trump is favored for re-election. Yet we have contended since 2018 that the revocation of the Iran nuclear deal was a grave geopolitical decision that could jeopardize Trump’s economy and hence re-election — and that remains the case. Chart 6Trump 'Maximum Pressure' A Gamble In 2020 Trump was elected in part because he is viewed as strong on terrorism, and the confrontation with Iran and its proxies will reinforce that reputation in the short run. Iranian attacks will also boost Trump’s approval rating, other things being equal. However, much can change by November. Jimmy Carter’s election troubles with Iran point to a serious risk to Trump, as the initial surge in patriotic support could turn sour over time if unemployment rises as a result of any oil shocks (Chart 6). Even George Bush Jr saw a dramatic fall in approval, from a much higher base than Trump, despite foreign policy conditions that were more transparently favorable to him in 2004 than any conflict with Iran will be to Trump in 2020. Trump has campaigned against Middle Eastern wars to a war-weary public, so the rally around the flag effect will not necessarily play to his favor in the final count. It is too soon to speculate about these matters — our view remains unchanged — but the Iran conflict is now much more likely to be a major factor in the US election and Iran is certainly capable of frustrating US presidents. This reinforces our base case that Trump is only slightly favored to win. Moreover his foreign policy conflicts — in Asia as well as the Middle East — ensure that global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated despite dropping off from the highs reached last year amid the trade war. We remain long pure play global defense stocks on a cyclical and secular basis. We see gold as the appropriate hedge given our expectation that the trade ceasefire and China stimulus will reinforce a global growth recovery despite Middle Eastern turmoil. Higher oil prices push up inflation expectations and limit any benefit to government bonds.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Feature Recommended Allocation Since BCA published its 2020 Outlook,1 and the December GAA Monthly Portfolio Update,2 nothing has happened to make us fundamentally change our views. We see the global manufacturing cycle rebounding over the coming quarters, but major central banks remaining dovish. This combination of accelerating growth and easy monetary policy should be positive for risk assets. We accordingly continue to recommend an overweight on equities versus bonds, prefer the more cyclical euro zone and EM equity markets over the US, and selectively like credit (particularly the riskier end of the US junk bond universe). In the 2020 Outlook, we laid out a series of milestones that would indicate how our scenario is playing out: whether we need to reconsider it, or whether we should be adding further to risk (Table 1). Here is how those milestones are progressing. Table 1Milestones For The 2020 Outlook Chinese growth. Total Social Financing picked up in November (CNY1.75 trillion versus CNY619 billion the previous month) and the most recent hard data (notably retail sales and industrial production) showed improvement. But the momentum of credit creation and activity generally remain weak (Chart 1). We expect that Chinese growth will begin to accelerate in early 2020, due to the lagged effect of monetary stimulus in the first half of last year, and easier fiscal policy. Moreover, December’s annual Central Economic Work Conference pointed to greater government emphasis on growth stability.3 The clampdown on shadow banking also seems to be easing (Chart 2). However, we need to see further signs of Chinese growth accelerating before, for example, we become more bullish on Emerging Markets and commodities. Chart 1Chinese Credit And Activity Remain Weak Chart 2Clampdown On Shadow Banking Easing? Trade war. The last-minute agreement to cancel the December 15 rise in US tariffs on Chinese imports represents the “ceasefire” we expected, rather than “phase one” of a more profound agreement. It is still unclear whether previous tariffs will be rolled back (Chart 3). China’s supposed promise to increase imports of US agricultural products from $10 billion a year to $40 billion-$50 billion seems unrealistic. Progress on more fundamental topics such as China’s subsidies for state-owned companies seems far off. For now, President Trump has done enough to minimize the negative impact on the US economy in an election year. But there remains a possibility that trade war reemerges as a risk during 2020. Chart 3How Far The Rollback? Progress against these milestones suggests that our current asset allocation recommendation structure – moderately risk-on, but with hedges against downside risk – is appropriate for now. Global growth. Data confirming the rebound in the manufacturing cycle remain mixed. Economic surprises have generally been positive in the euro zone, but have slipped in the US and Japan, and remain soft in the Emerging Markets (Chart 4). In Germany, the manufacturing PMI slipped back to 43.7 in December, but the Ifo and ZEW surveys both rebounded (Chart 5). There is, however, still little sign that the weakness in manufacturing is spilling over into consumption and services. In Germany, unemployment remains at a record low and wages are strong. In the US, wage growth continues to trend up, and there is no indication in the weekly initial claims data that companies are starting to lay off workers at more than the seasonally normal pace (Chart 6). Market indicators of the cycle are also showing some positive signs. Among commodities, the price of copper – the most cyclical metal – has begun to rise. Chinese cyclical stocks are outperforming defensives. But the US dollar has not yet showed any significant depreciation (Chart 7). Chart 4Economic Surprises Mixed Chart 5Germany Showing Signs Of Bottoming   Chart 6No Problems In The Labor Market Chart 7Some Positive Signs From The Markets     US politics. President Trump’s approval rating has picked up slightly – we warned that its slipping might cause him to get aggressive on trade or foreign policy (Chart 8). Markets might worry at the possibility of “President Warren” given her focus on increased regulation of industries such as finance, energy, and technology. But she has fallen a little in the polls. Even in liberal California (where the primary will be unusually early next year – March 3), she is only level with Biden and Sanders in opinion polls. Our geopolitical strategists see US politics as one of the key geopolitical risks this year,4 but the risk seems subdued for now. Chart 8Trump’s Approval Rating Stable To Rising Fed tightening. Expansions usually end when inflation rises, either causing the Fed to raise rates to choke it off, or with the Fed ignoring the inflation and allowing debt and asset bubbles to form. Any signs, therefore, that inflation, or inflation expectations, are rising would signal that we are truly in the “end game”. For now, there are no such signs. US inflation is likely to soften over the next six months, as a result of the economic slowdown and strong dollar. And TIPS breakevens imply the market believes the Fed will miss its inflation target by an average of 80-90 BPs a year over the next decade (Chart 9). The Fed is likely to sound very dovish over the coming year. The review of its monetary policy framework, probably to be announced in July, may result in some sort of “catch-up” policy: under this, if inflation undershoots the Fed’s target, the target automatically rises the following year.5 Its efforts to support the repo market, including short-term Treasury securities purchases of $60 billion a month, will increase the Fed’s balance-sheet, and represent a “mini-QE” (Chart 10). The Fed is likely to be reluctant to turn more hawkish ahead of the presidential election. These dovish moves – and continued accommodative policies from the ECB and Bank of Japan – mean that monetary policy will be supportive for risk assets throughout 2020. Chart 9Inflation Remains Subdued These milestones suggest, therefore, that our current asset allocation recommendation structure – moderately risk-on, but with hedges (long cash and gold) against downside risk – is appropriate for now. Chart 10A "Mini-QE"? Equities: We shifted last month to an underweight on US equities, with an overweight on the euro zone, and neutral on Emerging Markets. The US tends to underperform during upswings in the global manufacturing cycle (Chart 11). Europe looks attractive because of its heavy weighting in sectors we like such as Financials, Autos and Capital Goods. Europe’s returns will also be boosted by the appreciation in the euro and pound that we expect (our equity recommendations assume no currency hedging). For EM, we would turn more positive if we saw a clear pickup in Chinese credit and economic growth. Chart 11US Underperforms When Growth Picks Up Chart 12Fed Won't Cut As The Market Expects   Fixed Income: Our positive view on global growth implies that long-term rates will rise. We see the US Treasury 10-year yield reaching 2.5% by mid-2020. The market still expects the Fed to cut rates once over the next 12 months. If it stays on hold, as we expect, that slight hawkish surprise would be compatible with a moderate rise in rates (Chart 12). Core euro zone rates might rise by a little less, perhaps by 30-40 BPs, and Japanese government bond yields by 10-15 BPs. We, therefore, continue to recommend a small underweight on duration and an overweight on TIPS which look particularly cheaply valued. Within credit, our preferences are for European investment grade (not as expensive as in the US, and with the ECB buying corporate debt again) and the lower end of the US junk-bond universe (since CCC-rated bonds missed out on 2019’s rally). In a rebounding global economy, the US dollar should depreciate, particularly since it looks somewhat over-valued, and with speculative positions long the dollar. Currencies: In a rebounding global economy, the US dollar should depreciate, particularly since it looks somewhat over-valued (Chart 13), and with speculative positions long the dollar (Chart 14). But its performance is likely to vary depending on the currency pair. Our FX strategists expect the dollar to weaken to 1.18 against the euro and 1.40 against the pound over the next 12 months, and even more against currencies such as the NOK, SEK, and AUD.6 But the dollar is likely to strengthen against the yen (an even more counter-cyclical currency) and against currencies in EM, where central banks will continue to cut rates and inject liquidity aggressively to support their economies. Chart 13Dollar Looks Expensive... Chart 14...And Speculators Are Long     Commodities: Supply in the oil market remains tight, with OPEC deepening its production cuts to 1.7 million barrels/day. The crude oil price was held down in 2019 by weakening demand, which should recover along with the cycle in 2020 (Chart 15). Our energy strategists expect Brent to average $67 a barrel in 2020 (compared to $66 now), with WTI $4 lower. Metal prices could rise in 2020 as Chinese growth recovers and the US dollar depreciates – the two most important factors that drive them (Chart 16). Given the uncertainty over both, we remain neutral for now, but would turn more positive (including on commodity-related assets, such as Australian or EM equities) if we see clear signs of their moving in the right direction. We see gold as a good downside hedge in a world of ultra-low interest rates, especially since central banks may allow inflation to overshoot over the coming years. Chart 15Supply/Demand Balance Points To Higher Oil Price Chart 16Metals Are Driven By The Dollar And China   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see "Outlook 2020: Heading Into The End Game," dated 22 November 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "GAA Monthly Portfolio Update: How To Position For The End Game," dated 2 December 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Year-End Tactical Upgrade," dated 18 December 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy "Strategic Outlook: 2020 Key Views: The Anarchic Society," dated 6 December 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 5 For example, if the Fed's inflation target is 2% but inflation is only 1.7% one year, the target would automatically rise to 2.3% the following year. 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "2020 Key Views: Top Trade Ideas," dated December 13, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

An analysis on Ukraine is available below.   Highlights A number of liquidity and technical reasons have led us to give benefit of the doubt to the bullish market action and chase this EM rally. We still doubt that the US-China trade truce alone is sufficient to propel a cyclical recovery in global trade and manufacturing. However, it seems the market is operating on a “buy now, ask questions later” principle. Therefore, we are initiating a long position in the EM equity index as of today. Despite the potential for higher EM share prices in absolute terms, we are still reluctant to upgrade EM versus DM stocks. The basis is that EM corporate profits will continue lagging those in DM. Feature We could be in for a replay of the 2012-2014 DM equity rally, where EM stocks rebounded in absolute terms but massively underperformed DM on a relative basis. Chart I-1EM Share Prices: In Absolute Terms And Relative To DM EM share prices have spiked on the announcement of a trade truce between the US and China. As a result, our buy stop at 1075 on the EM MSCI Equity Index has been triggered, and we are initiating a long position in EM stocks as of today (Chart I-1, top panel). That said, we are still reluctant to upgrade EM versus DM stocks. Regardless of the direction of the market (bull, bear or sideways), EM share prices will likely underperform the global equity benchmark. As we discussed in our report, the primary risk to our view has been that EM share prices get pulled higher as a result of rallying DM markets. Nevertheless, our fundamental assessment remains that EM corporate profits will lag those in DM, heralding EM relative equity underperformance. In fact, we could be in a replay of the 2012-2014 DM equity rally where EM stocks massively underperformed (Chart I-1, bottom panel), as we elaborated in our November 28 report. In this report, we review the indicators that support a bullish stance, the ones that are inconclusive and those that are not confirming the current rally in China-plays in general and EM risk assets in particular. Bullish Liquidity And Technical Settings The following points have led us to give benefit of the doubt to recent market action and to chase this rally: The global liquidity backdrop appears to be conducive for higher share prices. Global narrow and broad money growth have accelerated (Chart I-2). That said, a caveat is in order: These money measures do not always strongly correlate with both global share prices and the global business cycle. There are numerous times when they gave a false signal or were too early or late at turning points. Chart I-2Global Narrow And Broad Money: A Useful But Not Always Reliable Indicator   The technical profile of EM equities is rather bullish. As shown on the top panel of Chart I-1 on page 1, EM share prices have found a support at their six-year moving average. When a market fails to break down below its long-term technical support line, odds are that a major bottom has been reached, and the path of the least resistance is up. The reason we look at these long-term (multi-year) moving averages is because they have historically worked very well for key markets like the S&P 500 and 10-year US Treasury bond yields (Chart I-3A & I-3B). Chart I-3AThe Reason Why We Use Multi-Year Moving Averages Chart I-3BThe Reason Why We Use Multi-Year Moving Averages   As another positive development, both EM share prices in local currency terms and the EM equity total return index in US dollar terms have bounced from their three-year moving averages (Chart I-4). Chart I-4A Bullish Chart Formation For EM Equities In addition, when a market does not drop below its previous top, this creates a bullish chart configuration (Chart I-4). This seems to be the case with EM share prices currently. Bottom Line: A number of liquidity and technical reasons have led us to give benefit of the doubt to the bullish market action and to chase this rally. Inconclusive Indicators It is rare that all types of indicators – directional market, business cycle, valuation and technical – all line up together to convey the same investment recommendation. Below we present the market indicators and signals that we have been watching to get confirmation of sustainability in the bull market in EM risk assets, commodities and global cyclical equity sectors. They are still inconclusive: The US broad trade-weighted dollar has recently sold off, but it has not broken down technically (Chart I-5). A decisive relapse below its 200-day moving average will signify that the greenback has entered a major bear market. The latter would be consistent with a sustainable and extended bull market in EM risk assets, commodities and global cyclical equity sectors.  Chart I-5The US Dollar Has Fallen But Not Broken Down Chart I-6Indecisive Signals From Commodities And Commodity Currencies   Even though copper prices have recently rebounded, they have not yet broken above their three-year moving average (Chart I-6, top panel). The latter can be viewed as the neckline of the head-and-shoulders pattern that has formed in recent years. The same holds true for the overall London Metals Exchange Industrial Metals Price Index, as well as our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1 (Chart I-6, middle and bottom panels). Barring a decisive break above their three-year moving averages, the jury is still out on the durability of the rally in commodities prices and EM/China plays.   Finally, global industrial share prices and US high-beta stocks have advanced to their 2018 highs, but have not yet broken out (Chart I-7). The same is true for the euro area aggregate stock index in local currency terms (Chart I-8). A decisive breakout above these levels will confirm that global equities in general and cyclical segments in particular are in an enduring bull market. Chart I-7Decisive Breakouts Here Are Needed To Confirm The EM Rally Chart I-8European Share Prices Are At A Critical Juncture   Bottom Line: Several cyclical and high-beta segments of global financial markets are at a critical juncture. A decisive breakout from these key technical levels is required for us to uphold that EM risk assets and global cyclical plays are in a medium-term bull market. The Eye Of The Storm? There are a number of leading indicators and market signals that do not corroborate the common narrative of a sustainable improvement in global manufacturing/trade in general and China’s industrial cycle in particular: First, China’s narrow and broad money growth appear to be rolling over (Chart I-9). Notably, the money impulses lead the credit impulse, as illustrated in Chart I-10. Consequently, we expect the credit impulse – which is the main indicator currently portraying a revival in the Chinese economy as well as in the global business cycle – to roll over in early 2020. Chart I-9China: Narrow And Broad Money Growth Are Rolling Over Chart I-10China: Money Impulses Are Coincident Or Lead Credit Impulse   This entails that the recent tentative improvements in China’s manufacturing, its imports and global trade will not be sustained going forward. Crucially, China’s narrow money (M1) growth point to the lack of a cyclical upturn in EM corporate profits in H1 2020 (Chart I-11). In short, EM listed companies’ profit growth rate stabilizing at around -10% is not a recovery. Second, government bond yields in both China and Korea are not corroborating a revival in their respective business cycles (Chart I-12). Chart I-11EM Corporate Profit Growth To Remain Negative In H1 2020 Chart I-12Asian Rates Are Not Confirming A Recovery   Chinese onshore interest rates have been a reliable compass for both its business cycle as well as EM share prices and currencies as we illustrated in Chart 15 of the November 28 report. For now, the mainland fixed-income market is not predicting an upturn in China’s industrial economy (Chart I-12, top panel). In Korea, exports account for 40% of GDP. Hence, without a considerable export recovery, there cannot be a business cycle revival in Korea. In brief, the latest relapse in local bond yields could be sending a downbeat signal for global trade (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Third, the four-month rise in the Chinese Caixin manufacturing PMI can be partially explained by front-running production and shipments of smartphones, laptops, computers and other electronics ahead of the December 15 round of US tariffs on imports from China. Right after President Trump announced these tariffs in the summer, businesses likely did not take a chance to wait and see. In fact, whether or not these tariffs would have come into effect was unknown till December 13. Manufacturers and US importers of these electronic goods initiated orders, produced and shipped these goods to the US ahead of December 15. Chart I-13Caixin And Taiwanese PMIs Benefited From Front Running Given the focus on that particular round of tariffs was electronics, producers of these goods got a temporary but notable boost from such front-running. Smartphone and electronics manufacturers and their suppliers are predominantly located in Shenzhen and Taiwan. The Caixin manufacturing PMI is a survey of 500 companies, many of which are private enterprises located in Shenzhen. Not surprisingly, the Caixin manufacturing PMI index often fluctuates with Taiwan’s electronics and optical PMI (Chart I-13). In brief, there has been meaningful improvement in China’s and Taiwan’s tech manufacturing. Yet it can be attributed to front-running of production and shipments of electronic products to the US ahead of the December 15 tariff deadline as well as stockpiling of semiconductors by China. The odds are that these measures of manufacturing will slump in early 2020 as the front-running ends. Chart I-14Commodities Prices In China Finally, several commodities prices in China, that troughed in late 2015 ahead of the bottom in global and EM/Chinese equities in early 2016, continue to drift lower or exhibit only a mild uptick. Specifically, these include prices of nickel, steel, iron ore, thermal coal, coke, polyethylene and rubber (Chart I-14). They corroborate that there has been no broad-based amelioration in the mainland’s industrial sector. Bottom Line: In China, narrow and broad money growth has rolled over, onshore interest rates are subsiding and many commodities prices are weak. All of these signify the lack of sustainable growth revival in China in the coming months.  Putting It All Together EM risk assets have rallied on the consensus market narrative that the temporary truce between the US and China will lift global growth. We have written at length that China’s domestic demand – not its exports – has been the epicenter of and basis for the global slowdown over the past two years. Without Chinese domestic demand and imports, not exports, staging a material amelioration, global trade and manufacturing are unlikely to experience a cyclical upturn.   In short, we doubt that the US-China trade truce is alone sufficient to propel a cyclical recovery in global trade and manufacturing. Yet, when the majority of investors perceive things the same way and act on these perceptions, asset prices can move a lot. We continue to believe that China’s industrial sector, global trade, EM ex-China domestic demand and consequently EM corporate profits will continue to disappoint in the first half of 2020. Nevertheless, we presently concede that we need to give benefit of the doubt to markets. We still doubt that the US-China trade truce alone is sufficient to propel a cyclical recovery in global trade and manufacturing. It could be that the EM equity and currency market rallies are not driven by their fundamentals – i.e., corporate profits/exports do not matter. However, it is rather possible that this rally is only stoked by the worst-kept secret in the investment industry: the search for yield. If that is the case, then there is no dichotomy between our fundamental thesis – that EM/China profits/growth will disappoint in H1 2020 – and the rally in EM markets. It seems the market is operating on a “buy now, ask questions later” principle. We had thought that the ongoing and enduring contraction in EM corporate profits (please refer to Chart I-11 on page 8) amid various structural malaises would overwhelm the impact of the global search for yield. However, it seems the market is operating on a “buy now, ask questions later” principle. Overall, we are initiating a long position in the EM equity index as of today. Provided the high uncertainty over the outlook, we are also instituting a stop point at 1050 for the MSCI EM equity index, 5% below its current level. For global equity investors, we continue recommending favoring DM over EM stocks. Finally, our country equity overweights are Korea, Thailand, Russia, central Europe, Pakistan, Vietnam and Mexico. A basket of these bourses is likely to outperform the EM equity benchmark in any market scenario in terms of EM absolute share price performance. We have been and remain neutral on Chinese, Indian, Taiwanese and Brazilian equities. As always, our list of overweight, underweight and market weight recommendations for EM equities, local and US dollar government bonds and currencies are available at the end of our report on pages 17-18 and on our website.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com     Ukraine: Buy Local Currency Bonds EM fixed-income investors should buy Ukraine local currency government bonds as well as overweight Ukraine sovereign credit within an EM credit portfolio. The exchange rate is the key for EM fixed-income investors. The Ukrainian hryvnia will be supported by high real interest rates, improving public debt and balance of payment dynamics, as well as abating geopolitical risks. In turn, a stable currency will keep inflation at bay. In such an environment, investors should favor local currency government bonds, as local interest rates will continue falling.  Chart II-1Inflation Will Fall Further In turn, a stable currency will keep inflation at bay (Chart II-1). In such an environment, investors should favor local currency government bonds, as local interest rates will continue falling. The primary risk of owning Ukrainian domestic bonds is a major depreciation in the hryvnia stemming from a risk-off phase in EM. However, as a periphery country, Ukraine’s financial markets might not correlate with their EM peers. Besides, these bonds offer high carry, which protects them against moderate currency depreciation. Overall, the case for buying Ukraine local currency government bonds is based on the following: First, Ukraine satisfies the two prerequisites for public debt sustainability, namely (1) it runs a robust primary fiscal surplus and/or (2) the government’s borrowing costs are below nominal GDP growth. The public debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 56% and will continue to fall so long as the above two conditions are satisfied. The primary consolidated fiscal surplus currently amounts to 1.8% of GDP (Chart II-2). The recently approved 2020 budget projects the primary surplus to be above 1% of GDP and the overall fiscal deficit to be close to 2% of GDP.  Local currency interest rates are below nominal GDP growth (Chart II-3). In addition, public debt servicing is at 3.2% and 9% as a share of GDP and total government expenditures, respectively. According to the new budget, the government plans to use close to 12% of total spending for debt repayments in 2020. This will further help reduce the public debt load. Chart II-2A Healthy Fiscal Position Chart II-3Interest Rates Are Below Nominal GDP Growth And Are Falling Second, the central bank has more scope to cut interest rates because various measures of inflation will continue falling. Real (adjusted for inflation) interest rates are still very elevated. In particular, the prime lending rate is at 17% for companies and 35% for households, both in nominal terms. Provided core inflation is running at 6%, lending rates are extremely high in real terms. Not surprisingly, narrow and broad money growth are sluggish (Chart II-4). Commercial banks are undergoing major balance sheet deleveraging: their asset growth is in the low single digits in nominal terms, while their value is dropping relative to nominal GDP (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Money Growth Is Sluggish Chart II-5Deleveraging In The Banking Sector Meanwhile, tighter regulations are forcing banks to recognize bad assets and boost their capital. This has led to a sharp drop in the number of registered banks. Such a structural overhaul of the banking system is cyclically deflationary and warrants lower interest rates. Critically, these reforms are a positive for the exchange rate in the long run. Third, receding foreign funding pressures are helping the balance of payments dynamics and are supportive for the currency. Ukrainian exports have been outperforming global exports since 2017 (Chart II-6). Agricultural exports – which represent 40% of total exports – are an important source of foreign currency revenue for the country. Chart II-6Ukraine Exports Are Outperforming Global Trade Chart II-7Tight Fiscal And Monetary Policies Are Good For The Current Account Balance The current account deficit has been narrowing due to slowing domestic demand, arising from tight fiscal and monetary policies (Chart II-7). Foreign ownership of local currency government bonds is $4.6 billion and it makes only 12% of total outstanding amount. Consequently, risk of major foreign portfolio capital outflows due to a risk-off phase in global markets is low. Lastly, Ukraine’s foreign debt obligations – the sum of short-term claims, interest payment and amortization – have been declining and are presently well covered by exports. They comprise 34% of total exports. Finally, geopolitical risks will continue to subside over the coming months. Peace talks between Ukraine and Russia will continue. Importantly, two sets of constraints could force Ukraine and Russia towards resolving the conflict. Specifically: Russia is constrained by its commitment to be a reliable gas supplier to the EU. Half of its gas export capacity passes through Ukraine. European demand for Russian gas is falling and Gazprom gas revenues are decelerating. Cutting transit of gas through Ukraine could now severely jeopardize Russia’s relations with Europe. Therefore, as much as Europe is dependent on Russian gas, Russia is as dependent on European demand for its natural gas.   The EU’s support for Ukraine is contingent on reliable transits of Russian gas into EU countries. As such, President Zelensky is under pressure from Europe to assure transmission of Russian gas to Europe. This has led Zelensky into opening a dialogue with Russia and motivated him to seek a new gas transit deal with Gazprom. Given President Zelensky’s high popularity at home, he has political capital to pursue a rapprochement with Russia and attempt to find a resolution to end the conflict in the Donbass. All of these developments have been, and will continue to be, positively perceived by international investors, sustaining the recent stampede into Ukraine’s fixed-income markets. Investment Recommendation We recommend investors purchase 5-year local currency government bonds currently yielding 12%. EM fixed-income investors should also consider overweighting US dollar sovereign bonds in an EM credit portfolio on the back of improving public debt and balance of payments dynamics.   Andrija Vesic Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    The Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio is the average of high-beta commodity currencies such as the CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP and ZAR total return (including carry) indices relative to the average of JPY and CHF total returns (including carry). This ratio is dollar-agnostic. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations