Emerging Markets

Dear Client, This Wednesday January 9th 2019, we are publishing a joint report co-written with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team. There will be no report on Friday. Best Regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Highlights So What? U.S. President Donald Trump is not solely focusing on stock prices, but he does not want an entrenched bear market to develop under his watch. Why? Entrenched bear markets often herald recessions. A recession would seriously endanger Trump’s re-election chances. The Federal Reserve will not alter its course to please Trump, but it will pause in order to safeguard the economy. While at first the dollar will weaken in response to a Fed pause, economic fundamentals argue that the greenback will enjoy a last hurrah before a true bear market can begin. Feature Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s legendary concern for the stock market, the S&P 500 is nonetheless down 6.7% since his G-20 truce with Chinese President Xi Jinping. We mark that date as notable on Chart I-1 – not because we think it caused the markets to plunge, but because many investors thought it would buoy equities into a Santa Claus rally. Further, many investors predicted that the G-20 truce would come about specifically because Trump wanted stocks to do well. Chart I-1Santa Did Not Show Up After The Buenos Aires Meeting There are so many methodological problems with this train of thought that it could be the main thrust of a PhD dissertation. But, for starters, the assertion that Trump is obsessed with stocks embeds causality into a dependent variable. In simple terms, it posits that the stock market’s performance is an end in of itself for President Trump, and thus he will do whatever it takes to prolong the bull market. Here’s a hint for the collective investment community: If something sounds too good to be true, it is almost definitely not true. The idea that the President of the United States, no matter how unorthodox… …Exclusively cares about the stock market… … And has the extraordinary power… ... and mental acumen… …to keep the stock market perpetually rising, is indeed too good to be true. First, President Trump has clearly shown that he does not exclusively care about the stock market, by shutting down the government midway through a bear market. Now, it is not clear to us how a federal government shutdown directly impacts the earnings of U.S. companies, but it is clear that it does not instill confidence among investors that Trump and the incoming Democrat-held House will be able to play nice together, or at least nice enough, to avert a potentially recession-inducing 2020 stimulus cliff (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Can Trump And The Democrats Play Nice Enough To Dodge The Cliff? BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy noted the danger of the government shutdown by calling it “the one true midterm-related risk.” The reasoning was that, “A lame duck Congress, or worse a Democratic Congress, will give President Trump all the reason he needs to grind things to a halt over his wall, with a view to 2020.” Further to this point, Trump has not exactly been a boon to the stock market since passing his signature legislation – the tax reform bill – at the end of 2017. Throughout 2018, he has focused his policy on a trade war with China, and we would also argue with a view towards the 2020 election. Now admittedly, the stock market completely and utterly ignored all bad news on the trade front (Chart I-3) – ironically, until a truce was called! – but the fact remains that President Trump did not listen to the almost-certain advice from his “globalist” advisors that a trade war could, at some point, hurt the S&P 500. Chart I-3The Market's Schizophrenic Relationship With The Trade War Second, the President of the United States of America is not a medieval king. He is not even the president of China nor even the prime minister of Canada (both policymakers with far more power inside their own political systems than the American president).1 The president is massively constrained in terms of economic policy by the Congress, a branch of government he only nominally has influence over. Further, his regulatory policy can be impeded by the bureaucracy and the courts. In addition, steering an economy as massive and multifaceted as that of the U.S. is not a one-man job. It is not a “job” at all. The best a president can do is set the conditions in place – through regulation, tax policy, and rhetoric – which stokes animal spirits in a positive direction. For much of 2017 and early 2018, President Trump did this. But the stock market, and the economy by extension, always wants more. More pro-business regulation and more reassuring rhetoric. President Trump generally gets an A on the former, but an F on the latter. Not only is the trade war a concern to investors, but so are a slew of other confidence-deflating comments by the president on FAANG regulation, the government shutdown, the White House staffing, the Fed’s independence, and foreign policy writ large. As for the question of mental acumen, President Trump may be a “stable genius,” but no single policymaker is able to influence equities. As an aside, we are shocked by how much the investment community has changed in the past eight years. When we began taking politics seriously in our investment strategy, back in 2011, it took a lot of convincing that systemic political analysis had a role to play with respect to one’s asset allocation. Now, investors are willing to bet their shirt on the actions of one politician. It is as if the investment community is trying to overcorrect for decades of ignoring politics as a valuable input in one single presidential term. So, what does this mean for U.S. equities from here on out? We agree with our clients that the one thing President Trump wanted to avoid was a bear market. We staunchly disagreed that equities could not correct significantly under his watch, and we shorted the S&P 500 outright in September, but we begrudgingly agreed that President Trump, as with all other presidents before him, would rather not deal with a bear market. Those tend to foreshadow a recession, and recessions tend to end re-election bids (Chart I-4). For much of 2019, we expect that President Trump will focus on ensuring that a recession does not occur ahead of his 2020 election bid. This is likely to become a defining motivating factor in all policy, whether domestic, foreign or trade. Can he be successful? It is not up to the U.S. President to determine when a recession hits, but the point is that he is likely to put his re-election bid above all other considerations. As such, we would expect that: The government shutdown will be resolved in January. A compromise will emerge to end the shutdown that falls short of president Trump’s demands. Ultimately, Trump needs Democrats to play ball with the White House and the Republican Senate in order to avert the stimulus cliff in 2020. Trade negotiations may produce a truce. There is a combined, subjective, probability of 70-75% that the ongoing trade negotiations produce either an outright deal (45-50%) or an extension of the talks with no further tariffs (25%). Trump is likely to back off from further trade antagonism, at least until the run-up to the 2020 election. There will be a parallel process where a China-U.S. tech war continues. Attacks on the Fed will cease. At least until the 2020 election, or until the recession actually hits. But with the Fed itself already signalling that it won’t be dogmatic, the reasons to go after the central bank will recede. Bottom Line: President Trump does not care about stock prices any more than other presidents have in the past. What matters to him is to avoid a protracted bear market in equity prices, as it would severely raise the probability of an upcoming recession, endangering his chances of re-election. This means the government shutdown will likely end this month, that the trade negotiations have a solid chance of producing a protracted truce, and that attacks on the Fed will ebb. Can The Dollar Rally Further? Is a U.S. president focused on avoiding a recession in order to get re-elected a good thing or a bad thing for the dollar? While stronger U.S. growth is inherently a positive for the dollar, the current juncture muddies the waters. To begin with, the risk of a correction in the U.S. dollar has risen considerably in recent weeks. The dollar is historically a momentum currency, implying that as much as strength begets further strength, weakness begets additional weakness.2 As a result, the fall in the DXY from 97.5 in December to 96 raises a red flag. This red flag is even more worrisome when looking at the dollar’s technical picture (Chart I-5). The 13-month rate-of-change has been forming a bearish divergence with prices, and both sentiment and net speculative positioning are holding at lofty levels. Not only does this confirm that on a tactical basis, the dollar is losing momentum, but it also highlights that if momentum deteriorates further, a large pool of potential sellers exist. Chart I-5Tactical Risks For The Greenback Policy too constitutes a risk. President Trump could relent on his attacks on the Fed, but as we mentioned, the Fed seems to also be relenting on its own hard-nosed approach to monetary policy. Last Friday, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell highlighted that policy was not on autopilot, and that monetary policy is ultimately data dependent. In fact, the Federal Open Market Committee is not antagonistic to a pause in its hiking campaign, nor to tweaking its balance-sheet policy if economic and financial conditions deteriorate further. The Fed moving away from hiking once every quarter should provide ammunition to sellers of the greenback. However, the interest rate market already has very muted expectations for the Fed, anticipating 6 basis points and 17 basis points of cuts over the next 12 and 24 months, respectively (Chart I-6). Thus, to be a durable headwind to the dollar, the Fed needs to be more dovish than what is already priced in. We doubt this will be the case: Chart I-6Scope For A Hawkish Fed Surprise In 2019 The ISM may have been weak, but the U.S. continues to generate a healthy level of job growth, and wages continue to accelerate (Chart I-7). Down the road, this will be inflationary. Consumption, or 68% of GDP, remains healthy. Real retail sales excluding motor vehicle and part dealers are still growing at a 4.3% pace. Robust job and wage growth will continue to support the ultimate driver of household spending: disposable income. Moreover, the household savings rate stands at 6% of disposable income, debt-servicing costs at 9.9%, and overall household debt has fallen to 100%, a level not seen since the turn of the century. The financial health of households insulates them against the negative impact of the tightening in financial conditions recorded this past fall.  Despite the recent deterioration in the ISM and the rise in credit costs, commercial and industrial loan growth continues to accelerate, with both the annual and the quarterly-annualized growth rates of this series rising the most in more than two years (Chart I-8). Chart I-7U.S. Wages Are Still Accelerating Chart I-8Positive Developments On The U.S. Credit Front Based on this combination, we would anticipate the Fed pausing in its hiking campaign for one to two quarters. This would nonetheless represent a more hawkish outcome than the one expected by the market, and thus would not be a dollar-bearish configuration. In our view, the biggest domestic risk for the Fed remains the housing market, which for most of this cycle has been the principal vehicle through which monetary policy has been transmitted to the economy. Housing has indubitably slowed, but the recent pick-up in the purchases component of the Mortgage Bankers Association index gives hope that this sector is making a trough as we write. What about tighter financial conditions: could they also threaten the dollar? After all, the tightening in FCI in the second half of 2018 is acting as a break on growth, diminishing the need for Fed hikes. If stocks and high-yield bonds sell off further, the Fed will likely hike less than we anticipate. However, a Fed pause and the more attractive valuations created by the recent selloff suggest that FCI should not deteriorate much more. Indeed, the 64-basis-point contraction in high-yield spreads since January 3rd shows that financial conditions have begun to ease. Our Global Investment Strategy team thinks that stocks are a buy, a view also consistent with an easing in U.S. FCI.3 As a result, we do not believe that U.S. financial conditions will force the Fed to cut rates, and thus will not create a handicap for the dollar. Finally, the most important factor for the dollar remains global growth. The dollar historically performs best when both global growth and inflation are decelerating (Chart I-9). Because the U.S. economy has a low exposure to both manufacturing and exports, it is a low-beta economy, relatively insulated from the global industrial cycle. Hence, when global growth decelerates, the U.S. suffers less than the rest. As a result, the U.S. syphons funds from the rest of the world, lifting the dollar in the process. Currently, the outlook for global growth remains poor. At the epicenter of it all lies China. Chinese manufacturing PMIs have fallen below 50. There are plenty of reasons to worry that the slowdown will not end here. Chinese consumers too are feeling the pinch, despite having been the recipient of much governmental support, including tax cuts (Chart I-10). Moreover, the fall in the combined fiscal and credit impulse also suggests that Chinese imports could suffer more in the coming months, creating a greater drag on the trading nations of the world (Chart I-11). Finally, China’s rising marginal propensity to save confirms these insights, pointing to slowing Chinese industrial activity and imports as well as deteriorating global export growth and industrial activity (Chart I-12).4 Chart I-10The Chinese Consumer Is Also Hungover   Chart I-11Chinese Credit Trends Point To Weaker Imports...   Chart I-12...And China's Rising Marginal Propensity To Save Corroborates This Risk Ultimately, these developments suggest that China needs to ease policy a lot more before growth can be revived. The reserve-requirement-ratio cuts announced last week are not enough to do the trick and may in fact only alleviate the traditional liquidity crunch associated with the Chinese New Year celebration – nothing more. Instead, we expect Chinese interest rates to continue to lag behind U.S. rates, a development historically associated with a strong dollar (Chart I-13). A tangible symptom that China’s reflation is positively affecting the global growth outlook will be when Chinese rates rise relative to U.S. ones. This is what is needed for the dollar to peak this cycle. We are not there yet. Continued weakness in the global PMI and German factory orders only gives more weight to this view. Chart I-13Rising U.S.-China Spreads Point To A Stronger Dollar Practically, we think a move in DXY to 94 or EUR/USD to 1.17 is likely in the coming weeks. However, the combined realization that the U.S. economy will not go into recession – and that therefore the Fed will not pause for the whole of 2019 – and that global growth has yet to bottom, means at those levels the dollar will be a buy. The yen is likely to suffer most in this context. If the markets begin pricing in a stronger U.S. economy than what is currently anticipated, U.S. 10-year yields will rise and the U.S. yield curve will steepen, hurting the JPY in the process. EUR/JPY is an attractive buy right now (Chart I-14). Chart I-14EUR/JPY Set To Rebound Bottom Line: As the market begins digesting the reality of a Fed pause, the dollar could experience some short-term vulnerability, pushing DXY toward 94 and EUR/USD toward 1.17. However, we would anticipate the dollar’s weakness to end at those levels. Interest rate markets are already pricing in Fed rate cuts, something we believe is not warranted. Moreover, financial conditions are set to ease, which will give comfort to the Fed that it can resume hiking. Finally, Chinese growth has more downside, which normally leads to a dollar-bullish environment.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com ​​ Footnotes 1 The comparison may not entirely be apt since not even the President of China was able to avert the stock market collapse in China in 2015. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies in Foreign Exchange Markets”, dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, titled “Market Alert: The Correction Cometh, The Correction Came: Upgrade Global Equities To Overweight”, dated December 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Fade The Green Shoots”, dated December 14, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Our leading indicator for China’s old economy continues to point to slower growth over the coming months, which is consistent with the bearish message from China’s housing market and forward-looking export indicators. We would caution investors against interpreting the recent relative outperformance of Chinese stocks as a basis to become cyclically bullish, as it has largely reflected a “catchup” selloff in global stocks. We remain tactically overweight, in recognition of the fact that investors may bid up Chinese stocks on positive signs that a trade deal may be in sight. Onshore corporate bond spreads remain wide relative to pre-2017 levels, suggesting that it is too early to expect easier liquidity conditions to significantly improve domestic economic conditions. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, the primary trend for China’s old economy remains down, although measures of freight remain supported by trade front-running activity (which will wane over the coming months). Our Li Keqiang leading indicator continues to suggest that economic activity will slow from current levels, a conclusion that is reinforced by recent developments in the housing market and December’s PMI release. Table 1The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Remains Negative   Table 2Financial Market Performance Summary From an investment strategy perspective, we remain tactically overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the global benchmark in recognition of the fact that investors may bid up Chinese stocks on positive signs that a trade deal may be in sight. However, China’s recent outperformance has been passive in nature (i.e. reflecting declining global stocks), suggesting that Chinese stocks have simply been the winner of an “ugly contest” over the past few months. This is hardly a basis to be cyclically long, and we continue to recommend that investors remain neutral for now. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data below: Bloomberg’s measure of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) fell in November for the third month in a row, although our Alternative LKI has risen due to a pickup in freight transport turnover. We showed in our December 5 Weekly Report that trade front-running has clearly boosted economic activity since Q1 of 2018,1 implying that freight volume growth is set to decelerate in the months ahead. Our Li Keqiang leading indicator ticked lower in December, after having risen non-trivially in the third quarter of 2018 (Chart 1). The December decline was caused by a pullback in the monetary conditions components of the indicator, which in turn was caused by the recent rise in CNY-USD. This echoes a point that we have made in previous reports, that the improvement in our leading indicator last year was not broad-based and that it does not yet herald a positive turning point for China’s old economy. Chart 1The Q3 Rise In Our Leading Indicator Was Not Broad-Based The October housing market slowdown that we highlighted in our November 21 Weekly Report continued into December,2 with floor space started and sold decelerating further (Chart 2). The latter, which typically leads the former, has returned to negative territory which, in conjunction with weaker Pledged Supplementary Lending from the PBOC, does not bode well for housing over the coming few months. House price appreciation remains strong outside of tier 1 cities, but a peak in our price diffusion indexes signals slower price gains are likely over the coming months. Chart 2China's Housing Market Activity Continues To Weaken On the trade front, nominal Chinese US$ import and export growth is now trending lower, confirming the negative signal provided by China’s manufacturing PMIs over the past few months. Notably, the new export orders components of both the official and Caixin PMIs declined in December, despite the tariff ceasefire that emerged during the G20 meeting at the end of November, suggesting that export growth is set to slow further in the first quarter of 2019. In relative US$ terms, Chinese investable stocks rose nearly 10% versus the global benchmark from mid-October until the end of 2018. However, as Chart 3 shows, this outperformance was entirely passive in nature, as Chinese stocks have not been trending higher in absolute terms. Chart 3Recent Equity Outperformance Has Been Passive, Not Active We remain tactically overweight Chinese investable stocks; the Chinese market remains deeply oversold in absolute terms, and signs of a potential trade deal over the coming few weeks may significantly improve global investor sentiment towards the country’s bourse. However, we would caution investors against interpreting the recent relative outperformance as a basis to become cyclically bullish, as it has largely reflected a “catchup” selloff in global stocks. The underperformance of Chinese health care stocks over the past two months has been stunning, with investable health care having fallen nearly 30% in relative terms since mid-November (Chart 4). However, this decline appears to have been caused by a sector-specific event (a massive profit margin squeeze due to a new government generic drug procurement program), and does not seem to imply anything about the outlook for Chinese consumers. Chart 4A Stunning, Idiosyncratic, Collapse In Health Care Stocks Despite the recent collapse in the health care sector, Chinese consumer discretionary (CD) stocks remain the largest losers within the investable universe, having declined over 40% in US$ terms over the past 12 months. The next twelve months may look quite different for CD, especially if China’s efforts to stimulate consumer spending succeed. The recent changes to the global industrial classification system (GICS) mean that Alibaba (China’s largest e-commerce retailer) is now included in the sector with a significant weight, overwhelming the heavy influence that auto producers used to wield. Auto stocks have struggled in the past due to China’s pollution controls, weak auto sales, and pledges to open up the auto sector (which would be negative for the market share of domestic firms). We will be watching over the coming several months for a pickup in retail goods spending combined with a technical breakout in relative performance as a sign to overweight Chinese consumer discretionary stocks relative to the investable index. Chinese interbank rates have fallen substantially over the past month (Chart 5), in response to additional efforts by the PBOC to boost liquidity in the financial system. Whether the additional liquidity (and lower borrowing rates) will feed into materially stronger credit growth remains to be seen, as we have presented evidence in past reports showing that China’s monetary policy transmission mechanism is impaired.2 Chart 5More Liquidity Has Lowered Interbank Rates Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads have creeped modestly higher since early-November, although by a small magnitude. While we remain optimistic that onshore defaults over the coming year will be less intense than many investors believe, onshore corporate bond spreads have been one of the more successful leading indicators of economic growth in China over the past two years, and remain wide by historical standards. This suggests that it is too early to expect easier liquidity conditions to significantly improve domestic economic conditions. While it is too early to call a durable bottom, the gap between CNY-USD and its 200-day moving average is steadily closing (Chart 6). The recent (modest) uptrend has been caused by two factors: 1) cautious optimism about the possibility of a durable trade deal with the U.S., and 2) retreating U.S. interest rate expectations. We would expect further weakness if the trade ceasefire collapses and President Trump moves forward with the previously-announced tariffs, but also a sizeable rally if a deal is negotiated. Chart 6A Tentative, But Noteworthy Improvement   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      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. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Trade Is Not China's Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Are Markets Too Pessimistic On U.S. Growth & Inflation? What Is China’s Economic Pain Threshold To Trigger A Policy Response? Have Central Banks Become Less Concerned About Financial Markets? Feature Happy New Year! 2019 has started much like 2018 ended, with elevated global market volatility. The combination of more evidence of slowing global growth – fueled by spillovers from U.S.-China trade tensions – and central banks perceived to be overly hawkish has crushed investor sentiment. Money has flooded out of risk assets like equities and corporate debt and shifted into the traditional safe haven assets – government bonds, surplus currencies like the Japanese yen and even gold. U.S. equities and credit, which had been a refuge from the global market weakness for much of last year, have underperformed sharply as markets have moved to price in the global economic softness reaching U.S. shores. These market trends obviously run counter to our recommended positioning for overall portfolio duration (below benchmark) and credit exposure (neutral overall, favoring the U.S. over Europe and Emerging Markets). Yet we advise staying the course with our recommendations, as market pricing has become too pessimistic relative to likely global growth and inflation outcomes. The bulk of the recent decline in global bond yields has come from falling inflation expectations, which have been linked to the sharp fall in oil prices seen in the final months of 2018 (Chart of the Week). This is shown in Table 1, which presents the breakdown of the decline in the 10-year benchmark government bond yields for the major developed markets since the peak in U.S. Treasury yields back on November 8. Real yields have fallen by a more modest amount than inflation expectations in most countries, even with the pullback in cyclical indicators like the global PMI. Expected 2019 rate hikes are now fully priced out of money market curves, most notably in the U.S. Chart of the WeekSlowing Growth Is Not Why Yields Have Plunged   Table 1Decomposing 10-Year Yield Changes Since The November 2018 Peak In our view, there are three vital questions regarding the recent market turbulence that must be answered before determining the appropriate global fixed income investment strategy over the next 6-12 months. The answers lead us to maintain our current recommendations on duration, country allocation and credit exposure, even with the recent market turbulence. 1) Are Markets Too Pessimistic On U.S. Growth & Inflation? The December reading for the U.S. ISM Manufacturing purchasing managers’ index (PMI) released last week showed the largest single month deceleration since 2008 (Chart 2). All the main subcomponents of the ISM index fell, including the New Orders and Export indices which are now close to falling below the 50 threshold (Chart 3). Coming on the heels of China’s PMI dipping below 50, markets became more worried that the mighty U.S. economy was being dragged down to the weaker pace of growth seen outside the U.S. Chart 2Decomposing 10-Year Yield Changes Since The November 2018 Peak   Chart 3U.S. ISM Overstating U.S. Economic Weakness Yet when looking a broader array of U.S. indicators, the domestic economy still appears to be in good shape, albeit with some lost growth momentum. Consumer confidence remains solid, employment growth is accelerating, household incomes are growing at a faster pace and the personal savings rate remains elevated – all of which provide support for a faster pace of consumer spending (third panel). At the same time, the U.S. Conference Board leading economic indicator is still pointing to a healthy above-trend pace of GDP growth in 2019. U.S. Treasury yields have fallen to levels consistent with the drift lower in the ISM index (top panel), with the market now discounting one full 25bp rate cut to occur within the next twelve months. That will not happen given the tightness of the U.S. labor market and persistence of underlying domestic inflation pressures. The robust December gain reported in last Friday’s U.S. Payrolls report (+312k) may have surprised the markets, but our U.S. Employment Growth model had been signaling a faster pace of job growth for the past several months (Chart 4). The year-over-year growth in Average Hourly Earnings rose to 3.2%, the highest level in nearly a decade. With the overall unemployment still at a historically low 3.9% as labor demand is increasing, wages are likely to remain under upward pressure in the next 6-12 months. Chart 4U.S. Employment & Wages Are Accelerating Given this backdrop of economic growth that is likely to remain above-trend throughout 2019, it will be difficult to generate a sustained downturn in U.S. inflation this year, even given the lagged impact of the strong U.S. dollar and lower oil prices. While some decline in headline inflation measures is inevitable in the coming months given the rapid pace and magnitude of the 2018 oil plunge, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy team continues to see a positive demand/supply balance helping push oil prices back towards the $80/bbl level in 2019.1 That would ensure that any decline in headline U.S. inflation would be short in duration, and of far less magnitude than the move that occurred after the 2014/15 oil plunge given the more robust domestic inflation backdrop (Chart 5). Chart 5This Is NOT A Repeat Of the 2015/16 Deflation Scare A sober assessment of the U.S. economic and inflation data leads us to conclude that U.S. interest rate markets have swung too far to the dovish side. The inflation expectations component of U.S. Treasury yields is now too low, and the Fed rate cut that is now discounted in money markets will not materialize. Rate hikes are the more likely outcome, the repricing of which will put renewed upward pressure on Treasury yields. 2) What Is China’s Economic Pain Threshold To Trigger A Policy Response? Of the potential catalysts that could turn the current investor pessimism into optimism, signs of improving Chinese growth would likely top the list. China’s economy has lost considerable momentum, with year-over-year real GDP growth slowing to 6.5% in the third quarter of last year and higher frequency data showing a further deceleration in the fourth quarter. The profit warning issued by Apple last week, prompted by an unexpectedly sharp slowing of Chinese mobile phone demand, is a sign that Chinese consumer spending may be faltering. There are several causes for the growth slump, both domestic and foreign. Chinese authorities have been clamping down on domestic leverage given elevated private debt levels, while also taking action to reduce domestic pollution levels – policies that all have helped dampen industrial activity. More recently, and more importantly, the U.S.-China tariff war has started to have a real economic impact on the economy through slowing trade activity and diminished business confidence. Given the Chinese government’s perpetual interest in maintaining domestic stability by limiting any cyclical increases in unemployment, the incentive is there for policymakers to provide renewed stimulus to put a floor under economic growth. The last such boost came in 2015/16, when the Chinese government implemented an aggressive expansion of fiscal spending alongside monetary policy measures such as interest rate cuts, reductions in reserve requirement ratios and currency depreciation. That package was enough to cause a sharp reacceleration of the Chinese economy, but only after nominal GDP growth had fallen to an 16-year low of 6.4% at the end of 2015 (Chart 6). Chart 6Nominal China Growth Less Than 7.5% Should Trigger More Stimulus … Policymakers will likely be forced into action again in 2019 if nominal GDP growth, which hit 9.6% in the third quarter of 2018, falls back below 7.5%. Forward-looking economic measures like our Li Keqiang leading indicator and the export orders component of China’s manufacturing PMI suggest that weaker growth outcome could occur by mid-2019. China’s policymakers are likely to announce some form of stimulus in the first half of the year help counteract the growth slump, which could help boost global investor confidence (especially if it is accompanied by a new trade agreement with the U.S.). While Chinese policymakers are now under more pressure to provide stimulus measures, the tools available to them are more limited than was the case in 2015/16 (Chart 7). Interest rate cuts could happen if growth continues to fall more rapidly than expected, but that would create a burst in private sector leverage that policymakers would seek to avoid. The currency could also be weakened further, but the USD/CNY exchange rate is already back to near the 7.0 level reached in the 2016 devaluation. Chart 7...Atlhough Policy Options Are More Limited Than 2016 That leaves additional cuts in the reserve requirement ratio and increases in fiscal spending as the two most likely means for China to stimulate its economy in the coming months. Yet even the fiscal channel has limits, given the much higher starting point for the budget deficit today (3.7% of GDP) than in 2015 (2%). So while the trigger for a China policy stimulus will likely be reached by mid-2019, the magnitude of the stimulus will be nowhere near as large as the 2015/16 measures. This will help stabilize global growth expectations, but likely not by enough to provide a major boost to global commodity prices or export demand from emerging market countries that are heavily dependent on China. This leads us to remain cautious on emerging market credit exposure, as we prefer to own U.S. corporate debt instead where the growth/profit outlook is better. 3) Have Central Banks Become Less Concerned About Financial Markets? A popular market narrative of late has been that the Fed “made a mistake” with its last rate hike in December. A similar argument was made for the ECB choosing the end its Asset Purchase Program last month with inflation still well short of its target and European growth decelerating. The idea that central banks had fallen “out of tune” with financial markets has spooked investors who fear that policymakers are carrying out a pre-conceived plan to normalize monetary policy without any regard to financial markets. We find this to be a highly dubious conclusion. Central bankers still care about financial markets – or, more accurately, financial conditions – but the hurdle for policymakers to respond to falling asset prices is higher now than in previous years because of a lack of spare economic capacity. Simply put, any tightening of financial conditions must be large enough to trigger a slowing of growth to a below-potential pace, resulting in rising unemployment and weaker inflation pressures. That has not been the case – yet – in the major developed economies. Financial conditions indices (FCIs) – which measure the combined impact of equity prices, credit spreads and currencies – typically lead economic growth by 2-3 quarters. The latest selloffs in equity and credit markets in the U.S. and Europe, while significant, have not been large enough to push FCIs for those regions to levels that would be consistent with below-trend growth, using the 2015/16 episode as a reference point (Chart 8). Chart 8Tightening Financial Conditions Not Signaling Below-Trend Growth...Yet Financial conditions in the U.S. are much closer to that 2015/16 reference point than in Europe, where bond yields remain very depressed and the euro is still an undervalued currency. Yet the domestic U.S. economy is in a much better state than was the case in 2015/16, as discussed earlier in this report. It is highly likely that the level of the U.S. FCI that would trigger a move to below-trend U.S. growth is much different today than in 2015/16. In other words, it would take a bigger widening of U.S. corporate credit spreads, or a sharper selloff in U.S. equity values, to generate the same type of drag on U.S. growth relative to 2015/16. Yet U.S. interest rate markets have already responded as if there was no such change in the amount of FCI tightening that would result in a more dovish Fed policy. The U.S. money markets have gone from pricing three rate hikes in 2019 to one rate cut, while bond investors have largely neutralized their bearish Treasury duration positioning (Chart 9). Chart 9USTs Now Discounting Too Much Fed Dovishness That swing in sentiment on the Fed’s next move flies in the face of the underlying health of the U.S. economic data, as well as our Fed Monitor which continues to signal the need for more Fed rate hikes (Chart 10). Our other Central Bank Monitors tell a similar story (outside of Australia), with the Monitors signaling no need for easier monetary policy but with money markets pricing out any probability of a rate hike over the next year. This leaves global government bond yields exposed to any sign that global growth momentum is stabilizing, particularly with the inflation expectations component of bond yields also vulnerable to a rebound in oil prices (Chart 11). Chart 10Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Repricing Of Rate Hikes   Chart 11Bond Yields Are Now Exposed To A Rebound In Oil Prices Our conclusion is that financial conditions in the major economies have not yet tightened by enough to end the process of normalizing global monetary policy from the extraordinarily accommodative settings seen in recent years. In other words, bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Oil Volatility Will Persist: 2019 Brent Forecast Lowered to $80/bbl”, dated January 3rd 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, In lieu of next week’s report, I will be hosting a webcast on Wednesday, January 9th at 10 AM EST, when I will be discussing the economic and financial market outlook for 2019 and answering your questions. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The lack of major financial and economic imbalances in the U.S., as well as the Fed’s ability to moderate the pace of rate hikes, reduce the risk of a vicious cycle where tighter financial conditions lead to slower economic growth and even tighter financial conditions. The scope for central banks to cut rates is more limited outside the United States. Imbalances are also greater abroad. Nevertheless, the news is not all bleak, with the recent rebound in China’s credit impulse being a case in point. We turned more bullish on risk assets following December’s post-FOMC equity sell-off. A moderately overweight position in global equities over a 12-month horizon is currently justified. While we continue to favor the U.S. over other bourses in dollar terms, our conviction level in this regional bias has decreased. Treasury yields are likely to rise in an environment where U.S. growth is strong enough to enable the Fed to continue raising rates. Outside Japan, global government bond yields will also increase in 2019. We are removing our long June-2019 Fed funds futures contract hedge, and we are now solely outright short the December-2020 contract. We are also taking profits on our March-2019 EEM ETF put for a gain of 104%. Feature Merry Crisis And A Happy New Fear Santa arrived early this year. The plunge in stocks allowed investors to buy some of the world’s premier companies at a mouthwatering 20%-to-30% discount to what they would have paid just a few months earlier. What a gift! Needless to say, most investors would not regard last month’s stock market performance in such a favorable light. But why not? One answer is that investors must mark their portfolios to market. Thus, even if the decline in equity prices raised future returns, it still implied a decline in present net worth. Yet, this cannot be the whole explanation, because if all investors expected stocks to bounce back quickly, they would not have sold in the first place. Clearly, many investors must have come to the conclusion that the stock market would not only go down but stay down. However, this presents a puzzle. The economic environment did not change that much in the weeks leading up to the October sell-off. Growth has slowed more recently (Chart 1), with this morning’s disappointing ISM manufacturing report being the latest example, but this appears to have been mainly a response to the souring market climate rather than the cause of it. Chart 1Tighter Financial Conditions Have Led To Slower Growth Reverse Causality? This raises an intriguing possibility: What if the drop in stock prices and jump in credit spreads that began in late September hurt expectations of economic growth by enough to justify a further discount in risk asset valuations? Such a “Financial Conditions Index (FCI) doom loop” is not just a theoretical construct. The last two U.S. recessions were both the products of burst asset bubbles — first the dotcom bubble and then the housing bubble. Could such a self-fulfilling vicious cycle be erupting again? If so, any rally in stocks or credit should be sold into, just as was the case in both 2001 and 2007. U.S. Fairly Resilient To A Doom Loop Fortunately, there are two reasons to think that such an outcome will not reoccur, at least not in the United States. First, as Box 1 explains, an FCI doom loop is more likely to unfold when economic growth becomes very sensitive to changes in financial conditions. This normally happens when economic and financial imbalances are elevated. That does not appear to be the case today. Unlike in the lead-up to the last two recessions, the U.S. private sector is a net saver whose income outstrips spending by 2.1% of GDP (Chart 2). Cyclical spending – the sum of residential investment, business capex, and expenditures on consumer durable goods – is also far below prior business-cycle peaks as a share of GDP (Chart 3). Chart 2The U.S. Private Sector Is A Net Saver Chart 3U.S. Economy: Cyclical Spending Is Still Restrained Despite recent releveraging in some categories, U.S. household debt has continued to decline in relation to the size of the economy. The ratio of personal debt-to-disposable income is now 34 percentage points below pre-crisis levels (Chart 4). Chart 4Household Leverage Is Below Its Peak U.S. corporate debt has moved in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, while the ratio of U.S. corporate debt-to-GDP has climbed to a record high, it is still quite low by global standards (Chart 5). Perhaps more importantly, corporate debt is generally held by non-leveraged institutions. If corporate defaults were to rise unexpectedly, the losses to lenders would not pose the same systemic risk to the financial sector as mortgage defaults did during the Global Financial Crisis. Chart 5U.S. Corporate Debt Is High, But It Is Higher Elsewhere The Fed’s Reaction Function It is not surprising that the stock market sell-off accelerated in early October following Fed Chairman, and failed golfer, Jay Powell’s comment that interest rates were “far from neutral.” We think that worries that the Fed will tighten too quickly are misplaced. Yes, monetary policy operates with “long and variable lags.” However, financial conditions, which lead growth, can be observed in real time (Chart 6). Chart 6Global Financial Conditions Have Tightened Most of the tightening in financial conditions since late September has been due to falling equity prices. Our baseline scenario envisions a gain of roughly 10% in the S&P 500 in 2019. A rebound in stocks of this magnitude will reverse most of the recent FCI tightening, thereby allowing the Fed to raise rates three times this year. But if equities continue to sag, the Fed will scale back further monetary tightening or even cut rates. The mere possibility of such a policy response reduces the odds of an FCI doom loop. A Mixed Bag Outside The U.S. The economic outlook is murkier outside the United States. Economic and financial imbalances are greater in the EM space and parts of Europe. Non-U.S. central banks also have less scope to respond to adverse shocks, either because of fears that looser monetary policy will spark capital outflows (as is the case in many emerging markets) or because of the presence of the zero-bound constraint on interest rates (as is the case in the euro area and Japan). Nevertheless, the situation is not that bad. EM assets have been fairly resilient over the past few months, at least in comparison to their developed economy counterparts (Chart 7). China’s credit impulse has actually perked up, an indication that while credit growth is falling, it is doing so at a slower pace. Chart 8 shows that the Chinese credit impulse is highly correlated with global industrial commodity prices. We still expect global growth to slow in the first half of 2019, but at this point, much of the slowdown has been discounted in asset markets. With that in mind, we are raising the stop on our short AUD/JPY trade to 10% and instituting a profit target of 15%. Chart 7EM Assets Have Been Outperforming Recently   Chart 8The Increase In China's Credit Impulse Bodes Well For Industrial Commodity Prices The Perils Of Discrete Decision-Making One of the annoyances of being an investment strategist is that you often feel compelled to take discrete views on where the markets are heading. Are you bullish, bearish, or neutral? Actually, it is usually just bullish or bearish because most people regard neutral views as lacking in conviction and insight. This incentive structure is counterproductive. Not only does it cause analysts to turn a blind eye to incoming data that may challenge their thesis, it disregards how professional investors actually operate. Successful investors scale into positions as the market gets cheaper and scale out as it becomes more expensive. Trying to time the bottom (or the top) with exact precision is futile. With that in mind, we are going to tweak the way we make recommendations going forward in order to improve transparency, accountability, and accuracy. Rather than simply stating whether we are bullish, bearish, or neutral, we will assign the main asset classes a subjective score between zero and one hundred, with 0-to-40 being bearish, 40-to-60 being neutral, and 60-to-100 being bullish. We will adjust the score in every publication. To add analytic rigor to this framework, we will also compare our subjective model score with that of our MacroQuant model. Where Things Now Stand We downgraded global equities last June, but moved back to overweight following December’s post-FOMC meeting sell-off, as valuations reached that rather blurry line at which a modest equity overweight was warranted. Our subjective score for global equities currently stands at 65%, above the model’s estimate of 50%. Our moderately bullish view reflects our expectation that global growth will stabilize by mid-year and monetary policy will remain accommodative, even if the Fed raises rates by more than what the markets are currently discounting. Tempering our enthusiasm is the recognition that the business cycle is getting long in the tooth – especially in the U.S. – and that global equity valuations, while far cheaper than they were a few months ago, are still significantly less favorable than they were near past market bottoms (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Equity Valuations Have Improved Regionally, we continue to favor U.S. stocks over other developed markets, and DM over EM more broadly. However, our conviction level on this view is not high, and we are prepared to revise it if it looks like global growth is accelerating, an outcome that would limit any further dollar strength (our subjective dollar score currently stands at 70%, below the model’s estimate of 92%). Reflecting our expectation of decent global equity returns in 2019 and our waning conviction to be underweight EM, we are taking profits on in our March-2019 EEM ETF put for a gain of 104%.  Please note that our view on EM is more optimistic than that of Arthur Budaghyan, BCA’s chief emerging markets strategist, who continues to see considerable downside risks to EM assets. For now, Treasury yields are likely to rise in an environment where U.S. growth is strong enough to enable the Fed to continue raising rates. We assign the 10-year yield a score of 30%, which is close to our model estimate of 32%. Accordingly, we are removing our long June-2019 Fed funds futures contract hedge, and we are now solely outright short the December-2020 contract. Core European bond yields will increase, reflecting diminished excess capacity in the euro area and the end of ECB net asset purchases. U.K. yields should also grind higher, as the odds of a soft Brexit (or no Brexit) improve. Only in Japan will yields remain contained, thanks to the BoJ’s ongoing yield curve control regime. We do not expect spread product to have a banner year, but the current yield pick-up should be sufficient to ensure that risky credit outperforms cash. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com     Box 1 The Analytics Of Doom Loops When will a tightening in financial conditions stemming from lower equity prices and higher borrowing costs lead to a vicious circle of slower economic growth and even tighter financial conditions? The answer depends on how sensitive economic growth is to financial conditions in relation to how sensitive financial conditions are to growth. Figure 1 shows two equilibrium schedules, one for the economy (EE) and one for asset markets (AA). Both schedules slope downward. The EE schedule is downward-sloping because easier financial conditions boost growth. If growth is too strong given the prevailing level of financial conditions, economic activity will slow (Panel A). The AA schedule is downward-sloping because equity prices tend to fall and credit spreads rise when growth slows. If equity prices are too high and credit spreads are too narrow for a certain level of growth, then financial conditions will tighten (Panel B). Suppose economic growth is not very sensitive to changes in financial conditions, perhaps because imbalances in the economy are limited (Panel C). Then changes in financial conditions will be fleeting: A decline in equity prices or a widening in credit spreads will not hurt growth very much, allowing the stock market and credit market to quickly normalize. In contrast, suppose that economic growth is very sensitive to financial conditions, so much so that the EE schedule is flatter than the AA schedule. In this case, the economy will be vulnerable to self-reinforcing booms and busts (Panel D). In particular, a small random jump from U to UI will send the economy careening towards a doom loop of ever-weaker growth and tighter financial conditions.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights The often-quoted 60% urbanization rate understates the extent of China’s industrialization. China is much more industrialized than generally perceived: the country’s industrialization rate is currently 82.5% – i.e., over 80% of jobs in China are already in non-agricultural sectors. This entails a slower rate of industrialization and urbanization going forward. Both rural-to-urban labor migration and expansion of existing cities will slow significantly over the next decade. Transforming rural areas into urban without migration will become the major form of urbanization over the next decade. Investment themes: Demand for urban property will slow considerably, while agricultural machinery sales may have sustainable growth ahead. Feature The scale of urbanization in China over the past two decades has been unprecedented in human history. China’s urban population has increased by 460 million from 1995 to 2017, outnumbering the total population of the U.S. and Japan combined. The extraordinary urbanization process, fundamentally driven by the country’s rapid and widespread industrialization process, had led to a massive migration of laborers from rural to urban areas, and in turn significant expansion of cities and a huge boom in the Chinese real estate market. Where is China now in terms of its industrialization and urbanization path? Will further urbanization be able to continue to support very high productivity growth as well as demand for its already bubbly property market? This report takes a closer look at the country’s progress of industrialization and urbanization. Industrialization Versus Urbanization Urbanization commonly refers to the increase in the proportion of people living in urban areas. For China, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) has two sets of data measuring the country’s urbanization rate – one uses the number of people who have resided in an urban area1 for at least six months within the period of one year, and the other uses the number of people who have only registered non-agricultural hukou.2 However, neither measure reflects the country’s industrialization level. Industrialization is defined as the transformation of an agrarian economy into an industrial one. One way to measure it is the share of employment in non-agricultural3 sectors of total employment. Based on this measure, China’s industrialization process is already reasonably advanced. Chart 1 shows that while only about 60% of the population lives in an urban area, as defined by the NBS (this is the often-cited measure by economists and strategists), World Bank data show that China’s industrialization rate is currently 82.5% – i.e., over 80% of jobs in China are already in non-agricultural sectors. This underscores that China’s development path is more advanced than is generally perceived by investors. Chart 1China: More Industrialized Than Perceived China’s urbanization rate cannot capture the fact that there are many non-agricultural jobs held by people living and working in areas administratively classified as rural. Therefore, the 60% urbanization rate understates the extent of China’s industrialization, and overestimates potential upside in future growth. The nation is already reasonably advanced in terms of moving labor from agriculture to non-agriculture industries. This conclusion is reinforced by comparing China with developed economies (the U.S., Japan and South Korea) based on standard urbanization rates and based on our measure of industrialization: The latter points to a much smaller gap between China and advanced countries than the former (Charts 2 and 3). Chart 2China Vs. Advanced Economies: A Much Smaller Gap In Industrialization Measure... Chart 3…Than In Standard Urbanization Measure China’s industrialization rate at 82.5% is similar to South Korea in the early-1990s (Chart 4, top panel). If in next 10 years China’s industrialization progresses in line with the South Korean experience during 1991-2001, this will mean China’s industrialization pace – defined as an annual increase in the industrialization rate – will slow materially to 0.6 percentage points per year over the next decade, from 1.4 percentage points per year over the past decade (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 5 demonstrates the close correlation between the pace of industrialization and real per capita GDP growth in both China and South Korea. What is clear from the chart is that as the pace of industrialization decelerates, per capita real income growth will slow further.   Chart 4Korean's Roadmap: Falling China's Industrialization Pace Ahead Chart 5Industrialization Pace Vs. Real Per Capita GDP Growth: Closely Correlated Indeed, industrialization has allowed massive rural-to-urban labor migration as well as enormous expansion of existing cities. Due to the high base, the pace of industrialization has already been slowing, and will continue to do so. Consequently, China’s industrialization-driven urbanization will also continue to lose steam, with ramifications for the economy and its various sectors. We discuss below each of the specific factors that are likely to contribute to China’s future urbanization path, and then conclude the report with the attendant implications for Chinese real estate and agricultural machinery sales. Falling Rural-To-Urban Migration Industrialization generally leads to urbanization by establishing manufacturing factories and generating job opportunities, which in turn induces the movement of agriculture labor to cities. Hence, rural-to-urban migration, triggered by industrialization, is typically the main driver of rising urbanization. Currently, rural-to-urban migration is falling, which is a negative signal for the pace of future urbanization. In China, the rural-to-urban migration process is indeed slowing – i.e., the number of new migrant workers moving from rural areas to cities has already decreased nearly by half, from an average of 9.3 million per year over 2009-2012 to 4.8 million per year over 2013-2017. If we exclude migrant workers aged 50 and above, the number of migrant workers (a stock variable) actually contracted last year (Chart 6). Chart 6The Number Of Young Migrant Workers: Actually Contracted In 2017 Several points suggest that the rural-to-urban migration process will likely progress at an even slower pace going forward: Declining industrial employment: Employment in industrial sectors has contracted across the board, implying less demand for migrant workers (Chart 7). Employment has contracted in all 30 industrial subsectors that the NBS monitors, and 29 of them currently have fewer employees than five years ago. Higher automation in factories, the government’s de-capacity reforms in some industries with excessive capacity (i.e., coal, steel, aluminum, cement and so on), and some labor-intensive industries (i.e. textiles) shifting to other low-labor-cost countries (i.e. Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) are all factors that have contributed to the reduction in industrial employment. Chart 7Declining Industrial Employment Aging migrant workers: The average age of migrant workers has already risen from 34 in 2008 to 39.7 last year, with 21.3% of total migrant workers now aged 50 and above. As they continue to age over the next five to 10 years, our sense is that a considerable proportion of these older migrant workers will likely move back out of urban areas because of the existence of a family support network in their villages/rural townships. Shrinking youth population in rural areas: China’s rural population has declined by 33% from its peak of about 860 million in 1995 to 577 million in 2017 (Chart 8, top panel). All else equal, the lower rural population base alone will result in smaller rural-to-city migration compared to the previous two decades. More importantly, as substantial numbers of the working-age population left their rural homes for cities, the proportion of elders in the rural population has significantly increased, while the proportion of young people has drastically decreased. The current 19-and-under cohort will be the major source of future rural-to-urban migration over next five to 10 years. Based on the NBS data, in rural areas the share of the population aged 50 and over rose to 33% in 2017, much higher than the 25% of the population aged 19 and younger. This contrasts with 18% and 36%, respectively, back in 1997. The increasing proportion of elders and the declining proportion of the young population segment in rural areas implies smaller rural-to-city migration scale going forward. Chart 8Rural-To-Urban Migration Will Continue To Decline Changing preferences of the rural population: In recent years, the agricultural hukou has become much more valuable than in the past. In China, the government always assigns a piece of land for farming to a person with an agricultural hukou when he or she is born. This does not apply to a person with a non-agricultural hukou. As the central government’s policy focuses more on rural development, more non-farming job opportunities will likely be created in the rural areas. Services that in the past could only be enjoyed in urban areas are now spreading into rural areas as well, suggesting farmers who have either kids or elder parents to take care of will be more willing to stay in rural areas. If we use the annual change in the rural population as an indicator to predict the scale of rural-to-urban migration, the migration started in 1996 and peaked in 2010, and will decline going forward (Chart 8, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The scale of rural-to-urban migration will likely continue to diminish in the next five to 10 years. Slower City Area Expansion China’s industrialization-driven urbanization is not only driven by rural-to-urban labor migration, but also by the process of expanding and developing existing urban areas. In Western parlance, this factor would be described as the intense development of the territories surrounding the core of a “metropolitan area.” By establishing manufacturing factories, developing public facilities (roads, highways, subways, schools, hospitals, recreation centers, etc.), and constructing residential/commercial buildings to accommodate massive influxes of migrant workers in the rural areas surrounding cities, these territories have quickly expanded and have been transformed into urban areas4 over the past two decades. Statistics show that the “city area” in China has expanded 150% since 2000, almost twice the 77% rate of growth in the urban population during the same period (Chart 9, top panel). Chart 9Overdevelopment Of City Area Expansion In these now formerly rural areas, local governments often bought land from local farmers and then either sold the land to real estate developers to construct new residential properties or commercial buildings or used the land to develop public facilities. As a result, living conditions and economic development in these rural areas have become “urban-like.” Looking forward, over the next five to 10 years, we believe city area expansion will slow considerably (Chart 9, bottom panel). First, local governments have already taken on massive debt to fund city area expansion over the past two decades, as part of an attempt to demonstrate the success of their economic development plans to the central government (which is usually measured by GDP). However, circumstances have changed. China’s central government now expects local governments to generate “high-quality” and environmentally-sustainable economic growth – and they are unlikely to measure the performance of local government officials simply based on GDP. In addition, containing debt/leverage (including that of SOEs and local governments) is a priority for the central government, implying that debt-fueled city area expansion is unlikely to continue. Moreover, Beijing has already shifted its policy focus from city-area expansion to rural-in-situ urbanization (discussed below). Bottom Line: Past overdevelopment and constraints on local governments suggest that city-area expansion in China will slow considerably in the next five to 10 years, constraining the country’s urbanization pace. Rising Rural-In-Situ Urbanization Going forward, the major driver of urbanization in China will be greatly different from the previous 30 years. Over the next five to 10 years, China’s urban population growth will be driven more by the rural-in-situ urbanization (urbanization without people migration) by transforming rural areas into urban. This is in contrast to urbanization through rural-to-urban labor migration and city-area expansion. The rural-in-situ urbanization – transforming townships/villages directly into towns – has become a policy focus of the central government. The Chinese central government released its first national urbanization plan in March 2014 and announced the “Rural Revitalization Strategic Plan 2018-2022” in September. Both strategic blueprints emphasize the goal of “rural-in-situ urbanization” over the next five to 10 years, to be achieved by building up villages directly into towns. There are currently about 7,000 specialty towns planned or under construction, and it seems more are on the way. However, given already high local government debt and lack of funds for a sizeable proportion of Chinese local governments, we believe a considerable portion of the development of these specialty towns will miss their initial expectations. We expect the rural-in-situ urbanization to be the major force of further urbanization in China (Chart 10). As noted above, the shifting demographic structure of China’s rural areas and the changing preferences of the rural population will also facilitate the rural-in-situ urbanization. Meanwhile, with the government’s policy support, disposable income per capita in rural areas will likely continue to grow faster than in urban areas, which may also help induce rural farmers to remain in rural areas (Chart 11). Chart 10Rising Rural-In-Situ Urbanization Chart 11Rural Vs. Urban: Higher Disposable Income Per Capita Growth Bottom Line: Over the next decade, China’s urbanization will be driven more by the rural-in-situ urbanization (without people migration) by transforming rural areas into urban. Rising “Organic” Urban Population Growth As a final point, “organic” urban population growth (births minus deaths) will likely account for a larger share of China’s rising urban population in the future. A larger urban population base, improving birth rate due to the end of the one-child policy and longer life expectancy (76.3 in 2016 vs. 74 in 2005) will result in a rising urban population going forward (Chart 12). Chart 12Rising "Organic" Urban Population Growth However, unaffordable housing and rising household debt levels (Chart 13) are generating pressure on new families, suggesting the demographic dividend of removing the one-child policy may be smaller than hoped. As a result, a rising urban-area population is unlikely to offset the slowing urbanization factors noted above. Chart 13Household Leverage: China And U.S. Structural Headwinds For Chinese Household Consumption Growth Growing Reluctance To Have More Kids Bottom Line: We believe China’s urban population growth will drift below 2.5%, the lowest in the past 30 years (Chart 14). Chart 14China's Urban Population Growth Will Drift Lower Investment Implications A declining pace of industrialization and changing forms of urbanization will have the following ramifications: Falling rural-to-urban labor migration points to diminishing property demand from migrant workers. This is structurally bearish for the Chinese residential real estate market, given that most residential construction has occurred in urban areas (Chart 15). Investors holding housing units in urban areas in expectations of rampant price appreciation due to continuous large-scale rural-to-urban migration will be disappointed in the long run. Chart 15Chinese Property Demand: Gloomy Outlook An emphasis on rural-in-situ urbanization suggests the government is aiming to improve the living conditions of rural households to enable them to live more similar to urban households. For income per capita in rural areas to rise faster, their productivity growth should grow more rapidly. To raise productivity in the agricultural sector, the government is aiming to implement farmland reforms as proposed by the “Rural Revitalization Strategic Plan 2018-2022.” The objective is to enable either the private sector or public sector to collate many small pieces of farmland into large ones. Large tracts of farmland will in turn allow for an improvement in productivity by applying modern agricultural techniques and machinery. Hence, we believe agricultural machinery sales may have sustainable growth ahead. The aging population and rising number of newborns suggest growth in healthcare, childcare and eldercare will outperform the real estate and raw materials sectors over the long run. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      The definition of urban area and rural area in China is based on the country’s administrative divisions defined by the government. In China, cities and towns are recognized as urban areas while townships and villages are considered to be rural areas. 2      The Hukou system is a governmental household registration process to define residence in mainland China. It determines a person’s access to housing, education, medical treatment, and social welfare in a city. 3      All sectors other than the agricultural sector (farming, fishery, forestry and animal husbandry). 4      There is no clear definition or standards for the transformation of rural areas to urban areas. In general, a rural area, where has become more developed in terms of economic development, more connected to the city or town in terms of transportation and public facility access, and the residents’ living condition is more like the urban residents, is more likely to be re-defined as urban area by the local government. CYCLICAL INVESTMENT STANCE

Special Report

This is the second of a two-part Special Report on the structural changes that have occurred as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. We look at three issues: asset correlation, the safety of the financial system, and the level of global debt. First, correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. Some believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has shifted permanently higher for two main reasons: (1) trading factors such as the increased use of exchange-traded funds and algorithms; and (2) the risk-on/risk-off environment in which trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. We have sympathy for the second explanation. The equity risk premium (ERP) was forced higher on a sustained basis by the financial crisis, driven by fears that the advanced economies had entered a ‘secular stagnation’. Elevated correlation among risk assets was a result of a higher-than-normal ERP. The ERP should decline as fears of secular stagnation fade, leading to a lower average level of risk asset correlation than has been the case over the last decade. Second, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. But is the financial system really any safer today? Undoubtedly, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. The propensity for contagion among banks has diminished and there has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities. The bad news is that the level of global debt has increased at an alarming pace. The third part of this report highlights that elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system. Choking debt levels boost the vulnerability to negative shocks. The number and probability of potential shocks appear to have increased since 2007, including extreme weather events, sovereign debt crises, large-scale migration, populism, water crises and cyber & data attacks. The lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide any fiscal relief in the event of a negative shock. Moreover, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend more in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. The Great Recession and Financial Crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policy and financial markets for years to come. Rather than reviewing the roots of the crisis, the first of our two-part series examined the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. We covered the changing structure of the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. We highlighted that the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. We made the case that the prolonged inflation undershoot is sowing the seeds of an overshoot in the coming years, in part related to central bank policymakers that are doomed to fight the last war. Finally, we argued that the forces behind the structural and cyclical bull market in bonds reached an inflection point in 2016/2017. In Part II, we examine the theory that the financial crisis has permanently lifted market correlations among risk assets. Next, we look at whether regulatory changes implemented as a result of the financial crisis have made the global financial system safer. Finally, we highlight the implications of the continued rise in global leverage over the past decade in the context of BCA’s Debt Supercycle theme. The bottom line is that the global financial system still faces substantial risks, despite a more highly regulated banking system. (1) Are Risk Asset Correlations Permanently Higher? Correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. For example, risk assets became more highly correlated, suggesting little differentiation within or across asset classes. Chart II-1 presents a proxy for U.S. equity market correlations, using a sample of current S&P 100 companies. The average correlation was depressed in the 1990s and 2000s relative to the 1980s. It spiked in 2007 and fluctuated at extremely high levels for several years, before moving erratically lower. It has jumped recently and is roughly in the middle of the post-1980s range. Chart II-1Two Factors Driving Correlation Correlations will undoubtedly ebb and flow in the coming years and will spike again in the next recession. But a key question is whether correlations will oscillate around a higher average level than in the 1990s and 2000s. The consensus seems to believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has indeed shifted higher on a structural basis for two main reasons: Market Structure Changes: Many investors point to trading factors such as the increased use of index products (exchange-traded funds for example), and high-frequency/algorithmic trading as likely culprits. Macro “theme” investing has reportedly become more popular and is often implemented through algorithms. The result is an increase in stock market volatility and a tendency for risk-asset prices to move up and down based on momentum because they are all being traded as a group. These factors would likely be evident today even if the financial crisis never happened, but the popularity of algorithm trading may have been encouraged by the fact that the macro backdrop was so uncertain for years after Lehman collapsed. Risk On/Off Trading Environment: Trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Even after the recession ended, the headwinds to growth were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged largely on the success or failure of unorthodox monetary policies. The general feeling was that either the policies would “work”, the output gap would gradually close and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail and risk assets would be dragged down by a return to recession. Thus, markets traded on an extreme “risk-on/risk-off” basis, as sentiment swung wildly with each new piece of economic and earnings data. While the market structure thesis has merit on the surface, the impact should only be short term in nature. It is difficult to see how a change in the intra-day microstructure of the market could have such a fundamental, wide-ranging and permanent impact on market prices. Previous research suggests that any impact on market correlation beyond the very short term is likely to be small. For the sake of brevity, we won’t present the evidence here, but instead refer readers to two BCA Special Reports.1 The risk on/off trading environment thesis is a more plausible explanation. However, we find it more useful to think about it in terms of the equity risk premium (ERP). A higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which, in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. A lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious are an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Shifts in the ERP are sometimes structural in nature, but there is also a strong cyclical element in that persistent equity declines historically have had the effect of temporarily raising the ERP and correlations. A simple model based on the ERP and volatility explains a lot of the historical variation in equity correlation, including the elevated levels observed in the years after 2007 (Chart II-2).2 The shift lower in correlations after 2012 reflects both a lower equity risk premium and a dramatic decline in downside volatility. Chart II-2Simple Model Explains Correlation It is tempting to believe that the lingering shell-shock related to the financial crisis means that the underlying equity risk premium has shifted permanently higher. The ERP is still elevated by historical standards, but this is more reflective of extraordinarily low bond yields than an elevated forward earnings yield. Investors evidently believe that the U.S. and other developed economies are stuck in a “secular stagnation”, which will require low interest rates for many years just to keep economic growth near its trend pace. In other words, the equilibrium interest rate, or R-star, is still very low. The ERP and correlations among risk assets will undoubtedly spike again in the next recession. Nonetheless, in the absence of recession, we expect fears regarding secular stagnation to fade further. If the advanced economies hold up as short-term interest rates and bond yields rise, then concerns that R-star is extremely low will dissipate and expectations regarding equilibrium bond yields will shift higher. The ERP will move lower as bond yields, rather than the earnings yield, do most of the adjustment. The underlying correlations among risk asset prices should correspondingly recede. This includes correlations among a wide variety of risk assets, such as corporate bonds and commodities. While this describes our base case outlook, there is a non-trivial risk that the next recession arrives soon and is deep. This would underscore the view that R-star is indeed very low and the economy needs constant monetary stimulus just to keep it out of recession (i.e. the secular stagnation thesis). The ERP and correlations would stay elevated on average in that scenario. What About The Stock/Bond Correlation? Chart II-3 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and the early-2000s. Bond yields tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined when the stock market has swooned. Chart II-3Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Inflation expectations can help explain the shift in stock/bond correlation. Expectations became unmoored after 1970, which meant that inflationary shocks became the primary driver of bond yields. Strong growth became associated with rising inflation and inflation expectations, and the view that central banks had fallen behind the curve. Bond yields surged as markets discounted aggressive tightening designed to choke off inflation. And, given that inflation lags the cycle and had a lot of persistence, central banks were not in a position to ease policy at the first hint of a growth slowdown. This was obviously a poor backdrop for stocks. When inflation expectations became well anchored again around the late 1990s, investors no longer feared that central banks would have to aggressively stomp on growth whenever actual inflation edged higher. Central banks also had more latitude to react quickly by cutting rates at the first sign of slower economic growth. Fluctuations in growth became the primary driver of bond yields, allowing stock prices to rise and fall along with yields. The correlation has therefore been positive most of the time since 2003. Bottom Line: A negative correlation between stocks and bond yields reared its ugly head in the last quarter of 2018. The equity correction reflected several factors, but the previous surge in bond yields and hawkish Fed comments appeared to spook markets. Investors became nervous that the fed funds rate had already entered restrictive territory, at a time when the global economy was cooling off. We expect more of these episodes as the Fed normalizes short-term interest rates over the next couple of years. Nonetheless, we see no evidence that inflation expectations have become unmoored. This implies that the stock-bond correlation will generally be positive most of the time over the medium term. In addition, the average level of correlation among risk assets has probably not been permanently raised, although spikes during recessions or growth scares will inevitably occur. (2) Is The Global Financial System Really Safer Today? The roots of the great financial crisis and recession involved a global banking and shadow banking system that encouraged leverage and risk-taking in ways that were hard for investors and regulators to assess. Complex and opaque financial instruments helped to hide risk, at a time when regulators were “asleep at the switch”. In many countries, credit grew at a much faster pace than GDP and capital buffers were dangerously low. Banking sector compensation skewed the system toward short-term gains over long-term sustainable returns. Lax lending standards and a heavy reliance on short-term wholesale markets to fund trading and lending activity contributed to cascading defaults and a complete seizure in parts of the money and fixed income markets. A vital question is whether the financial system is any less vulnerable today to contagion and seizure. The short answer is that the financial system is better prepared for a shock, but the problem is that the number of potential sources of instability have increased since 2007. Since the financial crisis, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. Reforms have come under four key headings: Capital: Regulators raised the minimum capital requirement for banks, added a buffer requirement, and implemented a surcharge on systemically important banks. Liquidity: Regulators implemented a Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and a Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) in order to ensure that banks have sufficient short-term funds to avoid liquidity shortages and bank runs.3 Risk Management: Banks are being forced to develop systems to better monitor risk, and are subject to periodic stress tests. Resolution Planning: Banks have also been asked to detail options for resolution that, hopefully, should reduce systemic risk should a major financial institution become insolvent. Global systemically-important banks, in particular, will require sufficient loss-absorbing capacity. A major study by the Bank for International Settlements,4 along with other recent studies, found that systemic risk in the global financial system has diminished markedly as a result of the new regulations. On the whole, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. Lending standards have tightened almost across the board relative to pre-crisis levels, particularly for residential mortgages. Additional capital and liquid assets provide a much wider buffer today against adverse shocks, allowing most banks to pass recent stress tests (Chart II-4). Financial institutions have generally re-positioned toward retail and commercial banking and wealth management, and away from more complex and capital-intensive activities (Chart II-5). The median share of trading assets in total assets for individual G-SIBs has declined from around 20% to 12% over 2009-16. Moreover, the propensity for contagion among banks has diminished. The BIS notes that assessing all the complex interactions in the global financial system is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, a positive sign is that banks are focusing more on their home markets since the crisis, and that direct connections between banks through lending and derivatives exposures have declined. The BIS highlights that aggregate foreign bank claims have declined by 16% since the crisis, driven particularly by banks from the advanced economies most affected by the crisis, especially from some European countries (Chart II-6). It is also positive that European banks have made some headway in diminishing over-capacity, although problems still exist in Italy. Finally, and importantly, there has been a distinct shift toward more stable sources of funding, such as deposits, away from fickle wholesale markets (Charts II-7 and II-8). Chart II-6Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently)   Outside of banking, many other regulatory changes have been implemented to make the system safer. One important example is that rules were adjusted to reduce the risk of runs on money market funds. What About Shadow Banking? Of course, more could be done to further indemnify the financial system. Concentration in the global banking system has not diminished, and it appears that the problem of “too big to fail” has not been solved. And then there is the shadow banking sector, which played a major role in the financial crisis by providing banks a way of moving risk to off-balance sheet entities and securities, and thereby hiding the inherent risks. Shadow banking is defined as credit provision that occurs outside of the banking system, but involves the key features of bank lending including leverage, and liquidity and maturity transformation. Complex structured credit securities, such as Collateralized Debt Obligations, allowed this type of transformation to mushroom in ways that were difficult for regulators and investors to understand. A recent study by the Group of Thirty5 concluded that securitization has dropped to a small fraction of its pre-crisis level, and that growing non-bank credit intermediation since the Great Recession has primarily been in forms that do not appear to raise financial stability concerns. Much of the credit creation has been in non-financial corporate bonds, which is a more stable and less risky form of credit extension than bank lending. Other types of lending have increased, such as corporate credit to pension funds and insurance companies, but this does not involve maturity transformation, according to the Group of Thirty. There has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities such as collateralized debt obligations, asset-backed commercial paper, and structured investment vehicles since 2007 (Chart II-9). While the situation must be monitored, the Group of Thirty study concludes that the financial system in the advanced economies appears to be less vulnerable to bouts of self-reinforcing forced selling, such as occurred during the 2008 crisis. Chart II-9Less Private-Sector Securitization One exception is the U.S. leveraged loan market, which has swelled to $1.13 trillion and about half has been pooled into Collateralized Loan Obligations. As with U.S. high-yield bonds, the situation is fine as long as profitability remains favorable. But in the next recession, lax lending standards today will contribute to painful losses in leveraged loans. The Bad News That’s the good news. The bad news is that, while the financial system might have become less complex and opaque, the level of debt has increased at an alarming rate in both the private and public sectors in many countries. Elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system, especially as global bond yields return to more normal levels by historical standards. We discuss other pressure points such as Emerging Markets and China in the next section, although the latter deserves a few comments before we leave the subject of shadow banking. The Group of Thirty notes that 30% of Chinese credit is provided by a broad array of poorly regulated shadow banking entities and activities, including trust funds, wealth management products, and “entrusted loans.” Links between these entities and banks are unclear, and sometimes involve informal commitments to provide credit or liquidity support. The study takes some comfort that most of Chinese debt takes place between Chinese domestic state-owned banks and state-owned companies or local government financing vehicles. Foreign investors have limited involvement, thus reducing potential direct contagion outside of China in the event of a financial event. Still, the potential for contagion internationally via global sentiment and/or the economic fallout is high. The other bad news is that, while regulators in the advanced economies have managed to improve the ability of financial institutions to weather shocks, potential risks to the financial system have increased in number and in probability of occurrence. The Global Risk Institute (GRI) recently published a detailed comparison of potential shocks today relative to 2007.7 The report sees twice the number of risks versus 2007 that are identified as “current” (i.e. could occur at any time) and of “high impact”. The most pressing risks today include extreme weather events, asset bubbles, sovereign debt crises, large-scale involuntary migration, water crises and cyber & data attacks. Any of these could trigger a broad financial crisis if the shock is sufficiently intense, despite improved regulation. The GRI study also eventuates how the risks will evolve over the next 11 years. Readers should see the study for details, but it is interesting that the experts foresee cyber dependency rising to the top of the risk pile by 2030. The increase is driven by the importance of data ownership, the increasing role of algorithms and control systems, and the $1.2 trillion projected cost of cyber, data and infrastructure attacks. Our computer systems are not prepared for the advances of technology, such as quantum computing. Climate change moves to the number two risk spot in its base-case outlook. Space limitations precluded a discussion of the rise of populism in this report, but the GRI sees the political tensions related to income inequality as the number three threat to the global financial system by 2030. Bottom Line: Regulators have managed to substantially reduce the amount of hidden risk and the potential for contagion between financial institutions and across countries since 2007. Banks have a larger buffer against stocks. Unfortunately, the number and probability of potential shocks to the financial system appear to have increased since 2007. (3) Implications Of The Global Debt Overhang The End of the Debt Supercycle is a key BCA theme influencing our macro view of the economic and market outlook for the coming years. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness of monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit up-cycle. However, since the 2007-09 meltdown, even zero (or negative) policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed economies, except in a few cases. The end of the Debt Supercycle has severely impaired the key transmission channel between changes in monetary policy and economic activity. The combination of high debt burdens and economic uncertainty has curbed borrowers’ appetite for credit while increased regulatory pressures and those same uncertainties have made lenders less willing to extend loans. This has severely eroded the effectiveness of lower interest in boosting credit demand and supply, forcing central banks to rely increasingly on manipulating asset prices and exchange rates. On a positive note, the plunge in interest rates has lowered debt servicing costs to historically low levels. Yet, it is the level, rather than the cost, of debt that seems to have been an impediment to the credit cycle, contributing to a lethargic economic expansion. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) publishes an excellent dataset of credit trends across a broad swath of developing and emerging economies. Some broad conclusions come from an examination of the data (Charts II-10 and II-11):7 Chart II-10Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Chart II-11EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started Private debt growth has only recently accelerated for the advanced economies as a whole. There are only a handful of developed economies where private debt-to-GDP ratios have moved up meaningfully in the past few years. These are countries that avoided a real estate/banking bust and where property prices have continued to rise (e.g. Canada and Australia). The high level of real estate prices and household debt currently is a major source of concern to the authorities in those few countries. Even where some significant consumer deleveraging has occurred (e.g. the U.S., Spain and Ireland), debt-to-income ratios remain very high by historical standards. In many cases, a stabilization or decline in private debt burdens has been offset by a continued rise in public debt, keeping overall leverage close to peak levels. This is a key legacy of the financial crisis; many governments were forced to offset the loss of demand from private sector deleveraging by running larger and persistent budget deficits. Weak private demand accounts for close to 50% of the rise in public debt on average according to the IMF. Global debt of all types (public and private) has soared from 207% of GDP in 2007 to 246% today. The Debt Supercycle did not end everywhere at the same time. It peaked in Japan more than 20 years ago and has not yet reached a decisive bottom. The 2007-09 meltdown marked the turning point for the U.S. and Europe, but it has not even started in the emerging world. The financial crisis accelerated the accumulation of debt in the latter as investors shifted capital away from the struggling advanced economies to (seemingly less risky) emerging markets. Both EM private- and public-sector debt ratios have continued to move up at an alarming pace. The lesson from Japan is that deleveraging cycles following the bursting of a major credit bubble can last a very long time indeed. One key area where there has been significant deleveraging is the U.S. household sector (Chart II-12). The ratio of household debt to income has fallen below its long-term trend, suggesting that the deleveraging process is well advanced. However, one could argue that the ratio will undershoot the trend for an extended period in a mirror image of the previous overshoot. Or, it may be that the trend has changed; it could now be flat or even down. Chart II-12U.S. Household Deleveraging... What is clear is that U.S. attitudes toward saving and spending have changed dramatically since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart II-13). Like the Great Depression of the 1930s that turned more than one generation off of debt, the 2008/09 crisis appears to have been a watershed event that marked a structural shift in U.S. consumer attitudes toward credit-financed spending. The Debt Supercycle is over for this sector. Chart II-13...As Attitudes To Debt Change Developing Countries: Debt And Economic Fundamentals BCA’s long-held caution on emerging economies and markets is rooted in concern about deteriorating fundamentals. Trade wars and a tightening Fed are negative for EM assets, but the main headwinds facing this asset class are structural. Excessive debt is a ticking time bomb for many of these countries. EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports (Chart II-14). Moreover, the declining long-term growth potential for emerging economies as a group makes it more difficult for them to service the debt. The structural downtrend in EM labor force and productivity growth underscores that trend GDP growth has collapsed over the past three decades (Chart II-14, bottom panel). Chart II-14EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... The 2019 Key Views8 report from our Emerging Markets Strategy team highlights that excessive capital inflows over the past decade have contributed to over-investment and mal-investment. Much of the borrowing was used to fund unprofitable projects, as highlighted by the plunge in productivity growth, profit margins and return on assets in the EM space relative to pre-Lehman levels (Chart II-15) Decelerating global growth in 2018 has exposed these poor fundamentals. Chart II-15...Along With Deteriorating Profitability As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, emerging financial markets may enjoy a rally in the second half of 2019 on the back of Chinese policy stimulus. However, this will only represent a ‘sugar high’. The debt overhang in emerging market economies is unlikely to end benignly because a painful period of corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms are required in order to boost productivity and thereby improve these countries’ ability to service their debt mountains. China’s Debt Problem Space limitations preclude a full discussion of the complex debt situation in China and the risks it poses for the global financial system. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart II-16). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart II-17). Chinese banks are currently being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. Chart II-16China's Overinvestment... Chart II-17Has Undermined The Return On Assets The previous section highlighted that much of the debt has been created in the opaque shadow banking system, where vast amounts of hidden risk have likely accumulated. Whether or not the central government is willing and/or able to cover a wave of defaults and recapitalize the banking system in the event of a negative shock is hotly debated, both within and outside of BCA. But even if a financial crisis can be avoided, bringing an end to the unsustainable credit boom will undoubtedly have significant consequences for the Chinese economy and the emerging economies that trade with it. Interest Costs To Rise Globally, many are concerned about rising interest costs as interest rates normalize over the coming years. In Appendix Charts II-19 to II-21, we provide interest-cost simulations for selected government, corporate and household sectors under three interest-rate scenarios. The good news is that the starting point for interest rates is still low, and that it takes years for the stock of outstanding debt to adjust to higher market rates. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, interest burdens will increase but will generally remain low by historical standards. It would take a surge of 300 basis points across the yield curve to really ‘move the needle’ in terms of interest expense. This does not imply that the global debt situation is sustainable or that a financial crisis can be easily avoided. The next economic downturn will probably not be the direct result of rising interest costs. Nonetheless, elevated government, household and/or corporate leverage has several important long-term negative implications: Limits To Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Government indebtedness will limit the use of counter-cyclical fiscal policy during the next economic downturn. Chart II-18 highlights that structural budget deficits and government debt levels are higher today compared to previous years that preceded recessions. The risk is especially high for emerging economies and some advanced economies (such as Italy) where investors will be unwilling to lend at a reasonable rate due to default fears. Even in countries where the market still appears willing to lend to the government at a low interest rate, political constraints may limit the room to maneuver as voters and fiscally-conservative politicians revolt against a surge in budget deficits. This will almost certainly be the case in the U.S., where the 2018 tax cuts mean that the federal budget deficit is likely to be around 6% of GDP in the coming years even in the absence of recession. A recession would push it close to a whopping 10%. Even in countries where fiscal stimulus is possible, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend and take on more debt. Growth Headwinds: The debt situation condemns the global economy to a slower pace of trend growth in part because of weaker capital spending. From one perspective this is a good thing, because spending financed by the excessive use of credit is unsustainable. Still, deleveraging has much further to go at the global level, which means that spending will have to be constrained relative to income growth. The IMF estimates that deleveraging in the private sector for the advanced economies is only a third of historical precedents at this point in the cycle. The IMF also found that debt overhangs have historically been associated with lower GDP growth even in the absence of a financial crisis. Sooner or later, overleveraged sectors have to retrench. Vulnerability To Negative Shocks: If adjustment is postponed, debt reaches levels that make the economy highly vulnerable to negative shocks as defaults rise and lenders demand a higher return or withdraw funding altogether. IMF work shows that economic downturns are more costly in terms of lost GDP when it is driven or accompanied by a financial crisis. This is particularly the case for emerging markets. Bottom Line: Although credit growth has been subdued in most major advanced economies, there has been little deleveraging overall and debt-to-GDP is still rising at the global level. Elevated debt levels are far from benign, even if it appears to be easily financed at the moment. It acts as dead weight on economic activity and makes the world economy vulnerable to negative shocks. It steals growth from the future and, in the event of such a shock, the lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide fiscal relief. The end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst APPENDIX Chart II-19Corporate Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-20Government Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-21U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ 1      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The Bane Of Investors’ Existence: Why Is Correlation High And When Will It Fall?" dated January 4, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Also see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report "The Passive Menace," dated September 13, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 2       We use only below average returns in the calculation of volatility (downside volatility) because we are more concerned with the risk of equity market declines for the purposes of this model. 3       The LCR requires a large bank to hold enough high-quality liquid assets to cover the net cash outflows the bank would expect to occur over a 30-day stress scenario. The NSFR complements the LCR by requiring an amount of stable funding that is tailored to the liquidity risk of a bank’s assets and liabilities, based on a one-year time horizon. 4       Structural Changes in Banking After the Crisis. CGFS Papers No.60. Bank for International Settlements, January 2018. 5       Shadow Banking and Capital Markets Risks and Opportunities. Group of Thirty. Washington, D.C., November 2016. 6       Back to the Future: 2007 to 2030. Are New Financial Risks Foreshadowing a Systemic Risk Event? Global Risk Institute. 7       For more details on public and private debt trends, please see BCA Special Report "The End Of The Debt Supercycle: An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8       Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "2019 Key Views: Will The EM Lost Decade End With A Bang Or A Whimper?" dated December 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com