Emerging Markets

Highlights Equities can continue to outperform bonds for a few months longer. The pro-cyclical equity sector stance that has worked well since last October can also continue for a few months longer. Overweight pro-cyclical Sweden versus pro-defensive Denmark. The caveat is that these short-term trends are unlikely to persist and will viciously reverse later in the year. European ‘soft’ luxury goods companies are an excellent structural investment opportunity. Take profits on the 75 percent rally in Litecoin and 50 percent rally in Ethereum. Feature Why should European investors care so much about China? The Chart of the Week provides one emphatic answer. For Europe’s $500 billion basic resources sector, the three most important things in the world are: China, China, and China. Through the past decade, the share price performance of the resource behemoths BHP, Anglo American, Rio Tinto, and Glencore have been joined at the hip to China’s short-term credit impulse (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart of the WeekFor European Basic Resources, The Three Most Important Things In the World Are: China, China, And China Chart I-2BHP, Anglo American, And Rio Tinto Have Been Rallying For Several Months Chart I-3BHP Is Joined At The Hip To China's Short-Term Credit Impulse But China has a much deeper importance to Europe. According to Mario Draghi, the recent cycle in Europe is ‘made in China’. On the euro area’s domestic fundamentals, Draghi is upbeat, citing “supportive financing conditions, favourable labour market dynamics and rising wage growth”. Yet the economic data have continued to be weaker than expected. Why? Draghi blames a “slowdown in external demand” and specifically, vulnerabilities in emerging markets. He claims that as soon as there is clarity on the exports and the trade sector, much of the euro area’s weakness will wash out.     Federal Reserve Chairman, Jay Powell presented a remarkably similar narrative to justify the recent pause in the Fed’s sequential rate hikes: “The U.S. economy is in a good place… but growth has slowed in some major foreign economies.” If Powell claims that the U.S. domestic economy is in a good place and Draghi points out that the euro area domestic fundamentals are fine, then the explanation for what has happened – and what will happen – can only come from one place: China. Optimistically, Draghi adds: “everything we know says that China’s government is actually taking strong measures to address the slowdown.” The good news is that we can independently corroborate Draghi’s optimism, at least in the near-term (Chart I-4). Chart I-4China's Short-Term Credit Impulse Is Up Sharply, And Commodities Have Rebounded Why China Matters To Europe Chart I-5 shows the short-term credit impulses in the euro area, U.S., and China through the past twenty years. They are all expressed in dollars to allow an apples for apples comparison between the three major economies. The comparison reveals a fascinating transformation. The dominant short-term impulse – the one with the highest amplitude – charts the shift in global economic power and influence from Europe and the U.S. to China. Chart I-5The Shift In Global Economic Power From Europe And The U.S. To China Before 2008, the short-term impulses in the euro area and the U.S. dominated. But the global financial crisis was a major turning point: the credit stimulus from China dwarfed the responses from the western economies. Then through 2009-12 the impulse oscillations from the three major economies took it in turns to dominate. For example, the 2011-12 global downturn was definitely ‘made in Europe’. However, since 2013 China has taken on the undisputed mantle of dominant impulse. Most recently, last year’s peak to trough decline in China’s short-term impulse amounted to $1 trillion, equivalent to a 1.5 percent drag on global GDP. By comparison, the declines in the euro area and the U.S. amounted to a much more modest $200 billion. Likewise, the recent rebound in the China’s short-term impulse, in dollar terms, has been much larger than the respective rebounds in the euro area and the U.S. Credit Impulses And Speeding Tickets Clients complain that they are confused by the conflicting messages from differently calculated credit impulses. So let’s digress for a moment to present a powerful analogy which should clear the confusion once and for all. Imagine you floored the accelerator pedal of your car (analogous to a huge stimulus). After a hundred metres or so, the stimulus would become very apparent. Your speed over that short sprint would have surged, and possibly have become illegal! But your average speed measured over the previous kilometre would have barely changed. Now imagine a police officer rightfully presents you with a speeding ticket. To protest your innocence, you argue that you couldn’t have floored the accelerator pedal because your average speed over the previous kilometre had barely changed! Clearly, you would never offer such a ludicrous defence for pushing the pedal to the metal. Yet when assessing the impact of an economic stimulus, it is commonplace to make the same mistake.    The crucial point is that a stimulus – like flooring the accelerator pedal of your car – will barely move the needle for a longer-term rate of change, but it will become very apparent in a short-term rate of change. For this reason, financial markets never wait for the long-term rates of change to pick up. They always move up or down on the evolution of short-term rates of change. It follows that the credit impulse calculation that is most relevant is the one that provides the best explanatory power for the cycles that we actually observe in the economic and financial market data. As we described in our Special Report, “The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles”, both the theory and evidence powerfully identify the 6-month credit impulse as the one with the best explanatory power for the oscillations that we actually observe in the economy and markets.1 For the sceptics, the charts in this report should finally dispel any lingering doubts. China’s 6-month impulse gives a spookily perfect explanation for the industrial commodity inflation cycle, and thereby the share price performance of the basic resources sector, as well as the other classically cyclical sectors (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6China's Short-Term Impulse Perfectly Explains Industrial Commodity Inflation Chart I-7Semiconductors Are A Modern Day Cyclical The good news is that China’s short-term impulse has indisputably been in a mini-upswing in recent months, and this is the reason that the classical cyclical sectors have simultaneously rebounded or, at the very least, stabilised. The bad news is that the shelf-life of such mini-upswings averages no more than eight months or so. Intuitively, this is because just as you cannot accelerate your car indefinitely, it is likewise impossible to stimulate credit growth indefinitely. The investment conclusion is that the pro-cyclical equity sector stance that has worked well since last October can continue for a few months longer. This sector stance necessarily impacts regional and country allocation. For example, it is still right to be overweight pro-cyclical Sweden versus pro-defensive Denmark (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9).  Chart I-8Overweight Pro-Cyclical Sweden Versus Denmark... Chart I-9...And Versus Norway From an asset allocation perspective, it means that equities can continue to outperform bonds for the time being. But the caveat is that these short-term trends are unlikely to persist, and most likely, they will viciously reverse later in the year. Stay tuned for the signal to switch. Stay Structurally Overweight ‘Soft’ Luxuries A common question we get concerns the European luxury goods sector: is it, just like the basic resources sector, a direct play on China’s growth cycle?  The answer is no. Recently, the connection between the fortunes of ‘soft’ luxury goods brands like LVMH, Hermes, and Kering and China’s growth cycle has been weak (Chart I-10). Broadly, this is also true for ‘hard’ luxury brands – for example, luxury watches – like Richemont (Chart I-11). Chart I-10European 'Soft' Luxuries Are No Longer A China Play... Chart I-11...Neither Are European 'Hard' Luxuries As we highlighted in Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend, the much bigger driver for the ‘soft’ luxury brands is the structural increase in female labour participation rates, and the feminisation of consumer spending. We expect this trend to persist for the next decade.2 Hence, we are happy to buy and hold the European clothes and accessories companies with a dominant or significant exposure to women’s clothes and/or accessories; provided they have a top-end brand (or brands) giving pricing power, and mitigating the very strong deflation in clothes prices. In summary, while European basic resources are a good tactical investment opportunity, European ‘soft’ luxury goods companies are an excellent structural investment opportunity. Fractal Trading System* We are delighted to report that the fractal trading system perfectly identified the sharp recent rebound in cryptocurrencies. Our long Litecoin and Ethereum position has hit its 60 percent profit target with Litecoin up 75 percent and Ethereum up 50 percent since trade initiation on December 19. Additionally, long industrials versus utilities has also hit its profit target. With no new trades this week, the fractal trading system now has five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-12 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. *  For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles” January 11, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com  2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend” December 6, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights So What? China’s January credit data suggest that stimulus is here. Why? January credit growth was a blowout number. Trade uncertainty is likely to be prolonged with an extension of talks. Equity bourses in South Korea and Russia are the most likely to benefit from Chinese stimulus. Industrial metals such as copper will also benefit – with a delay. Feature New credit data for China in January improves the chances that Beijing’s stimulus measures will overshoot this year, causing China’s economy to bottom in 2019 and jumpstart global growth. In our annual outlook for this year we argued that while China was stimulating the economy, the magnitude of stimulus would be the decisive factor for the global macro environment in 2019. We argued that the type of stimulus would remain primarily fiscal – tax cuts for households and small and medium-sized enterprises – and hence that it would be modest as fiscal easing would merely offset relatively weak credit growth. This view stemmed from our assessment of the Xi Jinping administration, highlighted in April 2017, as an “elitist” (not populist) administration. Its policy priorities are to discipline the Chinese economy, and in particular to contain systemic financial risk, which President Xi has cited as a national security threat. This view is not wrong, but the latest data clearly show that Xi has decided to pause these painful efforts at limiting leverage and rebalancing China’s economy. Witness January’s decisive uptick in both total social financing (total private credit) and local government bond issuance (Chart 1). Chart 1Higher Risk Of An Overshoot A massive spike in new credit is the single most important criterion in our “Checklist For A Stimulus Overshoot.” Thus, from a policy perspective, we are now at higher risk of an overshoot (Table 1). Not only credit as a whole but also informal lending saw a surge in January, implying that the government is relenting in its crackdown on the shadow banks. The approval of local government bond issuance for early in the year – and the People’s Bank of China’s announcement of a “Central Bank Bills Swap” program – reinforce this policy shift.1 Table 1Checklist For A Chinese Stimulus Overshoot In 2019   A stimulus overshoot is positive for Chinese demand in the short run but negative for potential GDP in the long run. A “traditional” credit surge of this nature cannot be surgically targeted at SMEs or households. It will go to state-owned enterprises, privileged corporations, property developers, and the like, which have always had the advantage in China’s financial system. SOEs have taken a much larger share of new loans than private companies in recent years,2 and the only silver lining of this trend was the possibility that tighter credit controls would discipline the SOEs. That silver lining is now fading, barring some new and surprising development on the reform front. China needs to create 26 trillion renminbi in new credit over the course of the year to avoid a corporate earnings contraction. These January numbers put China on track to do just that (Chart 2), assuming that President Xi and U.S. President Donald Trump agree to a short-term, framework trade deal this year. Chart 2On Track To Avoid An Earnings Contraction Of course, a few caveats are in order. First, January’s credit number is only one data point and credit growth is always abnormally strong in the first month of the year. Early in the year, banks seek to expand their assets rapidly in a bid to get as much market share as possible before administrative credit quotas kick in. Because of Chinese New Year, it is best to combine January and February data to get a sense of the rate of credit expansion in the first part of the year. To do that, investors will have to wait for mid-March when the February data is out. This year’s January numbers are very strong relative to previous Januaries (Chart 3) and the context is more accommodative than the 2017 January credit surge, when authorities were beginning to tighten rather than ease macroprudential policy. Still a rapid rate of credit expansion will have to be sustained in the coming months in order to meet the 26 trillion RMB requirement highlighted above. Second, there is some risk that China’s households and private businesses will not respond as positively today as in the past. The intensification of Communist Party control over the society and economy, President Xi’s cancellation of term limits, and the strategic confrontation with the United States have created a bearish sentiment in the private sector. Our Emerging Markets Strategy would point out that if the propensity to consume, and money velocity,3 do not accelerate, then a surge in new credit may fail to ignite a reacceleration in China (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Are Holding On To Their Money Still, what we now know is that Xi Jinping and his top economic adviser, Vice Premier Liu He, are not initiating the “assault phase of reform” that their predecessors initiated in the late 1990s in order to cleanse China’s economy of bad loans and zombie companies. Instead, they are likely reestablishing the “Socialist Put” in order to reverse the current deceleration, demonstrate China’s continued economic might and face down the United States’ threat of tariffs. Bottom Line: China’s stimulus measures are increasingly likely to overshoot, with positive implications for both Chinese and global growth. China is still facing a corporate earnings recession, but the odds of averting it are increasing.    Trade Deadline More Likely To Be Extended What of the trade war? First, we would warn clients that China’s annual credit origination is a much bigger factor for the global economy than China’s exports to the United States (Chart 5). The trade war can escalate from here and yet, if China’s stimulus works as it has in the past, the results will be manageable for China’s economy save for Chinese companies expressly exposed to the U.S. economy through exports. In reality, both the U.S. and China are now effectively stimulating their economies and in this sense global trade as a whole will benefit regardless of bilateral tariffs. Chart 5Watch China Credit, Not So Much The Trade War But it is possible that just as global equity markets ignored China’s economic slowdown and only sold off when the tariffs were levied (Chart 6), they may not continue to rally much on China’s credit data. Given the already considerable rally in global risk assets since October, markets may not be satisfied merely with one or two months of solid credit data out of China without a clear resolution to the trade conflict. After all, if a collapse in U.S.-China trade talks portends a new Cold War, then institutional investors may be justified in taking a wait-and-see approach despite China’s credit cycle upswing. Chart 6Will Equities Ignore China Data (Again)? In the past, we have highlighted that the U.S. and China are not economically prohibited from engaging in a trade war – the export exposure is too small – and China’s new stimulus reinforces this point. However, President Trump is concerned about causing a sell-off in the tech sector and hence the broad equity market which could translate into a bear market and raise the probability of a recession occurring prior to November 2020. Meanwhile, in China, given Beijing’s reported trade concessions, there is apparently a desire to pacify the relationship and discourage U.S. unilateral tariffs and sanctions that could become seriously destabilizing for the Chinese economy and society. The need to have a happy 2021 centenary celebration for the Communist Party may factor into policymakers’ thinking. The latest news flow is mildly positive for the odds of getting a framework deal sometime this year. President Trump visited the Chinese negotiators in Washington, D.C. while President Xi reciprocated with the American negotiators in Beijing. Trump has signaled that an extension of the March 1 deadline is possible, and a two-month extension is being bandied about in the press. China’s National People’s Congress is likely to pass a new Foreign Investment Law that ostensibly guarantees many of the American demands on forced tech transfer, intellectual property theft, and discriminatory treatment of U.S. companies (Table 2). Even the second Trump summit with Kim Jong Un, this time in Vietnam, should be seen as a mild positive for U.S.-China negotiations. Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations However, Presidents Trump and Xi have yet to schedule a new summit, which is probably necessary for a final deal. And there are murmurs from the press suggesting that China’s new law and other concessions are not going to satisfy the U.S. negotiators on the critical point of “structural changes” and a verification process. This leaves us inclined to change our trade war probabilities to increase the odds of an extension (Table 3). The improvement in U.S. financial conditions and China’s stimulus, if anything, make it more likely that negotiations will be extended, as both sides feel their economic and financial constraints less acutely. Table 3Updated Trade War Probabilities Bottom Line: Global and Chinese risk assets should rally on China’s credit uptick, but the lack of resolution of the trade war could continue to inhibit animal spirits – and the odds of a March 1 resolution are declining. Who Are The Equity Winners Of China’s Stimulus? China’s strong January credit number is supportive of global equity markets. That much is obvious. But which equity markets will benefit the most? In what follows we examine the relationship between Chinese credit and MSCI equity returns of various countries. We find that Malaysian, Australian, South Korean, and Indonesian equities are the most highly correlated with Chinese credit growth and are thus most likely to benefit from the recent upturn (Chart 7). On the other hand, France and Italy stand out as countries whose bourses are more insulated. Out of the markets that are positively correlated, South Korea and Russia stand out as relatively cheap (Chart 8). Thus we expect these equities to do especially well. By contrast, while Indonesia and the Philippines are highly leveraged to China, these markets are currently relatively expensive. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy is currently overweight Korean and Russian equities within the EM space, neutral Turkey (although recently upgraded from underweight), and underweight Indonesia and the Philippines. In addition to credit stimulus, we expect Chinese household consumption to also gain support going forward. This will likely be driven by policy stimulus targeting the consumer specifically and is best exemplified by the recently announced tax cuts (Chart 9), which we expect to trickle down to greater consumer demand and growth in retail sales. Our base case calls for 8%-10% growth in household consumption over the coming 12 months, up from the current 3.5%. However, consumer sentiment in China is weak. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy’s proxy for household marginal propensity to spend ticked up recently, after falling since early last year (see Chart 4 above). A resumption in the decline would highlight that households are increasingly unwilling to spend, which would translate into weaker retail sales despite policy efforts to boost consumption. Such a scenario – in which credit growth accelerates without a substantial uptick in consumer spending – is plausible, given that it occurred between mid-2015 and mid-2016 (Chart 10). In any case, whether Chinese stimulus comes in the form of the traditional credit channel, or instead in the form of fiscal stimulus to household consumption, the same equity markets will generally benefit the most (Chart 11). Chart 10...But Flattish Retail Sales Are Also A Possibility Indeed, global equity markets react the same way regardless of the type of stimulus implemented. For instance, MSCI returns for the Philippines, Sweden, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey are more closely correlated to both Chinese credit growth and retail sales growth compared to Italy, Japan, and France.  The same conclusion is reached when we look at the correlations between Chinese credit growth or consumption growth and individual MSCI sectors such as industrials and consumer discretionary (Chart 12). The relatively stronger correlation between Chinese credit growth and equity returns – as opposed to Chinese retail sales and equity returns – can be put down to the nature of Chinese imports. While industrial goods account for the bulk of China’s purchases of foreign goods, consumer goods excluding autos make up only 15% of China’s imports (Table 4). However, as Chart 12 illustrates, the relationship between China’s retail sales growth and global equities is much tighter in the case of the consumer discretionary sector, whether the latter is compared to global industrials sectors or the overall MSCI index. Table 4Import Composition Of Chinese Imports Equity market exposure to China is not always in line with the extent of each country’s trade exposure to China (Chart 13). There are some clear exceptions – most notably Mexico, which has the highest correlation coefficient with Chinese credit and consumption variables since 2010. However, this is likely due to idiosyncratic factors.4 Correlation does not imply causation, and we cannot conclude with certainty that Mexican equities will outperform amid China’s new round of stimulus. Nevertheless, given that Mexico is a very deeply liquid market that benefits amid EM bull markets, this may not be entirely coincidental. The correlations between global equity markets and Chinese credit peak two months after the stimulus measures are first implemented (Chart 14). This is more or less in line with adjusted total social financing’s correlation versus industrial metals. However BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy has shown that copper’s correlations versus other measures of Chinese money and credit peak after roughly three quarters (Chart 15).5 This is evident in both the 2012 and 2015-16 stimulus episodes in which the bottom in copper prices lagged the bottom in China’s credit growth. Thus we may witness a rebound in equity markets on the back of China’s credit splurge before we see an improvement in annual returns on copper prices.  Chart 15Copper Rallies Lag China Credit Stimulus Bottom Line: South Korean and Russian equities are best positioned to benefit from the positive surprise in China’s credit data. France and Italy are the worst positioned. Copper prices will rebound with a delay.  Investment Implications BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors stay long Chinese equities ex-tech relative to the emerging market benchmark. This is a tactical call initiated in August 2018 that is now becoming a cyclical call on the basis of the credit upswing. We also remain long the “China Play Index,” a basket of China-sensitive assets, and long China’s “Big Five” banks relative to other banks. A rebound in China’s credit data and stronger global growth will support copper demand. Prices are still 15% below the mid-2018 peak and are poised to benefit in this environment, especially given that global inventories are already falling. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors go long copper. Meanwhile, BCA’s China Investment Strategy recommends (for now) staying only tactically overweight Chinese equities relative to the global benchmark, pending higher conviction that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overwhelm the negative ramifications of a continued deceleration in actual activity over the coming few months on sentiment and 12-month forward earnings expectations. Over the long run, Geopolitical Strategy would look to underweight Chinese equities, as we are not optimistic about China’s productivity and potential GDP. This is because of the negative structural consequences of continuing the Socialist Put (i.e., bad loans, zombie companies, trade protectionism).  We would expect CNY/USD to remain relatively buoyant in the context of both trade negotiations with the U.S. and fiscal-and-credit stimulus. The trade talks can hardly succeed if CNY/USD is falling. Depending on whether and how soon China’s stimulus results in a durable economic bottom, global growth could stabilize and the USD could see a substantial countertrend selloff.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled “China: Prepping A Bazooka?” dated February 14, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Nicholas Lardy, “The State Strikes Back: The End Of Economic Reform In China?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, January 29, 2019, available at piie.com. 3          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “Dissecting China’s Stimulus,” dated January 17, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4       The 2012 election of President Enrique Peña Nieto caused Mexican equities to outperform their EM counterparts. Similarly in 2015-16, U.S. outperformance relative to EM also supported Mexico relative to EM because Mexico’s economy is highly leveraged to its northern neighbor. In both periods Mexico’s outperformance was not caused by – but instead coincided with – Chinese credit stimulus. These idiosyncratic events biased the correlation between Mexico’s equity markets and Chinese credit growth to the upside. 5      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets,” dated June 21, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.                  

Highlights Spread Product Valuation: Corporate bond spreads don’t look especially cheap relative to average historical levels. But they are far too elevated for the current phase of the economic cycle. Valuations in other spread products are not nearly as attractive. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and junk) within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Corporate Defaults: Slowing corporate profit growth during the next 12 months will cause corporate leverage to flatten-off and will lead to a slightly higher default rate than most baseline forecasts suggest. Junk spreads currently offer adequate compensation for the extra default risk, but that cushion will evaporate quickly if spreads tighten during the next few months. Mexican Sovereign Bonds: Mexico’s USD-denominated sovereign debt is attractively priced relative to similarly-rated U.S. corporate credit. U.S. fixed income investors should take the opportunity to add USD-denominated Mexican bonds to their portfolios. Feature Corporate bonds have been on fire since the start of the year. High-yield excess returns have already made back all of their lost ground from 2018, and investment grade credits are on their way (Chart 1). With the Fed’s rate hike cycle on hold and some signs of credit easing in China, the near-term backdrop is amenable to further spread compression. Especially from current elevated levels. Chart 1Corporate Bonds Having A Good Run In 2019 On the flipside, some indicators of corporate default risk are starting to deteriorate and we can easily envision a more difficult environment for corporate spreads in the second half of this year. Especially if the Fed re-starts rate hikes, as we expect.1 In this week’s report we illustrate the extent of undervaluation in corporate spreads, and also detail our concerns related to budding default risk. We conclude that investors should maintain an overweight allocation to corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) for now, but be prepared to trim exposure once spreads reach more reasonable levels. Finally, we identify an opportunity in USD-denominated Mexican sovereign bonds. Too Cheap For Phase 2 In our Special Report from mid-December that laid out our key themes for 2019, we described how we split the economic cycle into different phases based on the slope of the yield curve (Chart 2).2 We define the three phases of the cycle as follows: Chart 2Expect To Stay In Phase 2 For Most (If Not All) Of 2019 Phase 1: From the end of the prior recession until the 3-year / 10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps Phase 2: When the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps Phase 3: From when the 3/10 slope inverts until the start of the next recession Dividing the cycle this way reveals a reliable pattern in corporate bond excess returns versus Treasuries. Excess returns tend to be highest in Phase 1. They tend to be quite low but still positive in Phase 2, and they tend not to turn negative until Phase 3. We argued in December that we are currently in Phase 2 and that we will probably stay there for most, if not all, of 2019. The main reason that excess returns are lower in Phase 2 than in Phase 1 is that corporate bond spreads are much tighter in Phase 2. Most of the cyclical spread compression occurs in Phase 1, in the immediate aftermath of the recession. With that in mind, consider the data presented in Chart 3. The chart shows 12-month breakeven spreads for each corporate bond credit tier as a percentile rank relative to history.3 For example, a percentile rank of 50% means that the breakeven spread has been tighter than its current level half of the time throughout history. Chart 3 also divides the historical data into two samples, showing how breakeven spreads rank relative to the entire history of available data, and also how they rank relative to other Phase 2 periods only. When the full historical sample is considered, only the B-rated and Caa-rated credit tiers have breakeven spreads above their historical medians. However, when we focus exclusively on Phase 2 environments we see that spreads for every credit tier other than Aaa look extremely cheap. Essentially, Chart 3 shows that today’s spread levels are more consistent with periods when the economy is either just exiting or entering a recession. Absent that sort of macro environment, there would appear to be an obvious buying opportunity in corporate bonds. Interestingly, other spread products don’t look nearly as cheap as corporate bonds. Chart 4 shows the same data as Chart 3 but for all non-corporate U.S. spread products with available data prior to 2000. It shows that Agency MBS and Consumer ABS spreads are close to median Phase 2 levels. USD-denominated Sovereign debt looks somewhat cheap. Meanwhile, Domestic Agencies and Supranationals both look expensive. What’s clear is that right now corporate credit offers the most attractive opportunity in U.S. fixed income. Bottom Line: Corporate bond spreads don’t look especially cheap relative to average historical levels. But they are far too elevated for the current phase of the economic cycle. Valuations in other spread products are not nearly as attractive. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and junk) within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Default Cycle At A Turning Point?  Another valuation tool in our arsenal is the High-Yield default-adjusted spread. This is the excess spread available in the high-yield index after accounting for expected 12-month default losses. It can also be thought of as the 12-month return earned by the High-Yield index in excess of a position in duration-matched Treasuries, assuming that default losses match expectations and that there are no capital gains (losses) from spread tightening (widening). Expected default losses are calculated using the Moody’s baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate. Combining the Moody’s baseline default rate forecast of 2.4% and our recovery rate forecast of 45% gives expected 12-month default losses of 1.3%. Those expected default losses are then subtracted from the average High-Yield index option-adjusted spread to get a default-adjusted spread of 274 bps. This is slightly above the historical average of 250 bps (Chart 5). In other words, junk investors are currently being compensated at slightly above average levels to bear default risk. Chart 5A Look At The Default-Adjusted Spread Another way to conceptualize the default-adjusted spread is to ask what default rate would have to prevail over the next 12 months for junk investors to earn average historical excess compensation. This spread-implied default rate is denoted by the ‘X’ in the second panel of Chart 5. It is currently 2.8%, slightly above Moody’s baseline expectation. Is The Baseline Default Rate Forecast Reasonable? If we view the Moody’s 2.4% default rate forecast as reasonable, then we should conclude that junk bonds are attractively valued. However, some macro indicators suggest that 2.4% might be too optimistic. Chart 6 shows a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate based on gross leverage, which we define as total debt over pre-tax profits, and C&I lending standards. Chart 6A Simple Model Of The 12-Month Trailing Speculative Grade Default Rate Gross leverage has improved during the past few quarters as profit growth has outpaced corporate debt growth (Chart 6, panel 2). This has acted to push down the fair value reading from our default rate model. On the other hand, commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards tightened in the fourth quarter of last year (Chart 6, bottom panel). A net tightening in C&I lending standards is consistent with a higher default rate. Overall, the fair value reading from our default rate model is currently 3.5%, above the current 12-month trailing default rate of 2.6%. For the purposes of valuation, where the default rate will be 12 months from now is more important than where it is currently. To get a sense of where the fair value from our model is headed we need forecasts for corporate profit and debt growth. Profit growth will almost certainly moderate from its current lofty levels (Chart 7). Pressures on revenues and expenses both point in that direction. Total business sales and the ISM Manufacturing PMI have both fallen sharply from their recent highs (Chart 7, panel 2), suggesting lower corporate revenue growth going forward. Meanwhile, wages continue to accelerate (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Forecasting Profit Growth Using a model based on nominal GDP growth, wage growth, industrial production and the trade-weighted dollar, if we forecast that nominal GDP growth slows to the same rate as wage growth over the next 12 months, then the model predicts that profit growth will fall into the mid-single digits (Chart 7, top panel). This would be more or less consistent with the recent growth rate in corporate debt, meaning that gross leverage would flatten-off and the fair value reading from our default rate model would stabilize near 3.5%. In summary, if profit growth moderates in line with our expectations during the next 12 months, then it is likely that the corporate default rate will be somewhat higher than the current Moody’s forecast of 2.4%, possibly as high as 3.5%. But even a 3.5% default rate would still translate to a default-adjusted junk spread of 211 bps. Positive compensation for default risk, though less than average historical levels. In that case we would still expect solid positive excess returns from junk bonds. However, it will be important to monitor our default-adjusted spread during the next few months. If junk spreads tighten in the near-term, as we anticipate, then the excess compensation for default risk will evaporate quickly. Bottom Line: Slowing corporate profit growth during the next 12 months will cause corporate leverage to flatten-off and will lead to a slightly higher default rate than most baseline forecasts suggest. Junk spreads currently offer adequate compensation for the extra default risk, but that cushion will evaporate quickly if spreads tighten during the next few months. Buy Mexican Bonds While most spread products have benefited from the Fed’s pause, delivering excellent year-to-date returns. We notice that the spreads on Mexico’s USD-denominated sovereign debt have not tightened alongside other comparable credits (Chart 8). This presents an attractive opportunity. Chart 8Mexican Bonds: An Attractive Opportunity When we compare 12-month breakeven spreads between the USD-denominated sovereign debt of different emerging market countries versus the spreads on equivalently-rated U.S. corporate bonds, we see that Mexico has now joined Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Poland as the only countries that offer attractive compensation relative to the U.S. corporate sector (Chart 9). Why has this happened? Our Emerging Markets Strategy service postulates that many investors fear that the new political regime will bring fiscal profligacy, but in fact, the AMLO administration is proving to be less populist and more pragmatic than expected.4 The 2019 budget, for example, targets a primary surplus of 1% of GDP, and envisages a decline in nominal expenditures in 29 out of 56 categories. This commitment to sound fiscal policy should benefit Mexican sovereign bond spreads. More fundamentally, our Emerging Markets strategists note that the Mexican peso is very cheap as measured by the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. This is not surprising given that the peso has been relatively flat versus the dollar during the past two years, despite interest rates being much higher in Mexico than in the U.S. The Mexican 10-year real yield is currently 4.1%, well above real GDP growth which was 2.6% during the past four quarters (Chart 10). Contrast that with the U.S., where the 10-year real yield is a meagre 0.8% versus real GDP growth of 3% during the past four quarters. In other words, interest rate differentials favor a stronger peso, which is positive for USD-denominated sovereign spreads. Chart 10Good Time To Add USD-Denominated Mexican Bonds To A Portfolio Though the Mexican/U.S. interest rate differential remains wide, it is likely to compress going forward. Elevated Mexican interest rates relative to growth signal that monetary policy is restrictive. A fact that is already evident in decelerating Mexican money supply (Chart 10, bottom panel). Meanwhile, low U.S. real yields relative to GDP suggest that further Fed tightening is necessary before U.S. rates are similarly restrictive. Bottom Line: Mexico’s USD-denominated sovereign debt is attractively priced relative to similarly-rated U.S. corporate credit. U.S. fixed income investors should take the opportunity to add USD-denominated Mexican bonds to their portfolios. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caught Offside”, dated February 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3      The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required over the next 12 months for the corporate bond to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. We use the breakeven spread instead of the average index spread because it takes into account the changing duration of the bond indexes. 4      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting China’s Stimulus”, dated January 17, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Trepidation engulfs commodity markets like a fog weaving through half-deserted streets. Central bankers huddle in muttering retreats, growing more cautious by the day. EM growth concerns – particularly slowing trade volumes, and the drama surrounding Sino – U.S. trade negotiations – contribute to this. Europe’s slowdown as Brexit approaches, and a U.S. government that seems forever at loggerheads also sap investor confidence. Nonetheless, the level of industrial commodity demand – oil and copper in particular – continues to hold up. By our reckoning, EM growth still is positive y/y. And central bank caution – along with less-restrictive policies – provides a supportive backdrop for industrial commodities down the road. The production discipline we expect from OPEC 2.0 this year sets the stage for a continued rally in oil prices. Given our view on EM growth, we continue to favor staying long oil exposure, and remaining exposed to industrial commodities generally via the S&P GSCI position we recommended on December 7, 2017. Highlights Energy: Overweight. We are closing our open long call spreads in 2019 Brent, having lost the ~ $1/bbl premium in each. We are opening a new set of similar positions in anticipation of the next up-leg in Brent. At tonight’s close of trading, we will go long Brent $70 Calls vs. short $75 Calls in June, July and August 2019. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Metal Bulletin’s benchmark iron ore price index for China traded through $90/MT earlier this week, as supply concerns continue to weigh on markets in the wake of evacuations from areas close to tailings dams used by miners.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Bullion broker Sharps Pixley reported the PBOC’s gold reserves total almost 60mm ounces, up 380k ounces from end-2018 levels. Russia’s state media outlet RT proclaimed: “China on gold-buying spree amid global push to end US dollar dominance” on Tuesday. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Last week’s USDA WASDE report estimates world ending stocks for grains will be up slightly for the 2018-19 crop year at 772.2mm MT vs 766.6mm MT previously estimated in December. A January report was not issued due to the U.S. government shutdown. Feature In discussions with clients in the Middle East last week, few contested the assertion OPEC 2.0 is determined to keep supply below demand this year, in order to draw down global oil and refined product inventories.2 This strategy worked well for the coalition after it was stood up in November 2016. Back then, production cutbacks, an unexpected collapse of Venezuelan output, and random outages in Libya and elsewhere combined with above-average global demand to keep consumption above production. This led to a drawdown in OECD inventories of 260mm barrels between January 2017 and June 2018. OPEC 2.0 is off to a strong start on its renewed effort to rein in production and draw down inventories. OPEC (the old Cartel) cut nearly 800k b/d of production in January m/m, bringing members’ total crude output to 30.8mm b/d.3 The largest cut once again came from KSA, which reported it reduced output by just over 400k b/d m/m in January. This follows a 450k b/d reduction in December 2018 reported by the Kingdom in last month’s OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report. For March, KSA already is indicating it plans to drop production to 9.8mm b/d – 1.3mm b/d less than it was pumping in November 2018. There are some signs of discord within OPEC 2.0. Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin once again is arguing against the coalition’s production-cutting strategy, this time in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin.4 This is not the first time such disagreements were aired: In November 2017, leaders of Russia’s oil industry walked out of a meeting with Energy Minister Alexander Novak following a disagreement with the government on extending OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal launched at the beginning of the year. In the end, the deal was extended after President Putin weighed in.5 A Deeper Look At Demand Uncertainty These supply-side issues are not trivial, and pose significant risks to our price view. All the same, Russia does benefit from higher oil prices, in that inelastic global demand in the short-to-medium term produces a non-linear price increase when supply is reduced. Russia’s OPEC 2.0 quota calls for production to fall from 11.4mm b/d production basis its October 2018 reference level (11.6mm b/d at present) to 11.2mm b/d in 2019. As long as Russia’s participation in the OPEC 2.0 coalition advances its economic and geopolitical interests – i.e., higher revenues than could be expected without having a direct role in global production management, and in deepening its ties with KSA – we expect it to remain a member in good standing in OPEC 2.0. At the moment, the bigger issues center on the state of global demand for industrial commodities. Unlike the situation that prevailed during the first round of OPEC 2.0 cuts, global markets no longer are seeing a synchronized global recovery in aggregate demand. Rather, EM commodity demand growth – the engine of global growth – has been trending down at a slow and constant pace since the beginning of 2018. This is not news: It shows up in our new Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index, and we’ve been writing about it and accounting for it in our metals and oil demand projections for months (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCommodity Demand May Be Bottoming BCA’s GIA index is heavily weighted to EM commodity demand. Based on our estimates, it appears to be close to or in a bottoming phase and ready to turn up within the next quarter. It is worthwhile pointing out that even with the slowdown over the past year or so, BCA’s GIA index still stands significantly higher than the level registered during the manufacturing downturn of 2015-16. This also adds color as to why the OPEC market-share war launched in November 2014 was so devastating to prices – demand was contracting while supplies were surging from OPEC 2.0 states and from U.S. shale-oil producers. Pessimism Is Overdone We have maintained for some time commodity markets are overly pessimistic on the global growth outlook, mainly because of their gloomy view on the Chinese economy, and anticipated knock-on effects for EM growth arising from this view. Our colleagues at BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy succinctly capture the current mood pervading global markets: “… this current soft patch for the global economy is occurring alongside an extreme divergence between plunging growth expectations and more stable readings on current economic conditions. The fall in expectations is visible in the most countries, according to data series that measure confidence for businesses, consumers and investors.”6 We continue to expect the slowdown in EM to persist in 1H19 based on our modeling and actual consumption data. Part – not all – of this is due to the slowdown in China, where policymakers are moving to reverse earlier financial tightening with modest fiscal and monetary stimulus in 1H19. We continue to expect the Communist Party leadership in China will want to start increasing stimulus later this year or in 1H20, so that it hits the economy full force in 2021 in time for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP. Such stimulus will bolster industrial commodity demand. Still, this is difficult to call, particularly the form stimulus will take. President Xi appears committed rebalancing China’s economy – i.e., supporting consumer-led growth – and may want to keep policy powder dry, so to speak, to counter a recession in 2020 or thereafter. Stimulating the consumer economy in China could boost consumption of gasoline, and demand for white goods like household appliances at the expense of heavy industrial demand. Oil and base metals used in stainless steel would benefit in such an environment. Timing this rebound remains difficult. It appears to us that oil and, to a lesser extent, base metals have undershot their fair-value levels (based on our modeling) on the back of negative expectations and sentiment. If we are correct in this assessment, this should limit the negative surprises going forward and open upside opportunities for commodity prices (Chart 2). Chart 2Technically, Oil's Oversold Under The Hood Of BCA’s Newest Model Because demand is so difficult to capture, we continually are looking for different gauges to measure it and cross-check against each other. We developed our Global Industrial Activity index to target the actual performance of commodity-intensive activities globally. Each component is selected based on its sensitivity to the cycle in global industrial activity, hence on the cycle of global commodity demand. This is different from the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), which uses a GDP-weighted average of 23 countries’ LEI. By relying on GDP, the LEI weights in the indicator favor DM countries and do not account for the growing share of the service sector in these economies (Chart 3).7 Chart 3GIA Captures Commodity Demand Our GIA index focuses on commodity demand, which is fundamentally different from proxies of global real GDP growth or global economic activity. Nonetheless, we included the BCA global LEI with a small weight (~ 10%) in our index to capture DM economies. This inclusion does add information to our new gauge. Our GIA index correlates with Emerging Markets’ GDP, copper and oil prices with lags of one to three months. This index is designed to measure the strength of the underlying demand for commodities. It does not account for the supply side and other idiosyncratic shocks that affects each commodity. For instance, our index captures ~ 55% of the variation in the y/y movement in oil prices; adding our oil market supply and sentiment indicators on top of the demand variable raises this to more than 80% (Chart 4). Chart 4Combined Indicators Work Best The index is divided into four main components, which gauge the demand-side impacts of (1) trade; (2) currency movements; (3) manufacturing demand; and (4) the Chinese economy, given its importance to overall commodity demand. The GIA index’s Trade Component combines EM import volumes and an estimate of global dry bulk shipping rates to gauge demand. Readers of the Commodity & Energy Strategy are familiar with our use of EM trade volumes as a proxy for EM income.8 This week, we introduce a new proxy for shipping rates using the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) as a proxy of global economic activity. Our methodology is based on the approaches taken by James D. Hamilton and Lutz Kilian in their respective models that use the BDI to proxy global growth.9 We created two alternative measures based on each of their approaches and average them to come up with our own proxy of the cyclical factor of global shipping rates driven by demand. Both of our alternative measures use a rebased version of the real BDI, which uses the U.S. CPI to deflate the nominal value. Because it picks up the surge in shipping activity in 2H18 resulting from the front-running of tariffs in the Sino – U.S. trade war, the Trade Component of our GIA index gives the most positive readings of all the components (Chart 5, panel 1). By the end of this month, we expect the effects of this front-running to avoid tariffs will wash through the gauge, and we will have greater clarity on the state of global trade. Chart 5Performance Of GIA Components The Currency Component uses a basket of currencies that are sensitive to global growth – i.e., the currencies of countries heavily engaged in trade – and the Risky vs. Safe-haven currency ratio built by BCA’s Emerging Market Strategy.10 This allows us to capture the information regarding the state of global economic activity contained in the highly efficient and forward-looking currency markets. This component collapsed in March 2018, but seems to have bottomed recently (Chart 5, panel 2). The Manufacturing Component looks at the PMIs and various business conditions and expectations surveys for countries that have large industrial exposures to the economic health of EM.11 Currently, this component signals a continuation of the downward trend first observed at the beginning of 2018 (Chart 5, panel 3). Lastly, the Chinese Economy Component uses two indicators of the country’s industrial output: the Li Keqiang Index, and our China Construction Indicator. Despite the fact that the slowdown in China is at the center of investor pessimism re global demand, this component is still holding well (Chart 5, panel 4). It has a moderate negative trend, but is not alarming for commodity demand. Moreover, we expect some stimulus in the second half of the year, which should keep this component supportive for commodity prices. Industrial Commodity Demand Still Holding Up Our GIA index proxies demand for industrial commodities, which is closely aligned with EM GDP – as GDP grows, demand for industrial commodities grows (Chart 6, panel 1). The GIA index is more correlated with copper prices than with oil prices, but it still provides an excellent snapshot of the state of demand for these commodities (Chart 4). Chart 6GIA, Meet Dr. Copper Also, it is interesting to note there appears to be only one large specific supply shock that affected the copper market’s relationship with global demand (Chart 6, panel 2). Our new index supports the Market’s “Dr. Copper” argument, in the sense that copper prices are pretty much always aligned with global industrial activity. We also note that the recent Sino – U.S. trade tensions have pushed copper below the value that is explained by our demand proxy. Bottom Line: The resolve of OPEC 2.0 to reduce production is not in doubt. OPEC (the old Cartel) reported this week its member states cut nearly 800k b/d of production in January m/m, bringing members’ total crude output to 30.8mm b/d. On the demand side, new GIA index indicates things are not as bad as sentiment and expectations would indicate. If anything, we expect the combination of OPEC 2.0’s resolve and rising demand for industrial commodities – oil and copper in particular – to lift prices as the year progresses.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see “Brazil evacuates towns near Vale, ArcelorMittal dams on fears of collapse,” published by reuters.com on February 8, 2019. 2      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition of OPEC states, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC states, led by Russia, which recently agreed to cut production by ~ 1.2mm b/d to drain commercial oil inventories and re-balance markets globally. 3      Please see the February 2019 issue of OPEC’s Monthly Oil Market Report, which is available at opec.org. 4      Please see “Exclusive: Russia’s Sechin raises pressure on Putin to end OPEC deal,” published by uk.reuters.com February 8, 2019. 5      Please see “Russian oil unsettled by talk of longer production cuts,” published by ft.com November 15, 2017. 6      Please see “A Crisis Of Confidence?” published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy, published February 12, 2019.  It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7      The components of the global LEI are also different from our GIA index, and more market-oriented. For details on each series included in the LEI, please see “OECD Composite Leading Indicators: Turning Points of References Series and Component Series,” published February 2019. It is available at oecd.org. 8      Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ... Assessing Downside Risk,” where we discussed the relationship between EM imports volume, EM income and commodity prices, published August 23, 2018, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9      The best approach is still debated in the literature. For more details on Hamilton and Kilian’s measurements, please see James D Hamilton, “Measuring Global Economic Activity,” Working paper, August 20, 2018 and Lutz Kilian, “Measuring Global Real Economic Activity: Do Recent Critiques Hold Up To Scrutiny?” Working paper, January 12, 2019. By selecting EM only import volumes and our proxy shipping rate based on the BDI, we narrow our Trade Component to factors that are mainly linked to industrial activity and commodity-intensive sectors. 10     Our basket of currencies includes Korea, Sweden, Chile, Thailand, Malaysia and Peru. The risky vs. safe-haven currency ratio average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns (including carry). 11     This includes Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China and Australia. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades     TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 4Q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table   Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in 2018

Special Report

Highlights In their current form and size, perpetual bonds issuance and the central bank bills swap program are unlikely game-changers for the banking system in China. However, this mechanism constitutes monetization of banks’ capital and bad assets, i.e., recapitalization of banks, by the PBoC via quantitative easing. Hence, this scheme can be presently viewed as a bazooka that has not yet been loaded by the government. If the authorities pursue this program on a large scale without forcing banks to acknowledge and write off bad assets, banks would regain power to expand their balance sheets, fostering a cyclical economic recovery. Nevertheless, the growth model based on continuous “out of thin air” money and credit expansion inevitably leads to falling productivity growth and rising inflation. Therefore, the economic outcome over the course of several years would be stagflation, which is profoundly bearish for the currency. Feature The Chinese authorities recently launched a Central Bank Bills Swap (CBS) program to boost liquidity and facilitate issuance of commercial banks’ perpetual bonds. Box I-1 on pages 12-13 elaborates on the scheme and provides more detail about the program. Under the CBS program, Chinese banks can buy each other’s perpetual bonds, then exchange these bonds for central bank bills and pledge those bills at the People Bank of China (PBoC) to receive funding. Insurance companies are also allowed to purchase perpetual bonds, but they cannot pledge them with the central bank for funding. What are the macro implications of this program? Can the government use this scheme to recapitalize the banking system? Does the CBS program amount to quantitative easing? Will it be sufficient to boost credit growth in China in 2019? We have conditional answers to these questions – i.e., they all depend on the extent to which the scheme is actually utilized by the authorities. On the one hand, the CBS program could potentially become a proverbial bazooka used by the government to recapitalize the banking system via the PBoC monetizing banks’ bad assets. By doing so, the PBoC would be expanding its balance sheet by injecting excess reserves into the banking system – i.e., quantitative easing. Consequently, it could help banks accelerate credit and money growth, in turn helping the economy. The long-run collateral damage in this scenario, however, would be an RMB depreciation. On the other hand, the authorities could limit the usage of the scheme via various regulatory approvals and norms. In such a case, the impact of the program on money/credit growth and the real economy as well as on the exchange rate would be limited. In other words, it might end up being no more than a tool to help the four large banks meet BIS's TLAC requirements. At the moment, there is not enough information to determine whether the program will be a game changer for the banking system in China, leading to a surge in credit and broader economic recovery. Both total assets and broad credit growth among banks remain very weak for now (Chart I-1). In other words, it is a bazooka that has not been loaded, and may never be loaded because of the potential for seriously negative ramifications over the long term. Chart I-1Chinese Banks: Total Assets And Broad Credit Growth Consequently, we maintain our view that China’s growth will continue to disappoint in the first half of 2019, and that China-related plays, including many emerging markets (EM), remain at risk of a renewed selloff. Bank Recapitalization? In theory, the issuance of perpetual bonds along with the CBS program can be used to recapitalize the banking system. Each bank can buy perpetual bonds issued by other banks up to 10% of their core Tier-1 capital. These banks can get cheap financing from the PBoC by swapping these perpetual bonds with central bank bills, and then pledging those bills at the central bank to get funding. Hence, under this scheme, the PBoC will be financing purchases of perpetual bonds, which means the monetary authorities will indirectly be funding banks’ recapitalization. It is an “open secret” that Chinese banks would be considerably undercapitalized if they were forced to recognize non-performing assets. The non-performing loan (NPL) ratio currently stands at 1.9%, and the special-mention loans ratio is at 3.2%; and the sum of both is at 5.1% of total loans (Chart I-2, top panel). NPL provisions presently amount to 3.4% of total loans. Chart I-2Chinese Banks Are Massively Under-Provisioned When expressed as a share of total risk-weighted assets, the aggregate NPLs and special-mention loans are equal to 4.2% (Chart I-2, bottom panel). At 2.8% of risk-weighted assets, NPL provisions are extremely inadequate. Assuming non-performing assets turn out to be 10% of total risk-weighted assets, some 40% of banks' capital would be wiped out, according to our simulation presented in Table I-1. This is after accounting for existing provisions and assuming a 20% recovery rate of non-performing assets. Provided that risk-weighting assigns a zero weight to banks’ claims on the government, a 50% risk weight to claims on households and a 100% weight to claims on companies, the assumption of 10% of non-performing assets in total risk-weighted assets is reasonable. This is especially the case when the enormous credit boom of the past 10 years is taken into consideration. As a result, in this scenario the capital adequacy ratio (CAR) will drop from its current level of 13.8% to 9.4%. This will bring the CAR below the regulatory minimum of 11%. To raise the CAR to the regulatory minimum of 11%, the banking system would require RMB 2 trillion of capital. This is greater than the maximum potential demand for perpetual bonds that we estimate to be up to RMB 1.4 trillion. To estimate this number, we assumed all banks purchase perpetual bonds in amounts equal to 5% of their core Tier-1 capital and all insurance companies buy perpetual bonds in an amount equal to 5% of assets. This is not an underestimation of potential demand for perpetual bonds since there are currently limitations on banks’ ability to issue and purchase these bonds as elaborated in Box I-1 on pages 12-13. In short, it is not clear if perpetual bond issuance and the CBS will be sufficient to undertake full recapitalization of the banking system and allow banks to accelerate their balance sheet expansion to finance an economic recovery. Bottom Line: In their current form and shape, perpetual bonds and the CBS program are unlikely to be a game-changer for the banking system in China. However, if the authorities eliminate limitations and change regulatory norms, the scheme could potentially be used to recapitalize China’s banking system. This is why this scheme can presently be viewed as a bazooka that has not yet been loaded by the government. Does CBS Represent QE? Its Impact On Liquidity And Money Supply The CBS program is a form of quantitative easing (QE). It will expand the PBoC’s balance sheet and banking system liquidity (excess reserves at the central bank), as elaborated in Box I-1 and Diagram I-1 on pages 12-14. If pursued on a large scale, this scheme would constitute monetization of banks’ capital and their bad assets by the central bank. The mechanism is already in place, but the extent to which authorities will use it to recapitalize banks remains unclear. Even though the CBS program will expand banking system liquidity – i.e., excess reserves at the central bank – it will not – however - affect broad money supply. The basis is simple: Banks’ excess reserves at the central bank are not part of the broad money supply in any country. Banks use excess reserves to settle payments between one another and with the central bank. Banks do not lend out excess reserves. Further, only a central bank can create excess reserves, and it does so “out of thin air.” In brief, excess reserves rather than corporate and individual deposits constitute genuine banking system liquidity. Barring lending to or buying assets from non-banks – which does not typically occur outside of QE programs – central banks do not create broad money or deposits.1 Money/deposits, the ultimate purchasing power for economic agents, is created by commercial banks “out of thin air,” as we have discussed and illustrated in our series of reports on money, credit and savings.2 Having adequate capital and liquidity as well as positive risk appetite, banks can expand their balance sheets, i.e., originate loans and buy various securities. When banks make loans or purchase assets from non-banks, they simultaneously create deposits and new purchasing power. Chart I-3 demonstrates that in recent years, excess reserves in China’s banking system have been flat, yet banks’ assets and the supply of money has expanded tremendously. The opposite can also occur: Banks’ excess reserves can mushroom, but banks may actually be reluctant to grow their balance sheets. This was the case after the Lehman crisis with U.S. banks and in the wake of the European debt crisis with euro area banks. Chart I-3China: Excess Reserves And Broad Money Finally, we have elaborated at great length in our past reports that China’s money and credit excesses do not stem from its high household savings rate. Rather, like any credit bubble in any country, China’s leverage is due to the creation of credit/money “out of thin air.”2 Bottom Line: Perpetual bond issuance and the CBS program will expand the banking system’s excess reserves, but not broad money supply. Besides, it is not certain that excess reserves will accelerate loan growth. Credit origination by banks depends on many other factors such as banks’ willingness to expand their risk assets, loan demand and the regulatory regime and norms. Deleveraging Has Not Yet Started One cannot discuss the potential for a monetary bazooka in China without an update on the status of deleveraging. The fact is that deleveraging in China has not even begun: Credit is still expanding faster than nominal GDP growth. The most common way to measure leverage/debt is to compare it with the cash flow that is used to service debt. Nominal GDP is a measure of cash flow in an economy from a macro perspective. The debt-to-asset ratio is a poor measure of leverage because asset valuations are often subjective: Assets are valued by debtors themselves. Besides, apart from distressed credit investors, one does not want to be a creditor to a country or company that has to sell assets to service its debt. Stock and bond prices of debtor countries or companies tailspin when the latter have to sell assets to service debt. The top panel of Chart I-4 illustrates that China’s enterprise and household domestic credit/debt is still expanding at an annual rate of close to 10% at a time when nominal GDP growth has slowed to 8%. Chart I-4China: Deleveraging Has Not Even Begun Consistently, the debt to GDP ratio has not declined at all (Chart I-4, bottom panel). In this context, a rhetorical question is in order: Should China ramp up money/credit growth and monetize banks’ NPLs, given that deleveraging has yet to take place? Economic Ramifications Of Deploying The Bazooka What would be the economic ramifications if the Chinese authorities once again promote and allow unrelenting money/credit expansion “out of thin air” to bail out zombie banks and companies? Cyclically: If the authorities compel banks to acknowledge NPLs and write them off as and when the PBoC finances their recapitalization, banks may not be in a position to accelerate loan growth. This scenario entails that credit growth and hence cyclical sectors in China would remain weak for a while. In contrast, if the authorities pursue recapitalization of banks without forcing them to acknowledge and write off bad assets, banks would regain their power to expand their balance sheets, fostering a cyclical economic recovery. Structurally (in the long term): The growth model based on continuous “out of thin air” money and credit expansion inevitably breeds economic inefficiencies, falling productivity growth and rising inflation. In short, the economic outcome over the course of several years would be stagflation. Chart I-5 illustrates that China’s ICOR (incremental capital-to-output ratio) is rising, or inversely that the output-to-capital ratio is falling. This entails worsening economic efficiency and slowing productivity growth. Chart I-5Symptoms Of Rising Inefficiencies Chart I-6 shows a potential stylized roadmap for the Chinese economy in the years ahead if the credit and money bubbles are inflated further without corporate restructuring, bankruptcies, the imposition of hard budget constraints and meaningfully improved capital/credit allocation. The red line represents potential GDP growth, and the dotted red line is our projection. In any economy, the potential growth rate is equal to the sum of growth rates of the labor force and productivity. China’s labor force is no longer expanding and will begin shrinking in the coming years (Chart I-7). Hence, going forward, the sole source of potential GDP growth in China will be productivity growth. Productivity growth has been slowing and will continue to do so if structural market-oriented reforms are not implemented (Chart I-8, top panel). Besides, the industrialization ratio has already risen a lot (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7China: No Tailwind From Labor Force Chart I-8China: Productivity Is Slowing With the potential GDP growth rate in China declining, future fiscal and credit stimulus may lead to higher nominal – but not real – growth. The latter will be constrained by a slowing rate of potential real GDP growth. Higher nominal but weaker potential (real) growth entails rising inflation. The combination of higher inflation along with the need to maintain very low nominal interest rates to assist debtors is bearish for the currency. In such a scenario, there will be intensifying depreciation pressure on the yuan from the tremendous overhang of RMBs in the banking system (Chart I-9). The PBoC’s foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion will not be sufficient to backstop the enormous amount of RMB (money) supply of RMB 210 trillion – which is equivalent to US$30 trillion (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Helicopter Money In China Chart I-10PBoC FX Reserves Are Equal To 10% Of Broad Money Supply If broad money supply continues to expand at an annual rate of close to 9-10% or above, downward pressure on the yuan will escalate immensely, and the Chinese authorities will have no choice but to close the capital account completely and also heavily regulate current account transactions. Bottom Line: If the authorities do not restrain the PBoC’s financing of perpetual bond issuance via the CBS and in the interim do not force banks to write off bad assets, the upshot will be the monetization of banks’ bad assets by the PBoC. This will constitute the ultimate socialist put for banks and zombie debtors, as well as for the entire economy. Business cycle swings, bankruptcies and deflation are inherent features of a market-driven/capitalist economy. A socialist put via promoting unlimited money and credit creation entails long-term stagflation – lower productivity growth and rising inflation. This is very bearish for the currency. Investment Conclusions To be sure, the above analysis suggests that the bazooka has not been loaded and the Chinese economy is not about to stage an imminent recovery. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team maintains its bearish stance on China-related plays worldwide. We are closely monitoring China’s money and credit aggregates as well as indicators from the real economy to gauge when China’s business cycle will revive. So far, these indicators continue to point south. EM risk assets and currencies have recently been boosted by the Federal Reserve’s dovish turn. But as we argued in last week’s report, this will prove short-lived. Global trade, China’s growth and commodities prices are the key drivers of EM financial markets, not the Fed. Provided our negative outlook for these three factors due to the ongoing slowdown in China, we continue to recommend a negative stance on EM in absolute terms, and underweighting EM stocks and credit versus their U.S. peers. The dollar’s weakness stemming from the downshift in U.S. interest rate expectations is running out of steam. Chart I-11 shows that the broad trade-weighted dollar is trying to find support at its 200-day moving average. Conversely, the EM stocks index and copper prices are struggling to break above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-11, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-11Dollar And EM / Commodities: Mirror Images We believe the dollar is poised for a breakout, and EM and copper are due for a breakdown. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 Issuance Of Perpetual Bonds And CBS Program The authorities are promoting the issuance of perpetual bonds and the CBS program as a scheme for the country’s big-four banks to raise capital to meet BIS ’s Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) requirements for globally systemically important banks. Limitations and other details on the perpetual bonds issuance and CBS program: 24 out of 30 banks listed on the A-share market are presently qualified to issue perpetual bonds as their assets exceed RMB 200 billion, a threshold established by the PBoC. Perpetual bonds will boost the Tier-1 capital of issuing banks. Banks are allowed to purchase perpetual bonds issued by other banks in amounts up to 10% of their core Tier-1 capital. Only primary dealers (46 banks and 2 brokers) can exchange qualified perpetual bonds they hold for PBoC bills, with a maximum exchange period of three years. The incentive for banks to purchase perpetual bonds will for now be low because these bonds consume large amounts of capital. The risk weights for these perpetual bonds ranges between 150-250%. How Does It Work? As Diagram I-1 on page 14 illustrates, when Bank B purchases perpetual bonds from Bank A, the former transfers excess reserves to the latter. The amount of outstanding deposits, i.e., money supply, is not affected at all. Hence, there is no direct impact on the broad money supply. Banks do not require deposits to make loans and buy securities. Banks need excess reserves at the central bank to pay for or settle payments with other banks. When Bank B transfers excess reserves to Bank A, the aggregate amount of excess reserves in the banking system does not change. Bank B can swap these perpetual bonds with central bank bills, and then pledge these bills at the PBoC to get excess reserves. As it does so, Bank B will replenish its excess reserves. Consequently, the amount of excess reserves in the banking system will expand, as will the PBoC’s balance sheet. Overall, the issuance of perpetual bonds and CBS swaps lead to both bank recapitalization and banking system liquidity (excess reserves) expansion. Why has the PBoC decided to fund the issuance of perpetual bonds? Without PBoC funding, demand for perpetual bonds might be very low, and yields on them could spike. Higher yields could lure away capital from other corporate bonds, producing higher borrowing costs in credit markets. On the positive side, the monetary authorities will not only recapitalize a number of large banks but will also do so by capping borrowing costs in the credit markets and injecting more liquidity into the banking system. On the negative side, yields of these perpetual bonds will not be determined by the market. Rather they will be artificially suppressed by potential open-ended PBoC funding. This will preserve China’s inefficient credit allocation system and misallocation of capital in general. In a market economy, the authorities will typically force banks to raise capital in securities markets or privately. More issuance, especially when it comes from many banks simultaneously, typically pushes down the prices of bank stocks and bonds. The basis is securities issuance often dilutes existing shareholders and is also negative for bondholders. This threat of dilution and losing money incentivizes existing shareholders and bondholders of a bank to impose discipline on the bank’s management. Consequently, banks would be better run and capital allocation would be more efficient than it would otherwise be in a system where such oversight and incentives are absent. In brief, the market mechanism deters banks from risky and speculative behavior and contributes to the long-term health of the banking system, as well as the efficiency of capital allocation in the real economy. By allowing banks to purchase each other’s bonds, and with the PBoC financing it, China is not imposing the much-needed market discipline on bank shareholders, bondholders and by extension, bank management. This does not promote efficient capital allocation and higher productivity growth in the long run. Footnotes 1      Money supply is the sum of all deposits in the banking system. Hence, we use terms money and deposits interchangeably. 2      Please see the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses”, dated October 26, 2016, Special Report “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB?”, dated November 23, 2016, Special Report “Do Credit Bubbles Originate From HIgh National Savings?”, dated January 18, 2017, Special Report “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings Wall'”, dated December 20, 2017 Special Report “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China and Brazil”, dated March 22, 2018, available at www.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations