Emerging Markets

Highlights The odds of a continued earnings contraction have not yet fallen to the point that would warrant an overweight stance towards Chinese versus global stocks over the coming 6-12 months. While we maintain Chinese stocks on upgrade watch and may recommend increasing exposure soon, the bottom line for investors is that it is still too early for us to confidently project a sustained uptrend. While most investors attribute the chronic discount of Chinese stocks relative to the global average as being due to a sizeable equity risk premium, our analysis suggests that China’s low payout ratio and mediocre earnings growth are the true causes. This implies that China’s re-rating potential is capped barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth. Investors should pay close attention to the details of a U.S./China currency stability pact that will reportedly be included in any trade deal between the two countries. Such a pact may set up an important natural experiment for CNY/USD, and could be a revelatory event for China’s exchange rate regime. Feature Last week’s FOMC meeting dominated the headlines of the financial press, and for good reason. The Fed surprised investors with a material downgrade to their expected path of the federal funds rate over the next three years, a shift that largely reflected concerns about global growth. The subsequent inversion of the U.S. 10-year / 3-month yield curve in response to the very disappointing euro area flash manufacturing PMI for March confirms that many investors remain convinced that Fed policy is too tight and that easing is likely over the coming year.1 On the positive side, investor concerns that reflationary policy is needed in the U.S. and euro area are likely overblown: the plunge in the euro area PMI at least in part reflects the near-term uncertainty over the possibility of a hard Brexit (which will probably be avoided), whereas the Fed is pausing at a level of real interest rates that is well below real GDP growth, which means that monetary policy is still stimulative for the U.S. economy (Chart 1). Chart 1U.S. Monetary Policy Is Still Stimulative But Chart 2 highlights that a generalized slowdown in global growth is responsible for at least part of the sharp weakness in Chinese export growth over the past few months, which we had been mostly attributing to a catch-up phase following a (perversely and ironically) beneficial tariff front-running effect that had temporarily boosted trade growth last year. Chart 2Global Weakness At Least Partly Responsible For A Sharp Export Slowdown Ongoing weakness in the global economy, were it to persist, would imply that China’s external demand outlook is even less encouraging than we had previously assumed. This would raise the stakes for a trade deal with the U.S. to be agreed upon soon, as well as a continued uptrend in the pace of Chinese credit growth. Investors should closely watch the new export orders component of the March NBS manufacturing PMI later this week for signs that exporter sentiment is improving, as well as the overall Caixin PMI to confirm that smaller firms continue to benefit from the PBOC’s targeted easing efforts. When Should Investors Upgrade Chinese Stocks On A Cyclical Basis? In our view, most global investors have been focused on the wrong risk factor for Chinese stocks for the better part of the past year. In the wake of the near-vertical February rise in Chinese domestic stocks, the most common question we have received from clients is whether they should be increasing their cyclical exposure to Chinese stocks in general, and A-shares in particular. In response to the January surge in credit we placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in our February 27 Weekly Report,2 but we are not yet ready to recommend an outright cyclical overweight. Investors should be at the ready and aiming, but should not yet fire. In our view, most global investors have been focused on the wrong risk factor for Chinese stocks for the better part of the past year. We have noted in several previous reports that investors have focused nearly exclusively on the U.S.-China trade war since the beginning of 2018, and have largely ignored a slowing domestic economy (Chart 3). Given this, it is not surprising that a sharp improvement in the odds of a deal (which occurred at the beginning of November) has led to a material rally over the past few months versus global stocks. Chart 3The Prospect Of A Trade Deal Has Been The Primary Driver Of China-Related Assets In fact, we predicted in our December 5 Weekly Report that positive sentiment about a deal would boost the relative performance of Chinese stocks over the coming few months, and recommended a tactical overweight stance at that time.3 A cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) overweight, however, is a different story. Sentiment alone rarely drives financial markets over a 1-year time horizon, meaning that investors need to have some degree of confidence that domestic demand will meaningfully improve over the next 12 months to justify a cyclical upgrade. Certainly, we acknowledge that there have been several positive developments pointing to such an outcome. Chinese monetary conditions have become extremely easy, credit is no longer contracting and surged in January, the Caixin PMI rose notably in February, and some form of a trade deal remains the most likely outcome of the ongoing talks. In addition, Chinese stocks still remain significantly below their 2018 peak (Chart 4), meaning that there is still material potential upside if Chinese earnings do not contract. Chart 4Chinese Stocks Still Have Room To Rise If The Earnings Outlook Stabilizes A moderate credit expansion appears to be underway, but coincident activity continues to weaken and earnings appear to have more downside. However, there are also several reasons to be cautious cyclically: Chart 5The Past Three Months Imply A Moderate Credit Uptrend Chart 6Chinese Coincident Economic Activity Continues To Weaken Chinese and U.S. policymakers have not only failed to set a date for an agreement to be signed by President’s Xi and Trump, but recent new reports suggest that momentum may be slowing and that a meeting may be postponed until June or later.4 Even if the deal does not fall through, material further delays could cause investors to get anxious and vote with their feet. Such a selloff could be violent, given the extremely sharp rise in domestic stock prices over the past six weeks. The evidence so far points to a moderate expansion in credit (Chart 5), reflecting the fact that policymakers are still somewhat concerned about financial stability and the need to prevent significant further leveraging of the private sector. This means that the odds are not yet in favor of a credit “overshoot” like what occurred in 2015/2016, implying that the pickup in growth is likely to be comparatively weaker this time around. Since 2010, monetary conditions and money & credit growth appear to be the best predictors of investment-relevant Chinese economic activity.5 While a moderate credit expansion appears to be underway, there has been no discernable pickup in money growth.6 This discrepancy likely means that the recent improvement in credit has occurred due to non-bank financial institutions, further suggesting that this economic recovery will probably be less powerful and less broad-based than during past cycles. While a moderate expansion in credit does suggest that China’s economy will bottom at some point in the coming months, coincident economic activity continues to decelerate (Chart 6). A continuation of this trend, particularly if coupled with an investor “crisis of faith” in the trade talks, could lead to a very significant retracement in Chinese equity prices before durably bottoming for the year. Trailing EPS growth is decelerating, but it has yet to contract on a year-over-year basis as would be implied by the net earnings revisions ratio (Chart 7) and the coincident activity indicators shown in Chart 6. Chinese investable EPS fell 30% during the 2015/2016 episode (20% for domestic stocks), implying meaningful further downside even if economic activity does not weaken as significantly over the coming months. Chart 7Net Earnings Revisions Point To More Downside For Earnings Chart 8 presents a helpful way for investors to make a net assessment of all of the factors highlighted above. The chart shows our earnings recession model for the MSCI China Index, and shows what is likely to occur if a trade deal causes a full recovery in Chinese exporter sentiment, China’s export-weighted RMB stays roughly at current levels, and the very recent pace of credit growth (Dec-Feb) continues along its trend. Chart 8A Trade Deal And A Moderate Credit Expansion Will Likely Stabilize The Earnings Outlook This scenario, were it to occur, would reduce the odds of a continued earnings contraction to the point that we would be comfortable recommending an overweight stance towards Chinese versus global stocks over the coming 6-12 months. While such a recommendation could come as soon as mid-April, the bottom line for investors is that it is still too early for us to confidently project this outcome. Should Chinese Stocks Be Priced At A Premium Or A Discount To Global Stocks? Most investors attribute the discount applied to Chinese stocks to a high equity risk premium (ERP), but our work paints a different picture. Besides questions about the appropriate cyclical allocation to Chinese stocks, the recent spike in interest among global investors towards A-shares has also led to a renewed focus about the degree to which Chinese stocks are cheap versus the global average. In a world where many financial assets are chronically expensive and Chinese policymakers appear to be responding to weaker economic activity, some investors question whether Chinese stocks deserve to be priced at a discount (Chart 9). Our sense is that most investors attribute the discount to a high equity risk premium (ERP) stemming from the enormous rise in Chinese non-financial corporate debt over the past decade, but our research paints a different picture. Chart 9The Chinese Equity Discount: A High ERP, Or Something More Sinister? One way of analyzing the risk premium of an equity market is to use the well-known constant Gordon growth model. Equation 1 below presents the theoretically justified 12-month trailing P/E ratio as a function of the payout ratio, the risk-free rate, the ERP, and the long-term dividend growth rate (which is equal to the long-term earnings growth rate given a constant payout ratio). Equations 2 and 3 re-arrange equation 1 to express the ERP and long-term growth rate, respectively, on the left-hand side of the equation. Equation 1: P0/E0 = (D1/E0)/(rf + ERP – g) Equation 2: ERP = [(D1/E0)/(P0/E0)] + g - rf Equation 3: g = rf + ERP-[(D1/E0)/(P0/E0)] To illustrate the approach, Chart 10 applies equation 2 to the U.S. equity market and compares it with the annual dividend discount model equity risk premium published by Professor Aswath Damodaran from New York University’s Stern School of Business,7 a well-known expert in the theory and practice of asset valuation. While there are some differences in the level of the series owing to slightly different methodologies, the overall profile of the two series is generally similar. Chart 10Our DDM Methodology For The U.S. Generates Results Similar To Other Important Estimates Proxying the market’s long-term growth expectations in a large, mature economy such as the U.S. is materially easier than is the case in an emerging market such as China. As such, instead of solving for the equity risk premium directly when judging whether China’s discount is “deserved”, we use equation 3 to solve for the implied long-term growth rate given an assumed (and very conservative) ERP range of 2-3%, using the global P/E ratio. In other words, we ask the following question: what kind of earnings growth do Chinese stocks need to achieve over the long run in order to justify the same earnings multiple as the global average, given an equity risk premium of 2-3%? Chart 11 presents the answer to this question, for both the domestic and the investable market. We use domestic 10-year bond yields as the risk-free rate in the case of the A-share market, and U.S. 10-year bond yields in the case of the MSCI China index as a proxy for the global risk-free rate. Finally, in each panel, the dashed horizontal lines denote the actual compound annual growth rate in earnings per share for each market, since the year noted next to each line. Chart 11A Low But Still Difficult L/T Earnings Hurdle Rate To Be Priced In Line With Global Stocks Two important points are apparent from the chart: The required growth rate for both markets to be priced in line with global stocks are quite low, well below Chinese nominal GDP growth. At first blush, this might suggest that the valuation discount applied to China reflects a sizeable equity risk premium that could shrink over the coming 6-12 months (i.e. a beneficial re-rating of Chinese stocks). Since 2010 or 2011, actual growth rates in EPS are materially above the required growth range in both markets. However, over more recent time horizons, particularly 2013 and later, actual earnings growth has not only been below the range but has also been extremely poor in absolute terms. This is particularly true for the investable market, which has actually recorded negative growth in 12-month trailing EPS since 2014 or 2015. A dividend discount model approach suggests that the Chinese equity market discount is justified, barring a major structural improvement in earnings growth. Chart 12 highlights the problem with China’s stock market in a nutshell. For both the investable and domestic equity markets, the dividend payout ratio is well below the global average. This is a normal circumstance for small companies with high growth potential; firms re-invest a high portion of their earnings back into the company in order to build out their asset base and deliver even higher earnings in the future. Chart 12The Chinese Discount Visualized: A Low Payout Ratio, And Mediocre Earnings Growth But panel 2 of Chart 12 shows that relative earnings for Chinese stocks versus the global average have not trended higher over the past decade, meaning that a higher earnings retention ratio among Chinese stocks has not led to a superior earnings profile. In response, global investors have rightly discounted Chinese stocks versus their global peers, a circumstance that is likely to continue unless Chinese earnings growth materially and sustainably improves. Our analysis implies that there is a natural limit to how far Chinese equities can ultimately be re-rated barring a major structural improvement in the economy, a factor that we may eventually have to contend with were we to recommend a cyclical overweight stance. Capped re-rating potential is unlikely to prevent Chinese stocks from trending higher in relative terms if economic fundamentals warrant an uptrend, but it may suggest that the duration or magnitude of the rise may be shorter than many investors hope. A Sino-U.S. Trade Deal: A Natural Currency Experiment In The Making? What explains the link between CNY-USD and the interest rate differential between the two countries? Finally, a brief note on the RMB. Since June 2018, changes in CNY-USD appear to have been closely aligned with the magnitude of proposed tariffs as a share of Chinese exports to the U.S., as would be implied in a simple open economy model with flexible exchange rates. Chart 13shows the levels implied by this framework in a variety of tariff scenarios, calculated based on the percent decline from the peak in the exchange rate in 1H 2018. As noted in our March 13 Weekly Report,8 CNY-USD today is consistent with the current tariff regime, implying potential upside if a trade deal with the U.S. rolls back some of the tariffs that have been imposed. Chart 13A Simple Equilibrium Framework Suggests CNY-USD May Rise Materially Further If Tariffs Are Rolled Back However, Chart 14 shows that CNY-USD has been closely correlated with the interest rate differential between the two countries for several years, with the relationship having recently become a leading one. Chart 14 highlights that CNY-USD has moved higher than the rate differential would imply (painting the opposite picture as that shown in Chart 13), suggesting that the currency is more likely to depreciate than appreciate over the coming 6-12 months barring tighter monetary policy in China or outright rate cuts in the U.S. Chart 14Will Policymakers Or Rate Differentials Drive CNY-USD Over The Coming Year? The relationship shown in Chart 14 is surprising, and we have struggled to understand the exact dynamics at play. As we highlighted in a September report,9 many global investors take the relationship for granted, given the strong historical link between interest rate differentials and exchange rates in developed countries. However, a major problem that arises in explaining Chart 14 is the fact that uncovered interest rate arbitrage (or the “carry trade”) cannot easily occur or cannot occur at all when one or both countries involved maintains capital controls. It is an important conundrum, and one that we have not been able to solve. From our perspective, there are only two scenarios that explain the close relationship between the exchange rate and interest rate differentials between the two countries: The relationship is causal, implying that capital flows in and out of the country are sufficiently large to enable a carry trade. The two series are correlated because of a third factor related in some way to the other two. In our view, scenario 1 is not likely. Capital is flowing out of China, but at a much slower rate than before,10 and the relationship shown in Chart 14 did not break down following China’s capital crackdown in 2015/2016. Ruling out scenario 1 necessarily implies that scenario 2 is correct. Our best guess concerning the missing third factor is that Chinese policymakers are looking to the rate differential as a guide to set the exchange rate, in order to mimic a market-based exchange rate in support of China’s goals to progressively liberalize (and internationalize) the currency. If true, this implies that China has full control of their exchange rate regardless of the prevailing interest rate differential, but that they are often choosing to follow what the differential implies. This is significant, because if Chinese and U.S. negotiators do agree to a “yuan stability pact” as has been reported in the press, a trade deal may set up an important natural experiment for the currency. In our view, a major upward move in the rate differential is unlikely over the coming year, implying that CNY-USD will persistently deviate from the relationship shown in Chart 14 if President Trump is not inclined to tolerate any real weakness in the RMB over the coming year. While the details of the currency agreement and the trade agreement more generally could allow for some decline in CNY-USD if coupled with an offsetting benefit for the U.S. (such as materially higher U.S. exports to China for some period), our bias is to believe that President Trump does not want to see a stronger dollar over the coming year in the lead-up to the 2020 election. If true, investors should pay close attention to the behavior of CNY-USD, as it is stands to be a revelatory event for China’s exchange rate regime.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Reports “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy” and “Forward Guidance On Steroids”, dated March 26, 2019, for a detailed update on our view for Fed rate hikes and how investors should interpret the recent inversion in the yield curve. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative”, dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year”, dated December 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see “Some U.S. Officials Said To See China Walking Back Trade Pledges”, Bloomberg News, dated March 19, 2019, and “Donald Trump-Xi Jinping meeting to end US-China trade war may be pushed back to June, sources say”, South China Morning Post. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: A Sustainable Rally Or A False Start?”, dated March 7, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Professor Damodoran’s website for more information on his estimates of the equity risk premium. 8 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China Macro And Market Review”, dated March 13, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Moderate Releveraging And Currency Stability: An Impossible Dream?”, dated September 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Clearly the president will benefit from being vindicated in such an authoritative way. He will not only avoid any mushrooming scandal, which can hurt a president seeking reelection, but will also gain sympathy from at least some voters for having been falsely accused. While Mueller technically did not exonerate Trump from charges of obstruction of justice, he also did not make any such charges. This means that House Democrats could conceivably still use the Mueller report’s evidence of potential obstruction to impeach Trump. But if they do they will fail. Attorney General Anthony Barr and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, have both determined that there was no obstruction. With the special counsel having ruled out any collusion or even coordination with Russia, Trump will remain secure among grassroots Republicans. Hence the senators in his party will not convict him and any impeachment trial will be a charade. Thus to some extent Trump’s odds of reelection must be going up. Right? Wrong. The problem is that any positive impact on Trump’s reelection odds from the Mueller report ultimately matters much less than the inversion of the yield curve on March 22. This curve is the most reliable indicator of forthcoming economic recession. If the inversion is deep and persistent then it makes an election year recession probable. Presidents can survive a grand scandal, but they live or die by recessions. There have only been two presidents in the post-Civil War era who won reelection despite a recession in the calendar year of the election. These were William McKinley in 1900 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Yet in 1900, the recession was drawing to a close and economic conditions were better than when McKinley first took office in 1896. And in 1904, the recession technically ended in August, before the fall campaign began. In ten other cases the ruling party has lost the White House amid a recessionary environment. In recent decades yield curve inversion precedes recessions by anywhere from five to sixteen months. The average is eleven months. This means that if the 10yr/3mo signal proves accurate once again, Trump would get extremely lucky to see the economy rebounding by the fall campaign. Granted, the yield curve could send a false signal. For instance, some take the view that the term premium is historically low for structural reasons and that this makes inversion easier and less indicative than in the past. However, when it comes to politics, President Trump cannot afford to assume that this time is different. It is already clear from his waivers on Iranian oil sanctions and trade negotiations with China that he lives in great fear of the business cycle expiring before November 3 next year, when it will be very long-in-the-tooth. Trump is also more vulnerable to recession than the usual president. He is a self-styled commercial leader – a CEO president and Washington outsider who staked his credibility on the claim that he will create jobs and grow the economy. Trump can possibly survive an election with a large trade deficit or a surge in immigrants on the southern border because these developments would highlight the very policy concerns that he did so much to emphasize: they would not necessarily invalidate his approach. But if unemployment is rising, it is hard to see how this president, let alone any other, could wriggle out of it. If he tries to shift the blame to the Federal Reserve or China in any concrete way, the equity market will riot and exacerbate the downturn. The takeaway is, first, that we should continue to see President Trump show relative risk aversion on market-relevant matters like Iran, China, and the “stimulus cliff” affecting the U.S. budget next fiscal year. Second, that if the current economic wobbles pass and the economic expansion gets a new breath of life, then Trump’s chances of retaining the White House will soar. Trump’s reelection odds have important investment consequences. His reelection will entail policy continuity and the maintenance of a low-tax, deregulatory environment that encourages animal spirits and pads corporate earnings. The more likely it appears that Trump will lose the White House, the more animal spirits will sag. A Democratic win will mean yet another violent vacillation in U.S. policy, like 2016, which will cause a spike in policy uncertainty. It will also bring a probable increase in taxes (including possibly the corporate rate) and regulations across a range of sectors. If a Democrat wins in 2020, he or she will most likely have a fairly left-wing agenda, due to trends in the party, and whoever takes the White House will likely also take the Senate. Since the same goes for the House, a presidential win will deliver full Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches: a window of minimal political constraints in which a sweeping piece of legislation can be enacted, like in 2009 or 2017. In short, a Trump loss would not only mean the end of the status quo but likely a united government in favor of a rather left-leaning Democratic agenda. If the market has reason to believe a recession is looming, and that a recession will occasion a lurch to the “anti-business” side of the Left, then the impact on investment decisions and capex intentions will be negative and immediate. Economic policy uncertainty has nowhere to go but up. Matt Gertken,  Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Dear Client, I had the pleasure of visiting clients in Seattle, Anchorage, and Juneau last week. In this week’s report, I address some of the questions that routinely came up during our meetings. Among other things, the topics discussed include our optimistic global growth outlook, waning dollar bullishness, implications of a more dovish Fed on the business cycle, and where we think equities are headed. Next week we will be publishing our Quarterly Strategy Outlook, which will provide a detailed discussion of our key global macro and investment views. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature Q: You have predicted that global growth will stabilize in the second quarter and then accelerate in the second half of the year. Are you seeing much evidence in support of this view? A: We are seeing signs of green shoots, but they are still fairly tentative. Current activity indicators appear to have stabilized (Chart 1). The global manufacturing PMI edged lower in February, but the services component increased. Consumer confidence has risen, although that may simply reflect the rebound in global equities. Chart 1Global Growth Appears To Have Stabilized The data on international trade has been quite soft. That said, the weekly Harpex shipping index, which measures global container shipping activity, has improved. The Baltic Dry Index has also shown some signs of bottoming (Chart 2). Chart 2Shipping Data Pointing To A Recent Pickup In Global Trade The diffusion index of our global leading economic indicator, which tracks the share of countries with rising LEIs, has also moved higher (Chart 3). It generally leads the global LEI. The fact that global financial conditions have eased significantly since the start of the year is also an encouraging sign. Chart 3The Uptick In The LEI Diffusion Index Suggests Global Growth Will Firm Up Q: What’s your take on the most recent Chinese economic data? A: It has been generally soft, but not abysmal. Manufacturing output continues to decelerate. Retail sales remain lackluster, with auto sales showing little evidence of improvement. Property prices are still rising, but floor space sold has begun to contract. Fixed-asset investment has held up so far this year. However, this is mainly due to a pickup in spending among state-owned companies. Both exports and imports contracted in February. In a rather unusual step, the government announced last week that exports increased by nearly 40% in the first nine days of March compared with the same period last year.1 Electricity production has also apparently rebounded. We would not place a huge weight on these statements, as the data probably has been skewed by the timing of the lunar new year, but it does seem that economic momentum may be starting to turn the corner. We are seeing signs of green shoots, but they are still fairly tentative. There is little doubt that the government is trying to jumpstart growth. Household and business taxes have been cut. The PBOC has reduced reserve requirements by 350 bps over the past year. Interbank rates have dropped. Despite the fact that the February credit data fell short of expectations, the six-month credit impulse has turned decisively higher. The Chinese credit impulse leads imports by about six-to-nine months (Chart 4). This bodes well for global trade in the second half of the year. Chart 4Global Trade Will Benefit From A Chinese Reflationary Impulse Q: Given that Chinese debt levels are already quite high, by how much more can they realistically increase? A: We do not expect credit growth to rise by as much as it did in 2009 or 2016. However, this is because the economy is in better shape, not because there is some intrinsic constraint to increasing debt from current levels. China’s elevated savings rate has kept interest rates well below trend nominal GDP growth, which is the key determinant of debt sustainability (Chart 5).2 As long as the government maintains an implicit guarantee on most local and corporate debt, as it is currently doing, default risk will remain minimal. Chart 5China's High Savings Rate Has Kept Interest Rates Well Below Trend Nominal GDP Growth In any case, given that debt now stands at 240% of GDP, a mere one percentage-point increase in credit growth would still produce a hefty 2.4% of GDP in credit stimulus. In this sense, China may be better off with a higher debt-to-GDP ratio since in steady state this will allow for a larger flow of credit-financed stimulus into the economy. Q: A revival in Chinese growth would presumably help Europe? A: Yes. Our conversations with clients revealed an ongoing negative bias towards Europe among investors (Chart 6). This is echoed in the latest BofA Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey which, for the first time in history, identified “short European equities” as the most crowded trade. Chart 6European Equities: Unloved And Unwanted We think that such deep pessimism about Europe is largely unwarranted. Faster global growth will help the European export sector later this year, while domestic demand will benefit from more accommodative fiscal policy and lower bond yields, especially in Italy. The ECB will not raise rates this year even if growth speeds up, but the market will probably price in a few more rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. This will allow for a modest re-steepening in the yield curves in core European bond markets, which should be positive for long-suffering bank profits. Political risk remains a concern. The Brexit saga has reached the farcical stage where: 1) The U.K. has voted to leave the EU; but 2) Parliament has voted to stay in the EU unless it reaches a satisfactory deal with Brussels; while 3) rejecting the only deal with Brussels that was on offer. Given that most British voters no longer want Brexit (Chart 7), we think that the government will kick the proverbial can down the road until a second referendum is announced or a “soft Brexit” deal is formulated. Either outcome would be welcomed by markets. Chart 7U.K.: In The Case Of A Do-Over, The Remain Side Would Likely Win Q: You seem less bullish on the U.S. dollar than you were last year? A: That is correct. As we discussed last week, the dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of global growth (Chart 8). If global growth strengthens later this year, the trade-weighted dollar will probably weaken. Chart 8The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Moreover, as this week’s FOMC meeting highlighted, the Fed’s reaction function has shifted in a more dovish direction. The median Fed dot now foresees no rate hikes this year and only one rate hike in 2020. In contrast, the December Summary of Economic Projections envisioned two rate hikes this year and one next year. The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of global growth. In a far cry from his October “rates are far from neutral” comment, Jay Powell stressed during this week's post-FOMC meeting press conference that the fed funds rate is currently in the “broad range of estimates of neutral.” While we would not rule out the possibility that the FOMC will raise rates at some point later this year, we now expect a more gradual pace of rate tightening than we had earlier envisioned. Q: Does a more dovish Fed imply that the economic expansion has even further to run? A: Yes. Expansions tend to end when monetary policy turns restrictive. We had previously thought that this point could be reached in late-2020, but it is now starting to look as though it will occur later than that. Broadly speaking, we see the Fed tightening cycle unfolding in two stages. In the first stage, which is the one we are in today, the Fed will raise rates in baby steps in response to better-than-expected growth and falling unemployment. In the second stage, the Fed will hike rates more aggressively as inflation starts to accelerate. Risk assets will be able to digest the first stage, but not the second. The good news is that most of our favorite indicators are not yet pointing to a major inflationary upswing (Chart 9): Despite higher tariffs, consumer import price inflation has slowed; core intermediate producer price inflation has decelerated; the prices paid components of the ISM and regional Fed surveys have plunged; inflation surprise indices have rolled over; and both survey and market-based measures of inflation expectations remain below where they were last summer. In keeping with these developments, BCA’s propriety Inflation Pipeline Indicator has fallen to a two-and-a-half-year low. Chart 9No Signs Of An Imminent Major Inflationary Upswing In The U.S. ... Wage growth has accelerated, but productivity growth has increased by even more. Unit labor cost inflation has actually been coming down since the middle of last year. Unit labor costs lead core CPI inflation by about 12 months (Chart 10). This implies that consumer price inflation is unlikely to reach uncomfortably high levels at least until the second half of next year. Chart 10... And Decelerating Unit Labor Costs Will Dampen Inflationary Pressures For The Time Being Beyond then, the risks are high that inflation will move up as the economy continues to overheat. This could force the Fed to start raising rates aggressively late next year, a course of action that will push up the dollar and cause equities and spread product to sell off. The resulting tightening in financial conditions will probably plunge the U.S. and the rest of the world into recession in 2021. Q: So stay overweight stocks for now, but consider selling at some point next year? A: Correct. The MSCI All-Country World Index (ACWI) has risen by over 14% since we upgraded it in December after having moved to the sidelines six months earlier. Given this run-up, we are not as bullish now as we were at the start of the year. Most of our favorite indicators are not yet pointing to a major inflationary upswing. Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for equities remains to the upside. While the forward P/E ratio for the MSCI ACWI has returned to where it was last September, analyst earnings expectations are currently much more conservative: Bottom-up estimates foresee EPS rising by 4.1% in the U.S. and 5.3% in the rest of the world in 2019 (Chart 11). The combination of faster growth, easier financial conditions, and ongoing corporate buybacks implies some upside to those estimates. Chart 11Analyst Expectations Are Quite Muted Moreover, real yields have fallen over the past five months – the 10-year U.S. TIPS yield is 48 basis points below its Q4 average, for example. A simple dividend discount model would suggest that global equities are about 10%-to-15% cheaper than they were prior to last year’s autumn selloff. The path of least resistance for equities remains to the upside. Q: Aren’t you worried that rising labor costs will push down profit margins even if GDP growth accelerates? A: Not really. As noted above, productivity growth has picked up. Whether this is the start of a new trend remains to be seen, but at least for now, it is dampening unit labor costs. Historically, real unit labor costs – nominal unit labor costs divided by the corporate price deflator – have tracked economy-wide profit margins very closely (Chart 12). Chart 12Real U.S. Unit Labor Costs Historically Have Tracked Economy-Wide Profit Margins Very Closely In practice, it is very rare for earnings to contract outside of recessions (Chart 13). This is why recessions and equity bear markets generally overlap (Chart 14). With the next recession still two years away, it is too early to turn defensive. Indeed, as Table 1 shows, the second-to-last year of business-cycle expansions is often the most lucrative for stock market investors. Chart 13Earnings Rarely Contract Outside Of Recessions Chart 14Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Q: What do you recommend in terms of regional equity allocation? A: If global growth accelerates later this year and the dollar weakens, this will create an excellent environment for international stocks – EM and Europe in particular. Investors should prepare to overweight those regions at the expense of the United States (currency unhedged). Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Elaine Chan, “China spreading ‘positive news’ of strong export rebound in early March after February plunge,” South China Morning Post, March 11, 2019. 2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Venezuela’s oil production likely fell ~ 500k b/d last week in the wake of nationwide power outages, reducing total output to ~ 500k b/d. However, neither OPEC 2.0 nor U.S. President Donald Trump drew much attention to it. During an industry gathering in Houston last week, an administration official conceded events in Venezuela could affect whether U.S. waivers on its Iranian oil-export sanctions are extended beyond May 4, but that was pretty much it.1 This is consistent with the thesis we laid out last month, which reflects our view OPEC 2.0 is evolving a more flexible production strategy that allows it to adjust production quickly in response to exogenous events over which it has little control; chiefly, U.S. foreign, trade and monetary policy.2 This will result in higher prices, satisfying the sometimes-conflicting goals of OPEC 2.0’s leadership – i.e., KSA’s budgetary need for prices closer to $80/bbl, and Russian producers’ need to increase revenue through higher volumes. Given this backdrop, our updated balances and price forecasts remain largely unchanged, with minor adjustments to the overall supply side and no change on the demand side. We continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year. For 2020, we continue to expect Brent to average $80/bbl – higher U.S. shale output will be offset by delays in building out deepwater export facilities in the U.S. Gulf for most of the year. We expect WTI to trade $7 and $5/bbl lower in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The balance of price risk remains to the upside, as policy risk – i.e., a miscalculation on all sides – is elevated. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We are closing our 2020 long WTI vs. short Brent position at tonight’s close, given delays in the buildout of deepwater-harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf caused by additional environmental assessments. This likely will push the spread out to $5/bbl+, vs. our target of $3.25/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper got another endorsement from Fitch Solutions, which is predicting LME prices will average $6,900 and $7,100/MT this year and next, on the back of lower inventories and improving supply-demand fundamentals. We remain long copper, which is up 2.7% since we recommended it on March 7. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our colleagues at BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy expect the USD to weaken in 2H19, which, all else equal, will support gold and precious metals.3 Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 6.3% since inception on May 4, 2017. Agriculture: Underweight. Grain markets likely will trade sideways ahead of the USDA’s Prospective Plantings survey of farmer intentions next Friday.   Feature The sudden loss of Venezuelan output – and exports – was barely noticed in price action over the past week.  U.S. foreign and trade policy will continue to keep oil supply and demand uncertainty elevated, particularly as sanctions against Venezuela play out against the backdrop of a collapsing infrastructure. Last week’s nationwide power outage likely caused crude oil production to drop 500k b/d from ~ 1mm b/d previously.4 The sudden loss of Venezuelan output – and exports – was barely noticed in price action over the past week. Global inventories remain swollen (Chart 1), and OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity is increasing as it cuts production (Chart 2). This allows Venezuelan production losses to be covered with little or no disruption to supply or demand, and little or no increase in the level of agita in oil markets. Chart of the WeekOECD Inventories Still High, But Continue to Drain That cushion allows the U.S. to continue to prosecute its sanctions strategy against Venezuela and Iran. But it does not give the U.S. carte blanche to pursue regime change in both countries at the same time. As we noted in our New Political Economy of Oil report last month, OPEC 2.0 possibly could cover the loss of 500k b/d of Venezuelan exports and maybe up to 1.5mm b/d of Iranian exports.5 We continue to expect waivers on the Iran sanctions to be extended, although Trump administration officials remain guarded in terms of providing markets any forward guidance. However, it would tighten the heavy-sour market even more than it is now.6 And, full-on sanctions campaigns conducted simultaneously on Venezuela and Iran following the expiration of U.S. waivers on export sanctions against the latter would leave spare capacity dangerously thin, and push the risk premium in oil prices up sharply, given the volumes Iran already is supplying (Chart 3, Table 1). Table 1Iran Exports By Country 2018 (‘000 b/d) We continue to expect waivers on the Iran sanctions to be extended, although Trump administration officials remain guarded in terms of providing markets any forward guidance. The most that’s been offered came last week in Houston at an industry convention, where Brian Hook, special representative for Iran at the U.S. State Department, indicated the U.S. administration is aware of the supply-side pressure associated with its campaigns against Venezuela and Iran. However, he offered nothing definitive one way or another, so markets will continue to assign a non-zero probability that waivers will not be extended.7 Oil Supply Expectations Remain Stable For our part, we believe waivers on the U.S. Iranian export sanctions will be extended out of necessity. While more than 2mm b/d of Venezuelan and Iranian production can be offset by increased OPEC 2.0 spare capacity – now running ~ 2.1mm b/d based on U.S. EIA estimates – it is not sufficient to cover any additional losses due to unplanned outage of the sort seen in May 2016, when 1mm b/d of Canadian oil production was lost to wildfires. These are real risks, not abstractions meant to illustrate a point.8 For 2H19, our base case now assumes OPEC 2.0’s production rises by ~ 0.5mm b/d vs. 1H19 production of 44.5mm b/d. This will smooth out the loss of Venezuelan output as it falls to 500k b/d by the end of this year, vs. the 650k b/d we expected last month. We also expect Iranian production to remain close to the 3mm b/d it will average in 1H19, likely increasing as global storage levels fall and waivers are exercised (much like a call option). News reports suggest KSA continues to advocate the extension of production cuts by OPEC 2.0 to year end. However, if the coalition’s goal is to keep Brent prices close to $75/bbl this year, and closer to $80/bbl next year – the assumptions we’re working with – OPEC 2.0 likely will have to raise production by 0.5mm b/d in 2H19 and 0.72mm b/d next year. Maintaining production cuts into 2H19 risks sending prices significantly higher, in our estimation. Globally, the big driver of growth on the supply side continues to be U.S. shales, which we now expect to increase 1.2mm b/d in 2019 and 0.9mm b/d next year, a small increase of ~ 60k b/d versus our estimates last month.9 While it is true the Permian bottleneck will be cleared by the end of this year – adding some 2mm b/d of new takeaway capacity – export capacity will remain challenged by new delays to the build-out of deepwater-harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf well into 2020, following requests of Carlyle Group and Trafigura AG to provide additional information in environmental filings to regulators before work begins.10 This will push the Permian bottleneck from the basin to the U.S. Gulf refining market. On the back of this development, we are closing our 2020 long WTI vs. short Brent recommendation at tonight’s close, given these delays likely push the deep-water expansion in the Gulf to 4Q20 or later. Oil Demand Also Remains Stable Oil demand will continue to be supported by the easing of monetary policy in DM and EM economies to offset a slowdown in global growth. In addition, we expect China’s credit cycle to bottom in 1Q19, which will be supportive of oil demand there and in EMs generally (Chart 4). We continue to expect the Sino – U.S. trade war to be resolved in 1H19, as both presidents Trump and Xi need to get a deal done to satisfy domestic audiences – i.e., U.S. elections next year and the upcoming 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021, respectively. Chart 4EM Growth Will Lift In 2H19 During the second half of this year, we expect a more significant pick-up in China’s credit cycle, which will set the stage for a year-end rally in commodities generally – oil and base metals in particular. We also expect global demand to get a lift from a weaker USD beginning in 2H19 and extending to the end of 2020.11 We expect demand growth of 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year, slightly more than the EIA and IEA. We expect EM to account for 53.7mm b/d of growth this year and 55mm b/d next year. Total global demand will average 101.8mm b/d and 103.4mm b/d in 2019 and 2020. U.S. policy is keeping the supply- and demand-side uncertainty elevated, but OPEC 2.0’s hand has been strengthened by the fact that it is, more than ever, the fulcrum of the oil market. OPEC 2.0’s Balancing Strategy U.S. policy is keeping the supply- and demand-side uncertainty elevated, but OPEC 2.0’s hand has been strengthened by the fact that it is, more than ever, the fulcrum of the oil market: It can balance shortfalls out of spare capacity – boosted some by its production cuts – and it can reduce unintended inventory accumulation via its demonstrated ability to cut output rapidly. Our 2019 and 2020 Brent price forecasts remain at $75 and $80/bbl (Chart 5). Delays in building out U.S. Gulf deepwater-harbor capacity next year will keep exports constrained. This will back production up behind the pipe in the Permian Basin next year, and keep inventories fuller than they otherwise would be. And it means Brent markets will remain tighter than we previously expected in 2020, as WTI won’t be exported in the volumes needed to tighten the Brent - WTI spread as much as we previously expected. For 2019, we expect WTI to trade $7/bbl under Brent, and $5/bbl under in 2020 (vs. our earlier expectation of $3.25/bbl), on the back of these delays. This compels us to liquidate our long WTI vs. Brent recommendation in 2020 at tonight’s close. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Output Hike Needed To Keep Market Balanced in 2H19 OPEC 2.0’s position as the fulcrum effectively means it can balance the market to achieve its price goals (Chart 6, Table 2). This does not drive our forecast, but it does line up with what we would expect an economically rational agent to do. Chart 6Our Ensemble Forecasts Remain Fairly Stable Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) We believe OPEC 2.0 is succeeding in evolving a strategy that allows it sufficient flexibility to respond to exogenous forces affecting oil prices, which are, for the most part, out of its control. Bottom Line: Policy uncertainty is elevated, but we believe OPEC 2.0 is succeeding in evolving a strategy that allows it sufficient flexibility to respond to exogenous forces affecting oil prices, which are, for the most part, out of its control – i.e., U.S. foreign, trade and monetary policy.12 As such, we believe it will adjust output to achieve price targets, which, despite the sometimes-public disagreements between KSA and Russia, are closer to our forecast levels of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not.     Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  U.S. waivers were granted by the Trump administration just before the sanctions against Iranian oil exports went into effect November 4; these waivers expire May 4, 2019. 2      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “What’s Next For The Dollar,” published by BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy published March 15, 2019.  It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4     In its March 2019 Oil Market Report, the IEA notes, “The electricity crisis in Venezuela has paralysed most of the country for significant periods of time. Although there are signs that the situation is improving, the degradation of the power system is such that we cannot be sure if the fixes are durable. Until recently, Venezuela’s oil production had stabilised at around 1.2 mb/d. During the past week, industry operations were seriously disrupted and ongoing losses on a significant scale could present a challenge to the market.”  We await better data to assess the full extent of the production lost in Venezuela. 5      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see “Oil Price Diffs: Global Convergence,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy March 7, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7      Please see “CERAWeek: US waivers for Iran oil imports may hinge on Venezuela sanctions impact: State official,” published by S&P Global Platts March 13, 2019. 8      We treat these waivers as quasi call options on Iranian crude oil in our analysis.  As inventories draw, importers holding waivers can be expected to exercise their option and lift more crude from Iran without running afoul of U.S. sanctions. 9      We approximate our shale production based on the big 5 basins (Anadarko, Bakken, Permian, Eagle Ford and Niobrara). 10     Please see “US Suspends Review On Trafigura Oil-Port Project” published by Hart Energy March 18, 2019.  See also “Exclusive: Environmental review could delay Carlyle deepwater oil export project up to 18 months,” published by reuters.com March 14, 2019. 11     See footnote 3 above. 12     A perfect example of this can be seen OPEC 2.0’s decision to move its ministerial meeting to June: A decision from the U.S. on whether to extend waivers on the Iranian sanctions will come May 4, right around the time OPEC 2.0 member states are deciding on export schedules.  If waivers are extended, member states can maintain production discipline or add volumes to the market as needed; if sanctions are re-imposed in full, they can increase production as needed. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Analysis on Turkey is published below. The key reason why we believe the ongoing EM rally will falter is that EM corporate earnings have begun to contract. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices from selling off. The recent pick-up in China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse suggests the bottom in EM corporate profit growth will only occur toward the end of 2019. There are several key differences between the economic backdrops and financial markets signposts between now and 2016. The current profiles of both EM and DM share prices are a close match to those in 2011-2012 when the strong rally in the first quarter was followed by a major selloff in the second quarter. Feature The common narrative in the market is that the current policy backdrop – a pause by the Fed and policy stimulus from China – is a repeat of early 2016. As such, market participants expect moves in global risk assets to be analogous to those during that period. We too could easily adopt this simple narrative, and recommend investors to chase EM higher. Instead, we have chosen to take on the very difficult task of expounding why 2019 is not a repeat of 2016 in EM and China-related financial markets. Based on this, our view remains that investors should not be chasing the current EM rally. The essential pillar of our negative thesis on EM is that their corporate profits will contract this year. This will be bad news not only for EM share prices but also for EM credit markets and currencies. Chart I-1 illustrates that during the past 10 years, EM stock prices plunged every time profit contraction commenced. Having rallied meaningfully in the past three months, EM financial markets will sell off as EM corporate earnings begin to shrink. Chart I-1EM EPS Is Beginning To Contract The basis for EM profit contraction is the continued slowdown in China. Chart I-2 illustrates that China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads EM EPS growth by about 12 months. Hence, the recent pick-up in the former entails the bottom in the latter only toward the end of 2019. Chart I-2EM EPS Growth Will Bottom Only Toward The End Of 2019 In brief, even assuming China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse has bottomed and will improve going forward, EM EPS contraction will deepen for now. EM share prices are unlikely to embark on a cyclical bull market until EM EPS growth bottoms. Earnings Versus Interest Rates Lower interest rates are typically bullish for both equity and credit markets so long as corporate profits do not contract. However, when EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. In general, when discussing the effect of interest rates on equities, one should differentiate between economic and financial linkages. Given the cornerstone narrative of this EM rally has been declining U.S. interest rate expectations, we examine the nexus between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. The economic link refers to the impact of borrowing costs on aggregate spending, and hence corporate profits. The pertinent question is as follows: Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Chart I-3 illustrates that as of the end of February, while Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Singaporean exports to the U.S. expanded by 10% from a year ago, their shipments to China contracted by 10%. Chart I-3Global Trade Slowed Due To China Not The U.S Hence, the slowdown in EM corporate profits has not been caused by Fed policy. U.S. domestic demand in general and imports in particular have so far been expanding at a healthy pace and they have not been instrumental to EM corporate earnings cycles (Chart I-4). This signifies that lower U.S. interest rates should not have a material impact on EM growth, and thereby corporate profits. Chart I-4EM EPS Growth Has Not Been Driven By Sales To U.S. Notably, one can argue that the economic and financial market dynamics that prevailed in 2018 worked in the opposite direction: It was China’s slowdown that ultimately imperiled U.S. manufacturing growth, causing U.S. equity and credit markets to sell off, thereby forcing a reversal in the Fed’s stance. The financial link refers to a declining discount rate for EM risk assets as U.S. interest rates drop. A drop in the discount rate lifts the present value of future cash flows and boosts risk asset prices. However, EM equity multiples have not been historically negatively correlated with U.S. bond yields, as shown on the top panel of Chart I-5. Besides, EM credit spreads do not always positively correlate with U.S. borrowing costs, as widely expected (Chart I-5, middle panel). Chart I-5U.S. Bond Yields And EM: No Stable Relationship Further, EM currencies have not been negatively correlated with either U.S. bond yields or with the interest rate differential between the U.S. and EM (Chart I-5, bottom panel). As to EM local bond yields, especially in high-yielding markets, it is EM exchange rates that drive EM domestic bond yields and their differential over U.S. Treasurys. When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates usually do not prevent share prices from selling off. Finally, Chart I-6 illustrates the relationship between the returns on EM assets on one hand and U.S. bond yields on the other. This chart corroborates the evidence from Chart I-5 – that the relationship between U.S. interest rates and EM asset markets is not stable. Chart I-6U.S. Bond Yields And EM Risk Assets: No Stable Relationship Even though in the short term financial markets in developing countries seem to react to changes in U.S. interest rates, in the medium and long run there is no stable relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. Treasury yields. In short, lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. How do we explain the absence of a strong relationship between these financial and economic variables? Our take is as follows: When EPS growth turns negative, low interest rates typically do not prevent share prices and credit markets from selling off. That is why there is no clear and strong relationship between EM risk assets and U.S. interest rates. Was the Fed tightening responsible for the growth deceleration in EM/China in 2018? The short answer is not really. Corporate earnings are the key to sustaining this EM rally. What is needed for EM corporate profits to recover is a revival in Chinese demand. The latter is not yet imminent, implying that EM assets will likely hit an air pocket before a more durable bottom occurs. Are lower interest rates in China a justification for the latest EM equity rebound? Chart I-7 demonstrates that both EM and Chinese investable stock indexes positively correlate with interest rates in China. The reason is because all of them are driven by Chinese growth: When growth accelerates, these share prices and Chinese local bond yields rise, and vice versa. Chart I-7Chinese Interest Rates And EM / China Share Prices: Positive Correlation Bottom Line: Lower interest rates in the U.S. or in China in and of themselves do not constitute sufficient conditions for a cyclical rally in EM share prices. The primary driver of EM share prices in the past 10 years has been Chinese growth, because the latter has a considerable bearing on EM corporate profits. For now, there have been no substantive signs of a growth revival in China. How 2019 Is Different From 2016 We elaborated in detail on how the current round of policy stimulus in China differs from the one in 2015-‘16 in our report titled, Dissecting China’s Stimulus, and will not discuss it here. Instead, we offer several economic and financial signposts illustrating how the EM/China outlook and financial market dynamics in 2019 will differ from those of 2016: Presently, there is no meaningful policy stimulus for the real estate market in China, and property sales will continue to shrink (Chart I-8). This is the opposite of what occurred in 2015-‘16 when the Chinese central bank literally monetized excessive housing inventories by financing residential real estate via its Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) facility. The ensuing surge in property demand substantially contributed to the business cycle recovery on the mainland in 2016-‘17. Chart I-8A Downbeat Outlook For Chinese Housing EM share prices have been underperforming the DM equity index since late December. In contrast, EM began outperforming DM in January 2016 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Equities Have Been Underperforming DM Ones Since Late December In early 2016, the pace of EM profit contraction stabilized after 18 months of deepening shrinkage (Chart I-1 on page 1). What’s more, investor sentiment on EM was very downbeat in early 2016. Presently, the EM profit contraction is just commencing, and its rate of change will bottom only in late 2019, as per Chart I-2 on page 2. In the meantime, investors are ill prepared for bad news, as their sentiment on EM is extremely buoyant. Finally, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar began selling off in early 2016, corroborating the EM rally. This year the broad measure of the trade-weighted dollar has not sold off. Hence, the dollar has not yet confirmed the EM rebound (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The U.S. Dollar And EM Share Prices Is 2019 Akin To 2012? In terms of share-price patterns, the current profiles of both EM and DM are a close match to those in 2011-2012 (Chart I-11). Following a major plunge in the second half of 2011, share prices bottomed in December 2011 and rallied sharply in the following three months. Not only is the duration similar to what transpired with share prices in 2011-’12, but also the magnitude (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Is 2018-19 Akin To 2011-12? As to the economic backdrop in 2011-‘12, the euro area was in the midst of a credit crisis and China/EM growth was slowing due to the preceding Chinese policy tightening. After the strong rally in January-March 2012, both EM and DM bourses sold off sharply in the second quarter of 2012, re-testing their late 2011 lows. Critically, like the present and unlike early 2016, EM stocks were underperforming DM ones during the early 2012 rally. Lower U.S. interest rate expectations is not a sufficient condition to be positive on EM risk assets. On the surface, it appears that the magic words of the European Central Bank President Mario Draghi that “…the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro” that halted the global selloff. Yet, in reality, Draghi’s speech was the trigger for – not the cause of – the markets’ reversal. In retrospect, the primary reason for a major bottom in global risk assets in June 2012 was the bottom in the global business cycle in the second half of 2012 (Chart I-12, top panel). Chart I-12Global Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed As can be seen on this panel, global equity prices are often coincident with “soft” economic data like global manufacturing PMI. Global stocks typically lead “hard” economic data and corporate profits but do not always lead “soft” data. Presently, the bottom in global manufacturing and trade is not yet in sight. The bottom panel of Chart I-12 shows that Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. These electronics parts are inputs into final goods; when producers of these goods plan to increase production they first order these parts. As a result, trade in these electronics parts lead the broader trade/manufacturing cycle. Taiwanese exports of electronics products parts are still nose-diving, and they typically lead global manufacturing PMI by a few months. On the whole, odds are that China’s business cycle as well as global trade and manufacturing have not yet hit a durable bottom and are not about to recover. Countries/industries leveraged to China will experience a meaningful profit contraction. Hence, there is a significant probability that EM stocks re-test their recent lows akin to what transpired in 2012. Investment Considerations There is no meaningful evidence indicating that China’s business cycle and global trade and manufacturing have bottomed. Global cyclical equity sectors have rebounded but have not yet decisively broken above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-13). Crucially, their relative performance to the overall global index has been rather sluggish (Chart I-14). This corroborates the lack of global growth tailwinds behind this global equity rally. Chart I-13Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Absolute Performance Chart I-14Global Cyclical Equity Sectors: Relative Performance Asset allocators should continue to underweight EM stocks and credit markets within their global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Without an improvement in the global business cycle, the rebound in EM currencies is not durable. As China’s growth disappoints, EM currencies will depreciate versus the dollar, the euro and the yen. Renewed currency depreciation will erode returns on EM local currency bonds for international investors. For dedicated EM local bond portfolios, our recommended overweights are Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Thailand and Korea (Chart I-15). Our underweights are South Africa, Indonesia, India and today we are downgrading Turkish local bonds to underweight (please refer to section on Turkey starting on the next page). Chart I-15Favor These Local Currency Bond Markets Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Brewing Policy Reversal? The odds of a policy reversal in Turkey are rising. The government’s patience with tight monetary policy may be running thin. The nation’s GDP contracted by 3% in the final quarter of 2018 from a year ago. Further contraction is in the cards. Chart II-1 signifies that monetary policy is indeed tight: Lira-denominated bank loan growth is at zero, and in real (inflation-adjusted) terms bank lending has shrunk by about 18% from a year ago. The ongoing painful economic retrenchment (Chart II-2) and rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing – something the Turkish central bank has done often over the current decade. Specifically, the central bank’s liquidity provisions to the banking system will likely begin to rise (Chart II-3). The severe liquidity tightening, underway since October 2018 via reduced lending to banks, has been partially responsible for the stability in the exchange rate. As the central bank augments liquidity provisions to the banking system, the lira will again come under renewed selling pressure. Rising unemployment may lead the authorities to loosen monetary policy/liquidity conditions via “backdoor” liquidity easing. The goal of liquidity provisioning would be to bring down interbank rates and, ultimately, lending rates. Presently, the spread between commercial banks’ lending rates and the interbank rate is negative (Chart II-4, top panel). This is unsustainable. The authorities have forced banks to bring down their lending rates in recent months. As a result, the gap between banks’ lending and deposit rates has also narrowed considerably (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This will weigh on the banks’ profitability. Consequently, we are closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. The government cannot force banks to reduce their lending rates further without reducing their cost of funding. Hence, the central bank might opt to inject excess reserves into the system to bring down interbank rates. Thereafter, the authorities could “guide” banks to further lower their lending rates. Policy easing might not be in the form of outright policy rate cuts to avoid a negative reaction from financial markets. Instead, the central bank could push down inter-bank rates by way of obscure liquidity injections into the banking system. To be sure, the odds of the currency reacting poorly to such loosening of liquidity are non-trivial. This, along with the ongoing recession, the shrinking bank net interest margins and the slow pace of bank loan restructuring, are leading us to downgrade the Turkish bourse that is heavy in bank stocks. Investment Recommendations Downgrade Turkish stocks and local currency bonds back to underweight. We closed our short/underweight positions in the Turkish currency, bonds and equities on August 15, 2018. For details, please see the report Turkey: Booking Profits On Shorts. This has proved to be a timely move as Turkish markets have rebounded notably and outperformed their EM peers (Chart II-5). In our opinion, it is now time to downgrade it again. ​​​​​​​ We are also closing our tactical long Turkish banks / short EM banks trade. This position has netted a modest 2.3% gain since its initiation on November 29, 2018. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights This report presents our framework for estimating Chinese capital outflows on a monthly basis, which investors can use as a real-time indicator to monitor the risk of another serious episode of capital flight. We also provide a monthly estimate of illicit capital outflow, which we find is negatively correlated with “on balance sheet” capital flows. This implies that Chinese residents alternate their use of the two channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. Our monitoring framework suggests that outflow pressure is more likely to ease than intensify if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks or months, especially given the rise in CNY-USD since early-November. However, we have identified a low-odds but high-impact scenario in which a shaky trade deal with the U.S. generates an unstable equilibrium that could ultimately escalate into a major Chinese capital outflow event. This could prove to be a highly destabilizing event for investors, and thus bears close monitoring. Feature Fears of a new round of capital outflow from China re-emerged in the second half of 2018 as USD-CNY approached 7, a psychologically important level for many investors (Chart 1). The last episode of significant capital outflows from China occurred in late-2015 following the PBOC’s devaluation of the RMB, and the sharp spike in volatility that resulted had a contagious effect for global financial markets. Chart 1A Near Miss Late Last Year In the very near term, the risk of a similar event appears to be low given the material trade talk-driven decline in USD-CNY that has occurred over the past five months. However, several news reports over the past year concerning the possible risk of another episode of capital flight underscore that China’s cross-border capital flow statistics are misunderstood by financial market participants. This raises the risk that investors either fail to anticipate a capital outflow event in the future or exaggerate the odds of one occurring. In this report we present our framework for estimating Chinese capital outflows on a monthly basis, which investors can use as a real-time indicator to monitor the risk of another serious episode of capital flight. We also adjust the typical measure of short-term capital flow derived from the quarterly balance of payments to account for cross-border RMB settlement, and present an estimate of illicit capital outflow that suggests Chinese residents alternate their use of legal and illegal channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. We then combine these three direct measures of capital flow with two indicators of expected RMB depreciation to further augment our monitoring efforts. We conclude by noting that while outflow pressure is more likely to ease than intensify if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks or months, we have identified a low-odds but high-impact scenario in which a shaky trade deal with the U.S. generates an unstable equilibrium that could ultimately escalate into a major Chinese capital outflow event. This scenario is not part of our base case outlook, but could prove to be a highly destabilizing event for investors and thus bears close monitoring. Defining Short-Term Capital Flow From The Balance Of Payments Table 1 presents China’s balance of payments (BOP) for the four quarters ending in Q3 2018, with all items shown on a net basis. The table is organized in a way that provides a helpful refresher on the formulation of the balance of payments, namely that the current account (“CA”, made up of the trade balance and primary & secondary income) plus the sum of the capital account (“KA”), the financial account (“FA”), and a balancing item (referred to as net errors & omissions, “NEO”) is equal to 0, when capital and financial outflows are recorded with a minus sign. Current account surpluses necessarily involve net financial outflows (i.e., investment); whereas current account deficits must be funded by financial inflows (i.e., borrowing). Table 1 highlights that what financial market participants typically refer to as “capital” flows are actually recorded in the financial account of the balance of payments. While derivatives are included in the table for the sake of completion, in practice they are usually quite small (as is the case for the actual “capital” account). Table 1China’s Balance Of Payments The bottom panel of Table 1 indicates that the balance of payments formula can be rearranged so that it represents how many market participants tend to define total and short-term capital outflows from a balance of payments perspective. As we will show in the next section of the report, this re-arrangement of the balance of payments formula is an essential element in building a more frequent proxy of short-term capital flow. We define short-term capital flow from the balance of payments as the combination of portfolio investment, other investment, and net errors & omissions. The bottom panel shows that by adding reserve assets (“RA”) to the current account (“CA”), the right hand side of the BOP equation becomes the sum of direct investment (“DI”), portfolio investment (“PI”), other investment “OI”, and net errors & omissions (“NEO”). Since direct investment tends not to be driven by short-term economic behavior and is normally not influenced by foreign exchange expectations or fluctuations, the formula can be further arranged to isolate short-term capital outflows on the right-hand side: Current Account + Changes in Reserve Assets + Direct Investment ≈ (Portfolio Investment + Other Investment + Net Errors & Omissions)*-1 Or using our line item notation, CA + RA + DI ≈ -PI - OI - NEO The formula above is expressed as an approximation rather than an identity simply because it excludes the capital account (“KA”) and financial derivatives (“FD”). As can be seen in Table 1, the net value of adding the four quarter rolling total of CA + RA + DI to PI + OI + NEO is US$ 3.3 billion; adding KA + FD (-0.35 and -2.95 billion US$, respectively) would result in a value of 0. Chart 2 shows this relationship visually; and highlights that both series are nearly identical. Chart 2Short-Term Capital Flow As Defined By The BOP Building A Better Proxy Of Short-Term Capital Flow The balance of payments approach is a useful starting point for measuring short-term capital flow, but it has two important drawbacks: Timeliness: Balance of payments data are reported in quarterly frequency, and often with a lag. This is inadequate for most investors, particularly when market participants are concerned that a crisis or crisis-like conditions may be emerging. This is the primary disadvantage of the BOP approach. Failure to account for cross-border RMB settlement: The balance of payments approach implicitly assumes that a current account surplus in China will automatically result in the importation of foreign exchange, but this assumption is no longer fully valid. Cross-border RMB settlement now accounts for part of China’s foreign trade settlement, reaching more than 30% during the 2015/2016 period. Compared with its peak level, RMB settlement as a share of total foreign trade has fallen over the past two years, but still accounts for 19% today (Chart 3). To more precisely gauge China’s capital outflows, cross-border RMB settlement should be removed from the current account surplus, because trade payments settled in RMB would not involve the receipt of foreign currency. This offsetting current account discrepancy would still show up in the balance of payments under net errors & omissions, but that would have the effect of distorting our definition of short-term capital flow. Chart 3Analysts Need To Adjust The Current Account For Cross-Border RMB Settlement Chart 4 illustrates the difference between our quarterly definition of short-term capital flow and the series adjusted for cross-border RMB settlement. The chart shows that the two series are quite similar for most of the past decade, with the notable exception of the 2015/2016 period. The adjusted series suggests that the intensity of China’s episode of capital flight did not peak in 2015, but rather late in 2016. This is consistent with domestic commentary at the time,1 and implies that the PBOC faced headwinds in their attempt to stem capital outflows that were even worse than has been generally acknowledged. Chart 4After Adjusting For Cross-Border Settlement, Outflow Intensity Only Peaked In Late-2016 Unfortunately for investors, dealing with the lack of timeliness in the release of China’s balance of payments statistics is a more challenging endeavor. This problem cannot be resolved with simple adjustments to the quarterly data, and instead requires the building of a proxy for short-term capital flow based on the BOP equation but using monthly statistics. Investors can proxy our adjusted quarterly balance of payments-based measure of short-term capital flow on a monthly basis. As we referenced above, the key to constructing a monthly capital flow estimate lies with the re-arrangement of the balance of payments equation such that short-term capital flow is expressed as being approximately equal to the sum of the current account, direct investment, and the change in reserve assets (when outflows of the latter two series are recorded as negative values). Table 2 highlights that high quality monthly series are available to act as proxies for these three balance of payments components, after accounting for cross-border RMB settlement and the following two additional adjustments: Table 2Components Of BCA’s Monthly China Capital Outflow Indicator Services Balance: The trade balance accounts for the vast majority of the current account of most countries, and this is also true in the case of China. An underappreciated fact about China’s trade balance is that it has shrunk considerably over the past several years, due to what is now a sizeable services deficit. Some market commentators who are aware of the services deficit point to it as evidence that China’s net importation of services is laying the groundwork for its “new economy” (via eventual import substitution), but the reality is that travel (i.e. net tourism spending) accounts for over 80% of it (Chart 5). For the purposes of our monthly capital flow proxy, a sizeable services deficit is a complication that must be accounted for, given that China’s monthly trade statistics (and most monthly trade data globally) represent the trade in goods, not the trade in services. Since most of the fluctuations in the trade balance occur due to net trade in goods, we include the history of the quarterly services balance in our monthly indicator as a structural variable, and extend the most recent quarterly value into the current quarter as a simplifying assumption. Currency Valuation Effect on Official Reserves: Foreign exchange reserves in the balance of payments are calculated by the historical cost method, whereas the highly followed monthly official foreign exchange reserve data released by the PBOC is measured using market value. Changes in its balance, in addition to genuine changes in foreign exchange reserve assets, also reflect revaluation effects caused by fluctuations in the foreign exchange market. To dampen these effects, we include foreign exchange reserves in our monthly capital flow proxy in SDR terms rather than in U.S. dollars, rebased to the value of the underlying U.S. dollar series as of December 2018. Chart 5Travel (i.e. Tourism) Accounts For The Majority Of China's Services Deficit Chart 6 presents our quarterly balance of payments-based capital flow measure (adjusted for cross-border capital flow) with our monthly proxy, based on the series shown in Table 2 and the adjustments noted above. Divergences between the series exist in level terms, but panel 2 shows that our monthly proxy does a good job capturing the trend in the quarterly series. The only major exception to this occurred at the beginning of 2016, when our monthly proxy fell sharply relative to the adjusted quarterly BOP version. Chart 6Our Monthly Proxy Captures The Trend In Quarterly Capital Flows This sharp decline is a bit of a mystery; it can be traced to the official reserves series, and either suggests that capital outflow was materially worse in Q4 2015 and Q1 2016 than officially recognized, or that China suffered outsized losses from the risky asset portion of its reserve portfolio during that period. However, the first explanation is at odds with the evidence noted earlier that the intensity of capital flight seems to have peaked in late-2016, and the second explanation is inconsistent with the history of financial market returns over the past decade. We noted in a February 2018 Special Report that risky U.S. assets (almost entirely stocks) accounted for as much as 9.5% of China’s foreign reserve assets in the summer of 2015,2 and it is true that U.S. equity returns were quite negative from December 2015 to February 2016. But this was certainly not the first and only period of extreme U.S. equity market volatility to occur since 2010, raising the question of why this sharp decline in official reserves only occurred in 2015/2016. Future research on the topic of Chinese capital flows will aim to reconcile the difference between our monthly proxy and our adjusted quarterly balance of payments series during this period, but for now we are confident that the former contributes meaningfully to our understanding of the latter, particularly on a rate of change basis. Import Over-Invoicing: A Third Measure Of Short-Term Capital Outflow Investors need to track both legal and illicit capital flows. Our first two measures of short-term capital flow were based on an attempt to track the legally allowable movement of funds out of China. However, illicit capital outflow is an acknowledged problem in China, which tends to occur through the practice of import over-invoicing.3 Chart 7 presents our estimate of import over-invoicing for China, based on a methodology articulated by Global Financial Integrity, a U.S. non-profit organization that provides analysis of illicit financial flows globally (see Appendix A). The chart highlights two important points: Chart 7Illicit Capital Outflows: Another Way That Money Leaves China Illicit outflows have increased significantly over the past 2 years following China’s capital control crackdown, particularly in Q3 2018 following the announcement of the second round of U.S. import tariffs against China. Panel 2 of Chart 7 illustrates that there is a negative correlation between “on balance sheet” capital flows and illicit capital outflows, implying that Chinese residents alternate their use of the two channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. This underscores the importance of monitoring both channels on an ongoing basis. Investment Conclusions Table 3 brings together the three measures of short-term capital flow that we have laid out above, as well as two indicators of expected RMB depreciation (Chart 8): net settlement of foreign exchange by Chinese banks (see Appendix B), and the 3-month moving average of the percent deviation of CNH-USD (offshore RMB) from CNY-USD (onshore RMB). Altogether, the series shown in Table 3 form the basis of our capital outflow monitoring efforts, and we plan on updating these series regularly to gauge whether outflow pressure is increasing. Table 3Dashboard For Monitoring Short-Term Capital Flows Chart 8Two Indicators Capturing Expectations Of Severe RMB Depreciation For now, only our measure of illicit capital outflow is flashing a warning sign, and the timing of the recent spike in the measure appears to be closely connected with the trade war with the U.S. This implies that outflow pressure is more likely to ease if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks, as we expect will occur. However, we noted in a March 6 joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy service that a deal with only slight concessions from China may stand on shaky ground and that tariff rollbacks will be limited or non-existent.4 This would ensure elevated policy uncertainty in the aftermath of the agreement and would raise the probability of a relapse into another trade war ahead of the 2020 U.S. election. In this scenario we would be watching the indicators shown in Table 3 closely for signs that increasing pessimism about the long-term state of sino-U.S. relations is causing the capital outflow “dam” built by policymakers following the 2015/2016 episode to buckle. Our monitoring framework suggests that the odds of a major capital flight event are currently low. But a shaky trade deal with the U.S. could change that. It is not part of our base case outlook, but onshore concerns of a renewed trade war with the U.S. next year could theoretically become self-fulfilling, if another major episode of capital flight were to weaken the RMB in a way that could even remotely be construed as a violation of the yuan stability pact that will reportedly be part of any agreement between the U.S. and China. While this would in no way entail a purposeful devaluation by Chinese policymakers to boost trade competitiveness, it could nonetheless provide an excellent excuse for President Trump to reinstate damaging economic pressure on China in the midst of what is likely to be a highly competitive re-election campaign. This could, in turn, produce a feedback effect that magnifies the original desire to move capital out of China, and would likely prove to be a highly destabilizing event for global financial markets. Stay tuned!   Qingyun Xu, CFA, Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Appendix A Measuring Import Over-Invoicing In this report we use one of the two methodologies employed by Global Financial Integrity to measure import over-invoicing in China, which compares a country’s reported trade statistics with that of its global trade partners.5 Using the IMF’s Direction of Trade Statistics data, we deflate Chinese import data measured on a C.I.F. (cost insurance and freight) basis to an F.O.B. (free on board) basis using an assumed freight and insurance factor of 10%. Then, we use Hong Kong re-export data to adjust global exports to China for re-exported trade through Hong Kong. The formula is listed below: Chinese Import Over-invoicing = [(Chinese Imports From The World)/1.1] - Adjusted Global Exports To China   Appendix B The Onshore Market For Foreign Exchange A poorly understood fact about China’s capital/financial account regime is that a material amount of foreign exchange reserves are now held by enterprises and individuals. Most investors are familiar with China’s old foreign exchange settlement policy (established formally in 1993), which prohibited enterprises from retaining foreign currency. Exporters receiving foreign currency as payment for goods and services had to sell all foreign exchange receipts to designed banks, and purchase foreign exchange from these banks when needed to make payments to offshore suppliers. Thus, while this policy was in effect, the PBOC held all China’s foreign exchange reserves and official reserves equaled total reserves. However, since the early-2000s, this policy has been gradually withdrawn. Since its complete abolishment in 2012, foreign exchange retained by enterprises and residents has increased materially. Chart B1 shows the impact of these changes on the bank foreign exchange settlement and sale rates. The settlement rate represents enterprises’ sale of foreign exchange to banks as a share of their total foreign exchange receipts in a given month, while the sale rate represents banks’ sale of foreign exchange to enterprises as a share of enterprises’ total foreign exchange payments. The chart shows that the settlement rate has dramatically dropped since 2012 (from 70% to less than 50%). We can also see there were spikes in the settlement rate and sale rate in August 2015 (in contrary directions) when the PBOC devalued the RMB, implying that the demand for forex and presumably the expectation of further RMB depreciation was severe. Chart B1The Evolution Of China’s Domestic Foreign Exchange Market​​​​​​​   Given this, we view net FX settlement (enterprises’ sale of foreign exchange to banks minus banks’ sale of foreign exchange to enterprises) as a reasonable proxy of expected RMB depreciation, and have included it as part of our capital flow monitoring framework.         1 “China’s capital outflow is still intensifying”, Reuters China Finance and Economics Column, December 19, 2016. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Demystifying China’s Foreign Assets”, dated February 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Import over-invoicing occurs when an importer (in country A) attempts to evade capital controls by colluding with an exporting entity (in country B) to falsify the reported value of goods imported into country A from country B. The importer “overpays” for the goods in question and, usually through an intermediary, moves the surplus funds into the importer’s offshore account. Please see https://www.gfintegrity.org/issue/trade-misinvoicing/ for more information about the mechanics of and motivations behind trade misinvoicing. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal?”, dated March 6, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 “Illicit Financial Flows to and from 148 Developing Countries: 2006-2015”, Global Financial Integrity, January 2019. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations