Emerging Markets

Highlights Stay tactically long the SEK. Our preferred expression is long SEK/GBP. Stay tactically short the NOK. Our preferred expression is long AUD/NOK. Take profits in the underweight to Poland... ...and open a tactical countertrend position: long Poland's Warsaw General Index, short Italy's MIB. A coalition of populists governing Italy might ruffle some feathers in Brussels, but the main risk appears to be contained. Both The League and 5 Star Movement have dropped calls for a referendum on Italy's membership of the monetary union. Feature Italy And The U.K. Compete For Political Risk The European political lens is once again focussed on Italy as the two anti-establishment parties - The League and 5 Star Movement - negotiate to form a government. A coalition of populists governing Italy might ruffle some feathers in Brussels, but the main risk appears to be contained. Both parties have dropped calls for a referendum on Italy's membership of the monetary union, and have instead turned their fire on the EU's fiscal rules, specifically the 3 per cent limit on budget deficits. Chart of the WeekThe SEK Is Due A Tactical Rebound The populist demand for some fiscal relaxation is actually smart economics. When the private sector is paying down debt - as it is in Italy - private sector demand shrinks. To prevent a recession, the government must step in to borrow and spend the paid-down debt. And what seems to be fiscal largesse does not lead to crowding out, inflation, or surging interest rates. This means that as long as Italian populists correctly push back on the EU's draconian fiscal rules rather than the monetary union per se, the market is right to regard Italian politics as a drama, rather than an existential risk to the euro (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Market Remains Unconcerned ##br##About Euro Break-Up Risk Maybe the European political lens should be focussed instead on Britain. The Conservative party remains as bitterly divided as ever on its vision for the U.K.'s future trading and customs relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Paralysed and frightened by this division, Theresa May is delaying the legislative passage of three crucial bills - the EU Withdrawal Bill, the Trade Bill, and the Customs Bill. When these bills eventually reach a vote in the House of Commons later this year, any one of them could result in a humiliating defeat for May - and, quite likely, resignations from the government. Meanwhile, as the government kicks the issue into the long grass, firms are holding fire on long-term spending commitments in the U.K. and rechannelling the investment to elsewhere in Europe. Buy SEKs, Avoid NOKs For all the recent swings in the euro versus the dollar and pound, the trade-weighted euro has remained a paragon of relative stability (Chart I-3). This is because the moves versus the dollar and pound have largely cancelled out (Chart I-4). Earlier this year, euro weakness versus the pound coincided with strength versus the dollar; more recently, euro weakness versus the dollar has coincided with strength versus the pound. Chart I-3The Trade-Weighted Euro Has ##br##Remained Relatively Stable... Chart I-4...Because Moves Versus The Dollar And The ##br##Pound Have Largely Cancelled Out Interestingly, the driver of the trade-weighted euro remains the same as it has been for the past fifteen years - it is simply the euro area's long bond yield shortfall versus the U.K. and U.S. (Chart I-5). With the ECB already at the realistic limit of ultra-loose policy, the path for policy rate expectations cannot go meaningfully lower. This means that the trade-weighted euro has some long-term support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that could be priced out, while the ECB effectively doesn't. Chart I-5The Trade Weighted Euro Is A Function Of The Euro Area's ##br##Long Bond Yield Shortfall Versus The U.K. And U.S. Put another way, for the trade-weighted euro to drift significantly lower, relative surprises in the economic, financial and political news have to be significantly worse in the euro area than in both the U.K. and the U.S. We think this configuration is unlikely. Nevertheless, the more interesting tactical opportunities lie elsewhere: the Swedish krona and the Norwegian krone. Recent tweaks to monetary policy frameworks in Sweden and Norway are responsible, at least partly, for technically exaggerated moves in their currencies which are likely to reverse. In the case of Sweden, the inflation target is unchanged at 2 per cent but the Riksbank introduced a variation band of 1-3 per cent, because "monetary policy is not able to steer inflation in detail." Given that Sweden's inflation rate is now close to 2 per cent, the market interpreted this tweak as very dovish - because it permits the continuation of ultra-accommodative policy. The upshot was that the SEK sold off. But our tried and tested indicator of excessive groupthink suggests that the currency may have overreacted (Chart of the Week). Hence, the tactical opportunity is to stay long the SEK, and our preferred expression is long SEK/GBP. In the case of Norway, a Royal Decree on Monetary Policy lowered the Norges Bank inflation target from 2.5 to 2.0 per cent. This followed years of failure to achieve the higher target. The market interpreted this change as hawkish, as it created the scope for tighter - or at least, less loose - policy than was previously expected. The upshot was that the NOK rallied. But again, the market reaction shows evidence of a technical overreaction (Chart I-6). Hence, the tactical opportunity is to stay short the NOK, and our preferred expression is long AUD/NOK. Chart I-6Our Preferred Expression Of Short NOK Is Versus The AUD Financial Markets Are Not Complicated, But They Are Complex The words 'complicated' and 'complex' appear to be interchangeable, but their meanings are quite distinct. The distinction is important because financial markets are not complicated, but they are complex. Something that is complicated is the sum of a large number of separate parts or processes. For example, making a car is complicated. But predicting the performance of financial markets over the medium term - say, a year or longer - is uncomplicated. The philosophy of Investment Reductionism teaches us that investment strategy is not made up of many separate parts or processes. It reduces to just three things: Predicting the evolution of the global economy. Predicting central bank reaction functions. Predicting tail-events: political, economic and financial. For example, this week's lesson in Investment Reductionism is to illustrate that the medium term decision to allocate between emerging market equities and the Eurostoxx600 largely reduces to the prospects for global metal prices (Chart I-7). Chart I-7EM Versus Eurostoxx600 = Metal Prices By contrast, something that is complex is not the sum of its parts, because the parts interact in unpredictable ways. Complexity characterizes the behaviour of financial markets over the short term - say, up to around six months. Therefore, the best way to model the behaviour of any investment over the very short term is to think of it as a complex adaptive system. A complex adaptive system is a system with a large number of mutually interacting agents, which can learn from their interactions and thereby adapt their subsequent behaviour. Examples include traffic flows, crowds in stadiums, and of course financial markets. A crucial property of all such systems is they possess an endogenous tipping point of instability, at which the behaviour undergoes a 'phase-shift'. This is the essence of how we identify likely short-term trend reversals in any investment such as the SEK and the NOK. This week's final trade recommendation uses this idea once again. Poland's equity market has underperformed recently in line with the general underperformance of the emerging market basket - and our underweight in the Warsaw General Index versus the Eurostoxx600 is handsomely in profit. However, looking at the market as a complex adaptive system, the extent of Poland's underperformance is overdone (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Extent Of Poland's Underperformance Is Overdone Hence we are taking profit on our underweight in Poland and putting on a short-term countertrend position: long Poland's Warsaw General Index, short Italy's MIB. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* As discussed in the main body of the report, this week's new trade recommendation is a pair-trade: long Poland's Warsaw General Index, short Italy's MIB. The profit target is 5% with a symmetrical stop loss. Our preferred expression of long SEK is versus the GBP which is already in profit since initiation. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Copper has been stuck in the $2.90-$3.30/lb trading range since late August, 2017. Offsetting supply- and demand-side effects are keeping us neutral: Concerns over restrictions on China's scrap imports and possible industrial action in Chile, along with continued worries over a slow-down in China will keep prices range-bound until we see a fundamental catalyst on one side of the market. Our updated balances model shows a physical surplus in 2018, followed by a deficit in 2019. Energy: Overweight. Rising crude oil prices and steepening backwardation in Brent and WTI, to a lesser extent, will be supportive of our energy-heavy S&P GSCI recommendation, as we expected. The position is up 17.1% since it was initiated on December 7, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Our updated balances model points to a physical surplus in the copper market by year end (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. A stronger USD and higher real rates are pressuring precious metals lower. Our long gold and silver positions are down 1.8% and 0.8%, respectively, over the past week. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA expects Brazil to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest soybean producer in the upcoming crop year, for the first time in history. Nevertheless - and despite U.S.-Sino trade tensions - the report also predicts record U.S. exports of the bean in the 2018/19 crop year. Feature Chart of the WeekStuck In A Trading Range Copper on the COMEX averaged $3.12/lb since the beginning of the year - slightly higher than our $3.10/lb expectation published in January (Chart of the Week).1 Fears of a slowdown in China -suggested by weaker readings of the Li Keqiang Index - as well as a stronger dollar have been headwinds to further upside. On the flip side, upcoming contract renegotiations at Escondida, China's ongoing environmental efforts, and global PMI readings above the 50 boom-bust line have kept bulls interested in the red metal. Our estimate of the refined copper balance is for a physical surplus this year (Chart 2). Strong demand from Asia, and to a lesser extent North America, will support a moderate pickup in consumption this year. This will be met by greater refined output - a ramp in primary refined output will more than offset the expected decline in secondary production (i.e. refined copper produced from the scrap metal). Upside risk to this outlook comes from supply-side disruptions at the ore mines - particularly in Chile - and at refined levels. The biggest downside risk remains China's growth trajectory: If policymakers are unable to manage the transition to sustainable, consumer- and services-led growth in the market that accounts for 50% of global demand, prices will fall. Longer term, our models point to a physical refined-copper deficit on the back of stronger consumption growth vis-à-vis output growth. The key to a breakout - up or down -lies in the evolution of financial and fundamental factors. On the financial side, the USD has been edging higher since mid-April. Absent an upward copper price catalyst, a continuation in the USD's path will prevent the metal from booking strong gains. On the fundamental side, we expect copper markets to be in surplus this year. However, downside risks from a greater-than-expected slowdown in China could easily tilt the balance. Ongoing Chinese tightening of scrap copper imports will resist sharp moves to the downside. Chart 2Updated Balances: Expect A Refined Copper Surplus This Year Any of these factors may emerge as a catalyst for a breakout or a breakdown in the copper market this year. Yet for now our model is pointing to a physical surplus and we are comfortable with our neutral outlook. We expect near term prices to trade in the $2.90 to $3.15/lb range. Nevertheless, the evolution of these known unknowns may tilt our balances to either side. A break lower would be reason to sell, while a break above the upper bound would support an outlook for higher prices. Geopolitical Risks On The Horizon Political tensions are spilling into the copper market, threatening supplies, and bringing with them the prospect of higher prices. This is not without reason: Supply-side shocks to mined output have historically been a source of upside risk to prices. Foremost among the potential shocks is labor action at the Escondida mine in Chile, the world's largest. June 4 is the deadline for contract renegotiations to begin. These talks will follow last year's contract renewal efforts, which led to a 44-day strike, a 63% y/y decline in the mine's copper output in 1Q17, and eventually, an 18-month contract extension. As the world's largest mine, Escondida accounts for 1.27mm MT out of the 22mm MT of world capacity, and contributes ~5% of global supply. Efforts to lock in an advance deal ended late last month to no avail.2 Nevertheless, Escondida's production in 1Q18 has been exceptional - more than triple the same period last year. Furthermore, copper was among the metals that caught a bid last month amid fears of further rounds of U.S. sanctions on Russian companies. Russian oligarch Vladimir Potanin has a 33% stake in Norilsk, one of the world's largest copper mines - accounting for 388k MT of output last year. While sanctions against Potanin have not been announced, he was named in the U.S. Section 241 Foreign Asset Control filing, suggesting that he may be targeted in future sanctions, putting Norilsk's future at risk, à la Rusal. While fears of U.S. sanctions on Russia appear to have eased, the risk of such action on global copper supply was a tailwind to the copper market last month. In addition to the upside from these potential supply-side shocks, ongoing environmental reform efforts in China remain a theme in metals markets globally. In the case of the red metal, restrictions on Chinese access to "foreign waste" will curtail scrap shipments going forward. World secondary refined production from scrap accounts for almost 20% of global refined copper. China produces more than half of the world's secondary refined copper. This means that China's secondary output makes up 10% of all world refined copper production (Chart 3). Chart 3China's Secondary Output Important To Refined Copper Supply... As such, scrap copper imports play an important role in China - they act as a buffer against high prices, rising when prices lift, and dwindling in times of low prices. Among the measures implemented to gain more control over scrap markets in China are the following: 1. For the period between May 4 and June 4, the Chinese customs inspection firm - China Certification and Inspection Group North America - announced it would suspend the issuance of export certificates for scrap material shipments, including scrap copper.3 The aim of the suspension is to inspect the waste material and ensure it complies with China's new environmental regulations. In general China imports 15% of its copper scrap from the U.S. - purchasing more than 500k MT of scrap copper from the U.S. last year (Chart 4). Since the U.S. is China's top supplier of scrap copper, this specific initiative and China's ongoing efforts for environmental reform could be consequential to secondary refined output. 2. This move comes in addition to ongoing restrictions on imported solid waste. Starting in 2019, Category 7 scrap copper imports - i.e., solid waste, which account for ~20% of all scrap - will be banned.4 Since the beginning of the year, import licenses were granted only to scrap end-users and, since March 1, hazardous impurity levels in scrap copper imports were limited to 1% by weight. A Metal Bulletin report late last month estimated import quotas for scrap copper were 84% lower so far this year.5 As such, Jiangxi Copper - the largest copper refinery in the world - estimates that these restrictions will culminate in a 500k MT decline in scrap copper imports this year. In fact, scrap copper imports have already been falling significantly, with Chinese purchases down 40% y/y in 1Q18. The near-term implication of these restrictions on China's scrap copper imports would be to raise imports of refined copper, or of ores and concentrates. Scrap copper displaced from these restrictions will likely be diverted to other countries where they will be refined and shipped to China for final consumption. While an eventual move by Chinese companies to Southeast Asian countries in a bid to set up processing facilities there would eliminate the long term price impact, there may be some upside to prices during the transition phase. As such, China's imports of copper ores and concentrates, and of the refined metal, have been strong. During the first four months of the year, imports of ores and concentrates were up almost 10% y/y, while inflows of the refined metal are 15% above last year's levels (Chart 5). Chart 4...But Scrap Imports Are Restrained Chart 5China's Copper Imports Still Going Strong As these policy measures have been known to the public for quite some time, we suspect they are already priced into markets, and do not foresee further upside risk arising from this source. Nevertheless, their impact will remain significant, given that limited ability to produce scrap copper, which will restrict supply, will keep the market resistant to significant downward price pressure. Moderate Consumption Growth This Year Our updated balances model does not include any significant changes to our demand outlook from our January estimate. This is consistent with our consumption estimates for other industrial commodities that share strong co-movement properties with copper demand. We expect lower global consumption and growth than what's being projected by the International Copper Study Group (ICSG) and the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in its Resources & Energy Quarterly report. While China will remain the world's major copper consumer, a slowdown in its economy remains the foremost demand-side concern for us this year. DM economies appear to be comfortably perched at an above trend level. Fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and solid growth figures from the rest of the world will help keep demand in DM economies supported (Table 1). Table 1Strong Global Growth Will Support##BR##Copper Consumption However, Chinese demand growth remains vulnerable to a slowdown. As we outlined in our March 29 Weekly Report, while there are fundamental reasons to be concerned about Chinese growth going forward, there are no signs of alarm just yet.6 Manufacturing PMIs have come down in recent months, but they remain above the 50 boom-bust mark. That said, it is worth pointing out that the most significant indicator of the Chinese economy we track - the Li Keqiang index -has also been slowing as of late. We continue to expect the government to be able to pull off the managed slowdown it has embarked on. However, we are alert for any sign the Chinese economy is sharply decelerating, as it would lead us to revise our consumption forecast. A Surplus...At Least This Year Our demand and supply expectations lead us to call for a surplus of refined copper this year. Further out, we expect consumption growth to outpace production next year. The upward adjustment in our balance to a surplus since January is a result of upside revisions to supply amid a stable consumption growth path (Chart 6). Copper inventories remain elevated (Chart 7). While current levels of inventories are not a predictor of future price movements, they do indicate there is sufficient cushion in the market to withstand near-term supply disruptions. Chart 6Solid Production Path Amid Stable Consumption;##BR##Surplus Will Emerge Chart 7Inventories Will Cushion##BR##Against Supply Shocks Of course, along with other commodity markets, copper prices remain vulnerable to USD movements. In fact, the red metal's performance over the past month is especially impressive given the relative strength in the USD as of late. BCA expects the USD will appreciate in the coming months. Absent fundamental changes - i.e. supply- or demand-side shocks - copper markets will likely be restrained from staging a break-out rally by a stronger USD going forward. Bottom Line: Fundamental and financial risks to the copper market are slightly skewed to the downside this year. We expect a physical surplus to emerge by year-end, given slightly higher output and slower demand growth as China slows. On the downside, prices are vulnerable to a stronger USD and muted demand growth in China. On the upside, they are supported by supply-side concerns, chiefly at the Escondida mine and due to restrictions on China's imports of scrap copper. Stay neutral the red metal. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see p.11 of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper," dated January 25, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Union at BHP's Escondida copper mine in Chile says no advance deal likely," dated April 24, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "China to suspend checks on U.S. scrap metal shipments, halting imports," dated May 4, 2018, available at reuters.com. 4 Please see "China scrap metal firms face pressure from import curbs: official", dated April 26, 2018, available at reuters.com and BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Copper Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," dated August 24, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "FOCUS: China's copper scrap import quotas down 84% so far this year," dated April 23, 2018, available at metalbulletin.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "China's Managed Slowdown Will Dampen Base Metals Demand," dated March 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in

Highlights Divergence between U.S. and global economic outcomes is bullish for the U.S. dollar and bad for EM assets; Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea, but it may not with Iran, putting upside pressure on oil; An election is the only way to resolve split over Brexit and the new anti-establishment coalition in Italy is not market positive; Historic election outcome in Malaysia and the prospect of a weakened Erdogan favors Malaysian over Turkish assets; Reinitiate long Russian vs EM equities in light of higher oil price and reopen French versus German industrials as reforms continue unimpeded in France. Feature "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900. May started with a geopolitical bang. On May 4, a high-profile U.S. trade delegation to Beijing returned home after two days of failed negotiations. Instead of bridging the gap between the two superpowers, the delegation doubled it.1 On May 8, President Trump put his Maximum Pressure doctrine - honed against Pyongyang - into action against Iran, announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal - also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These geopolitical headlines were good for the U.S. dollar, bad for Treasuries, and generally miserable for emerging market (EM) assets (Chart 1).2 We have expected these very market moves since the beginning of the year, recommending that clients go long the DXY on January 31 and go short EM equities vs. DM on March 6.3 Chart 1EM Breakdown? Chart 2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Geopolitical risks, however, are merely the accelerant of an ongoing process of global growth redistribution. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the divergent ramifications of populist stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China. This political divergence in economic outcomes has reduced growth in the latter and accelerated it in the former, a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 2).4 Data is starting to support this narrative: Chart 3Global Growth On A Knife Edge Chart 4German Data... The BCA OECD LEI has stalled, but the diffusion index shows a clear deterioration (Chart 3); German trade is showing signs of weakness, as is industrial production and IFO business confidence (Chart 4); Another bellwether of global trade, South Korea, is showing a rapid deterioration in exports (Chart 5); Global economic surprise index is now in negative territory (Chart 6). Chart 5...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks Chart 6Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the ledger, wage pressures are rising as the number of unemployed workers and job openings converge (Chart 7). Given the additional tailwinds of fiscal stimulus, which we see no real chance of being reversed either before or after the midterm election, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to surprise to the upside relative to the rest of the world, a bullish outcome for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). In this environment of U.S. outperformance and global growth underperformance, EM assets are likely to suffer. Chart 7U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD Additionally, it does not help that geopolitical risks will weigh on confidence and will buoy demand for safe haven assets, such as the U.S. dollar. First, U.S.-China trade relations will continue to dominate the news flow this summer. President Trump's positive tweets on the smartphone giant ZTE aside, the U.S. and China have not reached a substantive agreement and upcoming deadlines on trade-related matters remain a risk (Table 1). Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Second, President Trump's application of Maximum Pressure on Iran will cause further volatility and upside pressure on the oil markets. The media was caught by surprise by the president's announcement that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, which is puzzling given that the May 12 expiration of the sanctions waiver was well-telegraphed (Chart 9). It is also surprising given that President Trump signaled his pivot towards an aggressive foreign policy by appointing John Bolton and Mike Pompeo - two adherents of a hawkish foreign policy - to replace more middle-of-the-road policymakers. It was these personnel changes, combined with the U.S. president's lack of constraints on foreign policy, that inspired us to include Iran as the premier geopolitical risk for 2018.5 Chart 9Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran-U.S. Tensions: Maximum Pressure Is Real Last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast that President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine would work against North Korea. First, we noted that President Trump reestablished America's "credible threat," a crucial factor in any negotiation.6 Without credible threats, it is impossible to cajole one's rival into shifting away from the status quo. The trick with North Korea, for each administration that preceded President Trump, was that it was difficult to establish such a credible threat given Pyongyang's ability to retaliate through conventional artillery against South Korean population centers. President Trump swept this concern aside by appearing unconcerned with what were to befall South Korean civilians or the Korean-U.S. alliance. Second, we noted in a detailed military analysis that North Korean retaliation - apart from the aforementioned conventional capacity - was paltry.7 President Trump called Kim Jong-un's bluff about targeting Guam with ballistic missiles and kept up Maximum Pressure throughout a summer full of rhetorical bluster. As tensions rose, China blinked first, enforcing President Trump's demand for tighter sanctions. China did not want the U.S. to attack North Korea or to use the North Korean threat as a reason to build up its military assets in the region. The collapse of North Korean exports to China ultimately starved the regime of hard cash and, in conjunction with U.S. military and rhetorical pressure, forced Kim Jong-un to back off (Chart 10). In essence, President Trump's doctrine is a modification of President Theodore Roosevelt's maxim. Instead of "talking softly," President Trump recommends "tweeting aggressively".8 It is important to recount the North Korean experience for several reasons: Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea: It is an objective fact that President Trump was correct in using Maximum Pressure on North Korea. Our analysis last year carefully detailed why it would be a success. However, we also specifically outlined why it would work with North Korea. Particularly relevant was Pyongyang's inability to counter American economic pressure and rhetoric with material leverage. Kim Jong-un's only objective capability is to launch a massive artillery attack against civilians in Seoul. Given his preference not to engage in a full-out war against South Korea and the U.S., he balked and folded. Trump is tripling-down on what works: President Trump, as all presidents before him, is learning on the job. The North Korean experience has convinced him that his Maximum Pressure tactic works. In particular, it works because it forces third parties to enforce economic sanctions on the target nation. If China were to abandon its traditional ally North Korea and enforced painful sanctions, the logic goes, then Europeans would ditch Iran much faster. Iran is not North Korea: The danger with applying a Maximum Pressure tactic against Iran is that Tehran has multiple levers around the Middle East that it could deploy to counter U.S. pressure. President Obama did not sign the JCPOA merely because he was a dove.9 He did so because the deal resolved several regional security challenges and allowed the U.S. to pivot to Asia (Chart 11). Chart 10Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Chart 11Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative To understand why Iran is not North Korea, and how the application of Maximum Pressure could induce greater uncertainty in this case, investors first have to comprehend why the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal was concluded in the first place. Maximum Pressure Applied To Iran The 2015 U.S.-Iran deal resolved a crucial security dilemma in the Middle East: what to do about Iran's growing power in the region. Ever since the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the fulcrum of the region's disequilibrium has been the status of Iraq. Iraq is a natural geographic buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional rivals. Hussein, a Sunni, ruled Iraq - 65% of which is Shia - either as an overt client of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (1980-1988), or as a free agent largely opposed to everyone in the region (from 1990s onwards). Both options were largely acceptable to Saudi Arabia, although the former was preferable. Iran quickly seized the initiative in Iraq following the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, which created a vast vacuum of power in the country. Elite members of the country's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the so-called Quds Force, infiltrated Iraq and supplied various Shia militias with weapons and training that fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. An overt Iranian ally, Nouri al-Maliki, assumed power in 2006. Soon the anti-U.S. insurgency evolved into sectarian violence as the Sunni population revolted and various Sunni militias, supported by Saudi Arabia, rose up against Shia-dominated Baghdad. The U.S. troops stationed in Iraq quickly became either incapable of controlling the sectarian violence or direct targets of the violence themselves. This rebellion eventually mutated into the Islamic State, which spread from Iraq to Syria in 2012 and then back to Iraq two years later. The Obama administration quickly realized that a U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to be permanent if Iranian influence in the country was to be curbed in the long term. This position was untenable, however, given U.S. military casualties in Iraq, American public opinion about the war, and lack of clarity on U.S. long-term interests in Iraq in the first place. President Obama therefore simultaneously withdrew American troops from Iraq in 2011 and began pressuring Iran on its nuclear program between 2011 and 2015.10 In addition, the U.S. demanded that Iran curb its influence in Iraq, that its anti-American/Israel rhetoric cease, and that it help defend Iraq against the attacks by the Islamic State in 2014. Tehran obliged on all three fronts, joining forces with the U.S. Air Force and Special Forces in the defense of Baghdad in the fall 2014.11 In 2014, Iran acquiesced in seeing its ally al-Maliki replaced by the far less sectarian Haider al-Abadi. These moves helped ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. From Tehran's perspective, it has abided by all the demands made by Washington during the 2012-2015 negotiations, both those covered by the JCPOA overtly and those never explicitly put down on paper. Yes, Iran's influence in the Middle East has expanded well beyond Iraq and into Syria, where Iranian troops are overtly supporting President Bashar al-Assad. But from Iran's perspective, the U.S. abandoned Syria in 2012 - when President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" on chemical weapons use. In fact, without Iranian and Russian intervention, it is likely that the Islamic State would have gained a greater foothold in Syria. The point that its critics miss is that the 2015 nuclear deal always envisioned giving Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Otherwise, Tehran would not have agreed to curb its nuclear program! To force Iran to negotiate, President Obama did threaten Tehran with military force. As we have detailed in the past, President Obama established a credible threat by outsourcing it to Israel in 2011. It was this threat of a unilateral Israeli attack, which Obama did little to limit or prevent, that ultimately forced Europeans to accept the hawkish American position and impose crippling economic sanctions against Iran in early 2012. As such, it is highly unlikely that a rerun of the same strategy by the U.S., this time with Trump in charge and with potentially less global cooperation on sanctions, will produce a different, or better, deal. The recent history is important to recount because the Trump administration is convinced that it can get a better deal from Iran than the Obama administration did. This may be true, but it will require considerable amounts of pressure on Iran to achieve it. At some point, we expect that this pressure will look very much like a preparation for war against Iran, either by U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, or by the U.S. itself. First, President Trump will have to create a credible threat of force, as President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did in 2011-2012. Second, President Trump will have to be willing to sanction companies in Europe and Asia for doing business with Iran in order to curb Iran's oil exports. According to National Security Advisor John Bolton, European companies will have by the end of 2018 to curb their activities with Iran or face sanctions. The one difference this time around is Iraqi politics. Elections held on May 13 appear to have resulted in a surge of support for anti-Iranian Shia candidates, starting with the ardently anti-American and anti-Iranian Shia Ayatollah Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr is a Shia, but also an Iraqi nationalist who campaigned on an anti-Tehran, anti-poverty, anti-corruption line. If the election signals a clear shift in Baghdad against Iran, then Iran may have one less important lever to play against the U.S. and its allies. However, we are only cautiously optimistic about Iraq. Pro-Iranian Shia forces, while in a clear minority, still maintain the support of roughly half of Iraqi Shias. And al-Sadr may not be able to govern effectively, given that his track record thus far mainly consists of waging insurgent warfare (against Americans) and whipping up populist fervor (against Iran). Any move in Baghdad, with U.S. and Saudi backing, to limit Iranian-allied Shia groups from government could lead to renewed sectarian conflict. Therein lies the key difference between North Korea and Iran. Iran has military, intelligence, and operational capabilities that North Korea does not. This is precisely why the U.S. concluded the 2015 deal in the first place, so that Iran would curb those capabilities regionally and limit its operations to the Iranian "sphere of influence." In addition, Iran is constrained against reopening negotiations with the U.S. domestically by the ongoing political contest between the moderates - such as President Hassan Rouhani - and the hawks - represented by the military and intelligence nexus. Supreme Leader Khamenei sits somewhere in the middle, but will side with the hawks if it looks like Rouhani's promise of economic benefits from the détente with the West will fall short of reality. The combination of domestic pressure and capabilities therefore makes it likely that Iran retaliates against American pressure at some point. While such retaliation could be largely investment-irrelevant - say by supporting Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel or ramping up military operations in Syria - it could also affect oil prices if it includes activities in and around the Persian Gulf. Bottom Line: We caution clients not to believe the narrative that "Trump is all talk." As the example in North Korea suggests, Trump's rhetoric drove China to enforce sanctions in order to avert war on the Korean Peninsula. We therefore expect the U.S. administration to continue to threaten European and Asian partners and allies with sanctions, causing an eventual drop in Iranian oil exports. In addition, we expect Iran to play hardball, using its various proxies in the region to remind the Trump administration why Obama signed the 2015 deal in the first place. Could Trump ultimately be right on Iran as he was on North Korea? Absolutely. It is simply naïve to assume that Iran will negotiate without Maximum Pressure, which by definition will be market-relevant. Impact On Energy Markets BCA Energy Sector Strategy believes that the re-imposition of sanctions could result in a loss of 300,000-500,000 b/d of production by early 2019.12 This would take 2019 production back down to 3.3-3.5 MMB/d instead of growing to nearly 4.0 MMb/d as our commodity strategists have modeled in their supply-demand forecasts. In total, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for 2019 oil markets by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing the production that Iran has brought online since 2016 (Chart 12). Is the global energy market able to withstand this type of loss of production? First, Chart 13 shows that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been cut from 450 million barrels at its peak to less than 100 million barrels today. Surplus inventories are destined to shrink to nothing by the end of the year even without geopolitical risks. In short, there is no excess inventory cushion. Chart 12Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 13Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Second, spare capacity within the OPEC 2.0 alliance - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is controversial. Many clients believe that OPEC 2.0 could easily restore the 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. However, our commodity team has always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually has achieved (Chart 14). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are ##br##Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 15Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors"##br## Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Third, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.23 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 16). Venezuelan production declined by 450,000 b/d over the course of 21 months (December 2015 to September 2017), followed by another 450,000 b/d plunge over the past six months (September 2017 to March 2018), as the country's failing economy goes through the death spiral of its 20-year socialist experiment. The oil production supply chain is now suffering from shortages of everything, including capital. It is difficult to predict what broken link in the supply chain is most likely to impact production next, when it will happen, and what the size of the production impact will be. The combination of President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine applied to Iran, continued deterioration in Venezuelan production, and the inability of OPEC 2.0 to surge production as fast as the market thinks is unambiguously bullish for oil prices. Oil markets are currently pricing in a just under 35% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end (Chart 17).13 We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Indeed, we think that the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are much higher than the 16% chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. Chart 16Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 17Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Bottom Line: Our colleague Bob Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist, also expects higher volatility, as news flows become noisier. The recommendation by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is to go long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectations. A key variable to watch in the ongoing saga will be President Trump's willingness to impose secondary sanctions against European and Asian companies doing business with Iran. We do not think that the White House is bluffing. The mounting probability of sanctions will create "stroke of pen" risk and raise compliance costs to doing business with Iran, leading to lower Iranian exports by the end of the year. Europe Update: Political Risks Returning Risks in Europe are rising on multiple fronts. First, we continue to believe that the domestic political situation in the U.K. regarding Brexit is untenable. Second, the coalition of populists in Italy - combining the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Euroskeptic Lega - appears poised to become a reality. Brexit: Start Pricing In Prime Minister Corbyn Since our Brexit update in February, the pound has taken a wild ride, but our view has remained the same.14 PM May has an untenable negotiating position. The soft-Brexit majority in Westminster is growing confident while the hard-Brexit majority in her own Tory party is growing louder. We do not know who will win, but odds of an unclear outcome are growing. The first problem is the status of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of paramilitary conflict on the island, established an invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Membership in the EU by both made the removal of a physical border a simple affair. But if the U.K. exits the bloc, and takes Northern Ireland with it, presumably a physical barrier would have to be reestablished, either in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. The former would jeopardize the Good Friday agreement, the latter would jeopardize the U.K.'s integrity as a state. The EU, led on by Dublin's interests, has proposed that Northern Ireland maintain some elements of the EU acquis communautaire - the accumulated body of EU's laws and obligations - in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. For many Tories in the U.K., particularly those who consider themselves "Unionists," the arrangement smacks of a Trojan Horse by the EU to slowly but surely untie the strings that bind the U.K. together. If Northern Ireland gets an exception, then pro-EU Scotland is sure to ask for one too. The second problem is that the Tories are divided on whether to remain part of the EU customs union. PM May is in favor of a "customs partnership" with the EU, which would see unified tariffs and duties on goods and services across the EU bloc and the U.K. However, her own cabinet voted against her on the issue, mainly because a customs union with the EU would eliminate the main supposed benefit of Brexit: negotiating free trade deals independent of the EU. It is unclear how PM May intends to resolve the multiple disagreements on these issues within her party. Thus far, her strategy was to simply put the eventual deal with the EU up for a vote in Westminster. She agreed to hold such a vote, but with the caveat that a vote against the deal would break off negotiations with the EU and lead to a total Brexit. The threat of such a hard Brexit would force soft Brexiters among the Tories to accept whatever compromise she got from Brussels. Unfortunately for May's tactic, the House of Lords voted on April 30 to amend the flagship EU Withdrawal Bill to empower Westminster to send the government back to the negotiating table in case of a rejection of the final deal with the EU. The amendment will be accepted if the House of Commons agrees to it, which it may, given that a number of soft Brexit Tories are receptive. A defeat of the final negotiated settlement could prolong negotiations with the EU. Brussels is on record stating that it would prolong the transition period and give the U.K. a different Brexit date, moving the current date of March 2019. However, it is unclear why May would continue negotiating at that point, given that her own parliament would send her back to Brussels, hat in hand. The fundamental problem for May is the same that has plagued the last three Tory Prime Ministers: the U.K. Conservative Party is intractably split with itself on Brexit. The only way to resolve the split may be for PM May to call an election and give herself a mandate to negotiate with the EU once she is politically recapitalized. This realization, that the probability of a new election is non-negligible, will likely weigh on the pound going forward. Investors would likely balk at the possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will become the prime minister, although polling data suggests that his surge in popularity is over (Chart 18). Local elections in early May also ended inconclusively for Labour's chances, with no big outpouring for left-leaning candidates. Even if Labour is forced to form a coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP), it is unlikely that the left-leaning SNP would be much of a check on Corbyn's Labour. Chart 18Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Bottom Line: Theresa May will either have to call a new election between now and March of next year or she will use the threat of a new election to get hard-Brexit Tories in line. Either way, markets will have to reprice the probability of a Labour-led government between now and a resolution to the Brexit crisis. Italy: Start Pricing In A Populist Government Leaders of Italy's populist parties - M5S and Lega - have come to an agreement on a coalition that will put the two anti-establishment parties in charge of the EU's third-largest economy. Markets are taking the news in stride because M5S has taken a 180-degree turn on Euroskepticism. Although Lega remains overtly Euroskeptic, its leader Matteo Salvini has said that he does not want a chaotic exit from the currency bloc. Is the market right to ignore the risks? On one hand, it is a positive development that the anti-establishment forces take over the reins in Italy. Establishment parties have failed to reform the country, while time spent in government will de-radicalize both anti-establishment parties. Furthermore, the one item on the political agenda that both parties agree on is to radically curb illegal migration into Italy, a process that is already underway (Chart 19). On the other hand, the economic pact signed by both parties is completely and utterly incompatible with reality. It combines a flat tax and a guaranteed basic income with a lowering of the retirement age. This would blow a hole in Italy's budget, barring a miraculous positive impact on GDP growth. The market is likely ignoring the coalition's economic policies as it assumes they cannot be put into action. This is not because Rome is afraid to flout Brussels' rules, but because the bond market is not going to finance Italian expenditures. Long-dated Italian bonds are already cheap relative to the country's credit rating (Chart 20), evidence that the market is asking for a premium to finance Italian expenditures. This is despite the ongoing ECB bond buying efforts. Once the ECB ends the program later this year, or in early 2019, the pressure on Rome from the bond market will grow. Chart 19European Migration Crisis Is Over Chart 20Italian Bonds Still Require A Risk Premium We suspect that both M5S and Lega are aware of their constraints. After all, neither M5S leader Luigi Di Maio nor Lega's Salvini are going to take the prime minister spot. This is extraordinary! We cannot remember the last time a leader of the winning party refused to take the top political spot following an election. Both Di Maio and Salvini are trying to pass the buck for the failure of the coalition. In one way, this is market-positive, as it suggests that the anti-establishment coalition will do nothing of note during its mandate. But it also suggests that markets will have to deal with a new Italian election relatively quickly. As such, we would warn investors to steer clear of Italian assets. Their performance in 2017, and early 2018, suggests that the market has already priced in the most market-positive outcome. Yes, Italy will not leave the Euro Area. But no, there is no "Macron of Italy" to resolve its long-term growth problems. Bottom Line: The Italian government formation is not market-positive. Italian bonds are cheap for a reason. While it is unlikely that the populist coalition will have the room to maneuver its profligate coalition deal into action, the bond market may have to discipline Italian policymakers from time to time. In the long term, none of the structural problems that Italy faces - many of which we have identified in a number of reports - will be tackled by the incoming coalition.15 This will expose Italy to an eventual resurgence in Euroskepticism at the first sight of the next recession. Emerging Markets: Elections In Malaysia And Turkey Offer Divergent Outcomes As we pointed out at the beginning of this report, an environment of rising U.S. yields, a surging dollar, and moderating global growth is negative for emerging markets. In this context, politics is unlikely to make much of a difference. The recently announced early election in Turkey is a case in point. Markets briefly cheered the announced election (Chart 21), before investors realized that there is unlikely to be a consolidation of power behind President Erdogan (Chart 22). Even if Erdogan were to somehow massively outperform expectations and consolidate political capital, it is not clear why investors would cheer such an outcome given his track record, particularly on the economy, over the past decade. Chart 21Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Chart 22Is Erdogan In Trouble? Malaysia, on the other hand, could be the one EM economy that defies the negative macro context due to political events. Our most bullish long-term scenario for Malaysia - a historic victory for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition - came to pass with the election on May 9 (Chart 23).16 Significantly, outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak accepted the election results as the will of the people. He did not incite violence or refuse to cede power. Rather, he congratulated incoming Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and promised to help ensure a smooth transition. This marks the first transfer of power since Malaysian independence in 1957. It was democratic and peaceful, which establishes a hugely consequential and market-friendly precedent. How did the opposition pull off this historic upset? Ethnic-majority Malays swung to the opposition; Mahathir's "charismatic authority" had an outsized effect; Barisan Nasional "safety deposits" in Sabah and Sarawak failed; Voters rejected fundamentalist Islamism. What are the implications? Better Governance - Governance has been deteriorating, especially under Najib's rule, but now voters have demanded improvements that could include term-limits for prime ministers and legislative protections for officials investigating wrongdoing by top leaders (Chart 24). Economic Stimulus - Pakatan Harapan campaigned against some of the painful pro-market structural reforms that Najib put in place. They have promised to repeal the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) and reinstate fuel subsidies. They have also proposed raising the minimum wage and harmonizing it across the country. While these pledges will be watered down,17 they are positive for nominal growth in the short term but negative for fiscal sustainability in the long term. Chart 23Comfortable Majority For Pakatan Harapan Coalition Chart 24Voters Want Governance Improvements The one understated risk comes from China. Najib's weakness had led him to court China and rely increasingly on Chinese investment as an economic strategy. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan will seek to revise all Chinese investment (including under the Belt and Road Initiative). This review is not necessarily to cancel projects but to haggle about prices and ensure that domestic labor is employed. Mahathir will also try to assert Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. None of this means that a crisis is impending, but China has increasingly used economic sanctions to punish and reward its neighbors according to whether their electoral outcomes are favorable to China,18 and we expect tensions to increase. Investment Conclusion On the one hand, in the short run, the picture for Malaysia is mixed. Pakatan Harapan will likely pursue some stimulative economic policies, but these come amidst fundamental macro weaknesses that we have highlighted in the past - and may even exacerbate them. On the other hand, a key external factor is working in the new government's favor: oil. With oil prices likely to move higher, the Malaysian ringgit is likely to benefit (Chart 25), helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power, a key election grievance. Higher oil prices are also correlated with higher equity prices. Over the long run, we have a high-conviction view that this election is bullish for Malaysia. It sends a historic signal that the populace wants better governance. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has found that improvements in governance are crucial for long-term productivity, growth, and asset performance.19 Hence, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends clients go long Malaysian equities relative to EM. Now is a good entry point despite short-term volatility (Chart 26). We also think that going long MYR/TRY will articulate both our bullish oil story as well as our divergent views on political risks in Malaysia and Turkey (Chart 27). Chart 25Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Chart 26Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Chart 27Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY We are re-initiating two trades this week. First, the recently stopped out long Russian / short EM equities recommendation. We still believe that the view is on strong fundamentals, at least in the tactical and cyclical sense.20 Russian President Vladimir Putin has won another mandate and appears to be focusing on domestic economy and the constraints to Russian geopolitical adventurism have grown. The Trump administration has apparently also grown wary of further sanctions against Russia. However, our initial timing was massively off, as tensions between Russia and West did not peak in early March as we thought. We are giving this high-risk, high-reward trade another go, particularly in light of our oil price outlook. Second, we booked 10.26% gains on our recommendation to go long French industrials versus their German counterparts. We are reopening this view again as structural reforms continue in France unimpeded. Meanwhile, risk of global trade wars and a global growth slowdown should impact the high-beta German industrials more than the French. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Washington's demand that China cut its annual trade surplus has grown from $100 billion, announced previously by President Trump, to at least $200 billion. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: A Correction Or Bear Market?" dated May 10, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "'America Is Roaring Back!' (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?),"dated January 31, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, and "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Instead of a "big stick," President Trump would likely also recommend a "big nuclear button." 9 This is an important though obvious point. We find that many liberally-oriented clients are unwilling to give President Trump credit for correctly handling the North Korean negotiations. Similarly, conservative-oriented clients refuse to accept that President Obama's dealings with Iran had a strategic logic, even though they clearly did. President Obama would not have been able to conclude the JCPOA without the full support of U.S. intelligence and military establishment. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 While there was no confirmed collaboration between Iranian ground forces in Iraq and the U.S. Air Force, we assume that it happened in 2014 in the defense of Baghdad. The U.S. A-10 Warthog was extensively used against Islamic State ground forces in that battle. The plane is most effective when it has communication from ground forces engaging enemy units. Given that Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias did the majority of the fighting in the defense of Baghdad, we assume that there was tactical communication between U.S. and the Iranian military in 2014, a whole year before the U.S.-Iran nuclear détente was concluded. 12 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," dated May 10, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update," dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, and "Europe's Divine Comedy Party II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof)," dated March 21, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 For instance, the proposed Sales and Services Tax (SST) is more like a rebranding of the GST than a true abolition. And while fuel subsidies will be reinstated - weighing on the fiscal deficit - they will have a quota and only certain vehicles will be eligible. It will not be a return to the old pricing regime where subsidies were unlimited and were for everyone. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ranking EM Countries Based on Structural Variables," dated August 2, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights An examination of the three pillars of China's economy provides an unambiguous signal that a slowdown is underway. This would normally warrant, at most, a neutral allocation to Chinese stocks, but several factors argue against cutting exposure for now. Stay overweight, but with a short leash. Recent changes in the BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio's recommended allocation have validated two of our recent investment recommendations. In addition, the model is providing a curiously bullish signal about the relative performance of Chinese vs global stocks that heightens our reluctance to reduce Chinese equity exposure. Our China Reform Monitor signals that investors do not view the current pace of structural reforms as being overly burdensome for the economy. In addition, while Chinese policymakers have made some significant gains in improving China's air quality over the past 18 months, these changes have mostly occurred from a near-hazardous starting point (suggesting that more progress will be needed). As such, we recommend that investors stick with our long ESG leaders / short investable benchmark trade over the coming year. Feature Global investor sentiment improved modestly on Monday, in response to statements from President Trump indicating a possible détente between the U.S. and China on the issue of trade. In particular, Mr. Trump signaled a willingness to assist ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications equipment maker, whose operations would have been enormously impacted by the U.S. Commerce Department's decision last month to ban American companies from selling to the firm. In the view of our Geopolitical Strategy Service, announcements like these should be viewed as marginally positive developments within the context of a serious downtrend in U.S./China relations. Investors appear to be eager to respond to positive news about waning U.S. protectionism, but the reality is that several important decisions related to the U.S.' section 301 probe have yet to be announced.1 As we noted in last week's Special Report,2 this underscores that the near-term risks to China from the external sector are clearly to the downside. Abstracting from the day-to-day assessment of the trade picture, we have emphasized that other core elements of the China outlook have deteriorated. As we present below, an aggregate view of the three pillars of China's economy continues to argue for a (contained) slowdown, with protectionism acting as a downside risk to an already sober economic outlook. Extremely cheap valuation and the high-beta nature of Chinese ex-tech stocks continue to justify an overweight stance versus global equities, but we recommend that investors keep Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for the remainder of Q2 as the risks to the Chinese economy warrant an ongoing assessment of what is currently a finely balanced equity allocation decision. Assessing The Three Pillars Chart 1 presents our stylized framework for analyzing China's economy. It highlights that China's business cycle is largely driven by three "pillars": industrial activity, the housing market, and trade. While the services sector, the Chinese consumer, and/or the technology sector are of interesting secular relevance, generally-speaking China's business cycle continues to be subject to its "old" growth model centered on investment and exports. Chart 1The Three Pillars Of China's Business Cycle Industrial Activity: We took an empirical approach to predicting China's industrial sector activity in our November 30 Special Report,3 and tested the ability of 40 different macro data series to lead the Li Keqiang index (LKI). While the LKI is closely followed and somewhat cliché, we have focused on it because of its strong correlation with ex-tech earnings and import growth. The results of our November report pointed to the success of monetary condition indexes, money supply, and credit measures to reliably predict the LKI since China's real GDP growth peaked in 2010. We constructed our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator based on these measures, and we have frequently highlighted over the past few months that the indicator is pointing to a continued deceleration in China's industrial activity (Chart 2). Housing: We noted in our November report that housing market data also correlates with the LKI, albeit less well than the components of our Leading Indicator. One important observation about China's housing market that we highlighted in our February 8 Weekly Report is that residential floor space sold appears to have reliably led floor space started (a proxy for real residential investment) since 2010 (Chart 3). Over the past 6-8 months, however, floor space started appears to have diverged from the trend in floor space sold, which may have been caused by a non-trivial reduction in housing inventories over the past few years.4 Nonetheless, we also noted that the level of inventories remains quite elevated, suggesting that the uptrend in floor space started is unlikely to continue without a renewed uptrend in sales volume. In our view, this conclusion implies that the housing outlook over the coming 6-12 months is neutral, at best. Chart 2China's Industrial Sector ##br##Will Continue To Slow Chart 3Resi Sales Volume Does Not Point To ##br##A Sustained Pickup In Construction Trade: The third pillar of China's economy is the external sector, which remains important even though net exports have fallen quite significantly in terms of contribution to China's growth. We noted in our April 18 Weekly Report that there is a strongly positive relationship between the annual change in contribution to growth from China's net exports and subsequent gross capital formation, highlighting that external demand provides an important multiplier effect for Chinese activity. For now, nominal export growth (in CNY terms) remains at the high end of its 5-year range, reflecting the strength of the global economy. But three significant risks remain to the export outlook: 1) the clear and present danger of U.S. import tariffs, 2) the possibility that Chinese policymakers may accelerate their reform efforts to take advantage of the "window of opportunity" provided by robust global demand,4 and 3) the very substantial rise in the export-weighted RMB (Chart 4), which is fast approaching its 2015 high. As a final point on trade, Chart 5 highlights that the recent divergence between the LKI and nominal import growth is resolved when examining the latter in CNY terms. The chart suggests that while export growth has been buoyed by a strong global economy, China's contribution to the global growth impulse is diminishing. The very tight link demonstrated in Chart 5 also suggests that industrial activity is the most important pillar to watch among the three noted above, which means that Chart 2 argues for a negative export outlook for China's major trading partners. Chart 4A Non-Trivial Deterioration ##br##In Competitiveness Chart 5The Rise In CNYUSD Is Flattering ##br##Imports Measured In Dollars Our assessment of the three pillars of China's economy points to a conclusion that we have highlighted frequently in our recent reports: China's industrial sector is slowing, and there are downside risks to the export outlook. The character of the slowdown does not suggest that a major shock to the global economy is likely to emanate from China over the coming 6-12 months, but the outlook is more consistent with a reduction than an expansion in China's contribution to global growth. Under normal circumstances, at best this would warrant a neutral asset allocation outlook to China-related financial assets. Chart 6The Uptrend In Relative Chinese ##br##Ex-Tech Performance Is Intact However, we have also argued that the relatively attractive valuation and the technical profile of Chinese equities suggests that investors should have a high threshold for reducing their exposure to China within a global equity portfolio. Chart 6 highlights that Chinese ex-tech share prices continue to demonstrate resilient performance versus their global peers, despite the ongoing slowdown in China's economy. In addition, as we will note below, our BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio is providing a curiously bullish signal about the relative performance of Chinese stocks, which heightens our reluctance to cut exposure. Bottom Line: An examination of the three pillars of China's economy provides an unambiguous signal that a slowdown is underway. This would normally warrant, at most, a neutral allocation to Chinese stocks, but several factors argue against cutting exposure for now. Stay overweight, but with a short leash. Reading The Tea Leaves From Our Sector Alpha Portfolio We introduced our BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio in a January Special Report, in part to demonstrate that the concept of alpha persistence (i.e. alpha that is persistently positive or negative) has material implications for portfolio returns. In particular, we noted that the portfolio's strategy of allocating to China's investable equity sectors based on the significance of alpha has resulted in over 200bps of long-term outperformance versus the investable benchmark, without taking on any additional risk (Table 1). Table 1An Alpha-Based Sector Model Has Historically Outperformed China's Investable Stock Market Table 2 presents the portfolio's current allocation, relative to the current benchmark weights for each sector as well as the portfolio's sectoral allocation when we published our January report. Two observations are noteworthy: The model recommends an overweight allocation to resources; consumer staples; health care; utilities; and real estate, at the expense of industrials; consumer discretionary; financials; technology; and telecom services. These positions are largely in-line with the model's recommendations in January, except for a non-trivial increase in exposure to energy and financials, and a significant reduction in technology and consumer discretionary. The portfolio's reduced exposure to technology and consumer discretionary stocks validate two recent investment recommendations from BCA's China Investment Strategy team: we recommended a long consumer staples / short consumer discretionary trade on November 16,5 and we recommend that investors retain cyclical exposure to investable Chinese stocks while neutralizing exposure to the tech sector on February 15.6 Table 2Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Has Validated Two Of Our Recent Recommendations Chart 7 highlights another interesting insight from the model, by presenting the beta of the portfolio relative to the investable benchmark alongside the benchmark's performance versus global stocks. First, the chart underscores the limited systemic risk of the portfolio, as the portfolio's beta rarely deviates materially from 1. But more importantly, it appears that the portfolio's beta versus the investable benchmark is somewhat correlated with (and leads) China's performance versus global stocks: Chart 7A Curiously Bullish Signal From ##br##Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Prior to the global financial crisis, the portfolio's beta was above 1 and rising, until early-2007 (preceding the peak in relative performance by about a year). Following the crisis, the portfolio beta steadily declined until late-2014/early-2015, interrupted only by a brief rise back above 1 from 2009-2010. Chinese stock prices steadily underperformed global equities during this period. The portfolio beta rose back to 1 in mid-2015, and stayed flat until early last year. Chinese stocks technically underperformed global stocks during this period, but by a much more modest amount than what occurred on average from 2009 to 2014. In this case, the rise in the portfolio beta in 2015 appeared to correctly signal that a sharply underweight stance towards Chinese stocks was no longer warranted. Finally, the portfolio beta surged rapidly higher last year, in line with a material rise in the relative performance of Chinese stocks. It has fallen modestly since January, but remains at one of the highest levels seen over the past 15 years. Drawing pro-cyclical inferences from the beta characteristics of risk-adjusted performers is a novel approach for BCA's China Investment Strategy service, and for now we regard the results of Chart 7 as a curious signal that warrants further examination. Still, this bullish sign is consistent with the general resilience of Chinese stocks that we have observed over the past several months, which continues to argue in favor of a high threshold to cut exposure to China within a global equity portfolio. Bottom Line: Recent changes in the BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio's recommended allocation have validated two of our recent investment recommendations. In addition, the model is providing a curiously bullish signal about the relative performance of Chinese vs global stocks that heightens our reluctance to reduce Chinese equity exposure. An Update On The "Reform Trade" We noted in the aftermath of last November's Communist Party Congress that China was likely to step up its reform efforts in 2018, and make meaningful efforts to: Pare back heavy-polluting industry Hasten the transition of China's economy to "consumer-led" growth7 Halt leveraging in the corporate/financial sector Eliminate corruption and graft As a result of this outlook, we highlighted that the pace of renewed structural reforms would be a key theme to watch this year, in order to ensure that the pursuit of these policies would not unintentionally cause a repeat of the significant slowdown in the economy that occurred in 2014/2015. We presented our framework for monitoring this risk in our November 16 Weekly Report, which was to track an index that we called the BCA China Reform Monitor. The monitor is calculated as an equally-weighted average of four "winner" sectors that outperformed the investable benchmark in the month following the Party Congress relative to an equally-weighted average of the remaining seven sectors. We argued that significant underperformance of "loser" sectors could be a sign that reform intensity has become too burdensome for the economy (and thus a material headwind ex-tech equity performance), and highlighted that we would be watching for signs that our monitor was rising largely due to outright declines in the denominator. Using this framework, Chart 8 suggests that structural reform efforts are ongoing but that investors do not view the current pace of these reforms as overly burdensome for the economy. In particular, panel 2 highlights that recent movements in our Reform Monitor have been driven by fairly steady outperformance of the "winner" sectors, with "loser" sectors simply trending sideways. While it is possible that Chinese policymakers will intensify their efforts to reform the economy over the coming 6-12 months,4 for now our China Reform Monitor continues to support an overweight stance towards Chinese ex-tech stocks vs their global peers. However, given the message of our Reform Monitor, it is somewhat surprising that another of our reform-themed trades has fared so poorly over the past three months. Chart 9 presents the performance of our long investable environmental, social and governance (ESG) leaders / short investable benchmark trade, which was up approximately 4% since inception in late-January but is now down 1.4%. The basis of this trade was to overweight stocks that are best positioned to deliver "sustainable" growth, which we argued would fare well in a reform environment. Does the underperformance of this trade suggest that the reform theme is unlikely to be investment-relevant over the coming year? Chart 8Structural Reforms Not Viewed As ##br##Economically Restrictive By Investors Chart 9ESG Leaders Should Fare Quite ##br##Well In A Reform Environment In our view, the answer is no. First, while the MSCI ESG leaders index maintains roughly similar sector weights as the investable benchmark (which limits the beta risk of the trade), Table 3 highlights that differences do exist. These modest differences in sector allocation do appear to be impacting performance (Chart 10), in particular the underweight allocation to energy stocks (which are outperforming) and the overweight allocation to technology (which has sold off since mid-March). Table 3Sector Allocation Has Impacted The Recent Performance Of China's ESG Leaders Chart 10Sector Allocation Impacting Recent ##br##Performance Of ESG Leaders Second, while China made significant gains last year in improving air quality in several major population centers (such as Beijing and Shanghai), these improvements have mostly occurred from a near-hazardous starting point and have simply rendered China's air to be less unhealthy. Even in Beijing, Chart 11 highlights that PM2.5 readings have started to increase again, from a level that only briefly reached "good" quality. In addition, Chart 12 highlights that some of the improvement in air quality last year occurred, at least in part, because China shifted polluting activity from one province to another. This implies that Chinese policymakers will continue to wrestle with improving the country's air quality for some time to come, which in our view continues to favor ESG leaders over the coming year and beyond. Chart 11Some Significant Recent Gains In Air ##br##Quality, But Part Of An Ongoing Battle Chart 12Air Quality Gains In Some Provinces, At The Expense Of Others Bottom Line: Our China Reform Monitor signals that investors do not view the current pace of structural reforms as being overly burdensome for the economy. In addition, while Chinese policymakers have made some significant gains in improving China's air quality over the past 18 months, these changes have mostly occurred from a near-hazardous starting point (suggesting that more progress will be needed). As such, we recommend that investors stick with our long ESG leaders / short investable benchmark trade over the coming year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Inside The Beltway," dated May 2, 2018, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks," dated May 9, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," dated November 30, 2017, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight," dated May 2, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 7 Investors should note that BCA's China Investment Strategy service has long been skeptical of calls to shift China's economy to a consumption-driven growth model, because it significantly raises the odds that the country will not be able to escape the middle income trap. For example, please see Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "On A Higher Note", dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Tinbergen's rule says that the successful implementation of economic policy requires there to be at least as many "instruments" as "objectives." Policymakers today are increasingly discovering that they have too many of the latter but not enough of the former. By turning fiscal policy into a political tool rather than one for macroeconomic stabilization, the U.S. has found itself in a position where it can either meet President Trump's goal of having a smaller trade deficit or the Fed's goal of keeping the economy from overheating, but not both. In the near term, we expect the Fed's priorities to prevail. This will keep the dollar rally intact, which could spell bad news for some emerging markets. Longer term, the Fed, like most other central banks, must confront the vexing problem that the interest rate necessary to prevent asset bubbles from frequently forming may be higher than the rate necessary to keep the economy near full employment. Getting inflation up a bit may be one way to mitigate this problem, as it would allow nominal interest rates to rise without pushing real rates into punitive territory. This suggests that the structural path for bond yields is up, consistent with our thesis that the 35-year bond bull market is over. Feature Constraints And Preferences The late Jan Tinbergen was one of the great economists of the twentieth century. Often referred to as the father of econometrics, Tinbergen and Ragnar Frisch were the first people to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1969. One of Tinbergen's most enduring contributions was his demonstration that the successful implementation of economic policy requires there to be at least as many "instruments" (i.e., policy tools) as "objectives" (i.e., policy goals). Just like any system of equations can be "overdetermined" or "underdetermined," any set of "policy functions" may have a unique solution, many solutions, or no solution at all. The first outcome corresponds to a situation where there are as many instruments as objectives, the second where there are more instruments than objectives, and the third where there are fewer instruments than objectives. In essence, the Tinbergen rule is a mathematical formulation of the idea that it is hard to hit two birds with one stone. The Tinbergen rule often comes up in macroeconomics. Consider a country that wants to have a low and stable unemployment rate (what economists call "internal balance") and a current account position that is neither too big nor too small ("external balance"). This amounts to two objectives, which can be realized with the right mix of two instruments: Monetary and fiscal policy. As discussed in greater detail in Appendix A, the classic Swan Diagram, named after Australian economist Trevor Swan, shows how this is done. Chart 1Spain: The Cost Of The Crisis If the country wants to add a third objective to its list of policy goals, it has to either give up one of its existing objectives or find an additional policy instrument. Suppose, for example, that a country wants to move to a pegged exchange rate. It can either forego monetary independence, or introduce capital controls in order to allow domestic interest rates to deviate from the interest rates of the economy to which it is pegging its currency. This is the logic behind Robert Mundell's "Impossible Trinity," which states that an economy cannot simultaneously have all three of the following: A fixed exchange rate, free capital mobility, and an independent central bank. It can only choose two items from the list. Peripheral Europe learned this lesson the hard way in 2011. Not only did euro membership deny Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland access to an independent monetary policy and a flexible currency, but the ECB's failure under the bumbling leadership of Jean-Claude Trichet to backstop sovereign debt markets necessitated fiscal austerity at a time when these economies needed stimulus. These countries were left with no effective macro policy instruments whatsoever, thus putting them at the complete mercy of the bond vigilantes, German politicians, and the multilateral lending agencies. The only thing they could do was incur a brutal internal devaluation to make themselves more competitive. Even for "success stories" such as Spain, the cost in terms of lost output was over one-third of GDP (Chart 1) - and probably much more if one includes the deleterious effect on potential GDP growth from the crisis. Trump Versus Tinbergen One might think that the U.S. is largely immune from Tinbergen's rule. It is not. President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have rammed through massive tax cuts and spending increases (Chart 2). By doing so, they have turned fiscal policy into a political tool rather than one for macroeconomic stabilization. In and of itself, that is not an insuperable constraint since monetary policy can still be used to achieve internal balance. The problem is that Trump has also declared that he wants external balance, meaning a much smaller trade deficit. Now we have two policy objectives (full employment and more net exports) and only one available instrument: Monetary policy. Chart 2The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline This puts the Fed in a bind. If the Fed hikes rates aggressively, this will keep the economy from overheating, thus achieving internal balance. But higher rates are likely to bid up the value of the dollar, leading to a larger trade deficit. On the flipside, if the Fed drags its feet in raising rates, the dollar could weaken, resulting in a smaller trade deficit and moving the economy closer to external balance. However, the combination of low real interest rates, a weaker dollar, and dollops of fiscal stimulus will cause the unemployment rate to fall further, leading to higher inflation. Investor uncertainty about which path the Fed will choose may be partly responsible for the gyrations in the dollar of late. At least for the next year or so, our guess is that the Fed's independence will keep it on course to raise rates more than the market is currently pricing in, which will result in a stronger dollar. Beyond then, the picture is less clear. This is partly because the increasing politicization of society may begin to affect the Fed's behavior. History suggests that inflation tends to be higher in countries with less independent central banks (Chart 3). But it is also because Tinbergen's ghost is likely to make another appearance, this time in a wholly different way. Chart 3Inflation Tends To Be Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks The Fed's "Other" Mandate Officially, the Fed has two mandates: ensuring maximum employment and stable prices. In practice, this "dual mandate" can be boiled down to a single policy objective: Keeping the unemployment rate near NAIRU, the so-called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. The Fed has sought to meet this objective through the use of countercyclical monetary policy: Easing monetary policy when output falls below potential and tightening it when the economy is at risk of overheating. So far, so good. The problem is that the Fed, like most other central banks, is being asked to take on another policy objective: ensuring financial stability. Here's the rub though: The interest rate necessary to prevent asset bubbles from frequently forming may be higher than the rate necessary to keep the economy near full employment. Excessively low rates are a threat to financial stability. A decline in interest rates pushes up the present value of expected cash flows; the lower the discount rate, the more of an asset's value will depend on cash flows that may not be realized for many years. This tends to increase asset market volatility. In addition, borrowers need to devote a smaller share of their incomes towards servicing their debt obligations when interest rates are low. This tends to increase debt levels. From The Great Moderation To The Great Intemperance Starting in the 1990s, far from entering an era which policymakers once naively referred to as the "Great Moderation," it is possible that the world entered a precarious period where the only way to generate enough spending was to push down interest rates so much that asset bubbles became commonplace. In a world where central bankers have to choose between insufficient demand and recurrent asset bubbles, the idea of a "neutral rate" loses much of its meaning. By definition, the neutral rate is a steady-state concept. However, if the interest rate that produces full employment and stable inflation is so low that it also generates financial instability, how can one possibly describe this interest rate as "neutral"? Faced with the increasingly irreconcilable twin objectives of keeping the unemployment rate near NAIRU and putting the financial system on the straight and narrow, central bankers have reached out for a second policy instrument: macroprudential regulations. So far, however, the jury is still out on whether this tool is sufficiently powerful to prevent future financial crises. Politics has a bad habit of getting in the way of effective regulation. President Trump and the Republicans have been looking for ways to water down the Dodd-Frank Act. The Democrats are complaining that banks and other financial institutions are not doing enough to channel credit to various allegedly "underserved" groups. Faced with such political pressure, it is not clear that regulators can do their jobs. If You Can't Raise r-Star, Raise i-Star What is the Fed to do? One possibility may be to aim for somewhat more inflation. A higher inflation target would allow the Fed to raise nominal policy rates while still keeping real rates low enough to maintain full employment. Higher nominal rates would impose more discipline on borrowers and discourage excessive debt accumulation. Higher inflation would also reduce the likelihood of reaching the zero bound again, while also limiting the economic fallout of asset busts. The Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Index declined by 34% in nominal terms and 41% in real terms between April 2006 and March 2012. Had inflation averaged 4% over this period rather than 2.2%, a 41% decline in real home prices would have corresponded to a less severe 26% decrease in nominal prices, resulting in fewer underwater mortgages. Finally, higher inflation would allow countries to increase nominal income growth. In fact, higher inflation may be the only viable way to reduce debt-to-GDP ratios in a high-debt, low-productivity growth world. Investment Conclusions We advised clients on July 5, 2016 that we had reached "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market." As fate would have it, this was the exact same day that the 10-year yield reached an all-time closing low of 1.37%. Bond positioning is very short now (Chart 4), so a partial retracement in yields is probable. Cyclically and structurally, however, the path for yields is up. Much like what transpired between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s, investors should expect global bond yields to reach a series of "higher highs" and "higher lows" with each passing business cycle (Chart 5). Chart 4Traders Are Short Treasurys Chart 5A Template For The Next Decade? Just as was the case back then, the Fed is now behind the curve in raising rates. The three-month and six-month annualized change in core PCE has reached 2.6% and 2.3%, respectively. Yesterday's CPI report was softer than expected, but the miss was almost entirely due to a deceleration in used car prices and airfares, both of which are likely to be temporary. Meanwhile, the labor market remains strong. The unemployment rate is down to 3.9%, just slightly above the 2000 low of 3.8%. According to the latest JOLTS survey released earlier this week, there are now more job openings than unemployed workers, the first time this has happened in the 17-year history of the survey (Chart 6). Faced with this reality, the Fed will keep begrudgingly raising rates until the economy slows. Right now, the real economy is not showing much strain from higher rates. The cyclical component of our MacroQuant model, which draws on a variety of forward-looking economic indicators, moved back into positive territory this week. Both the housing market and capital spending are in reasonably good shape (Chart 7). Chart 6There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers Chart 7Higher Rates Have Not (Yet) Slowed The Economy The U.S. financial sector should also be able to weather further monetary tightening. Corporate debt has risen, but overall U.S. private-sector debt as a percent of GDP is still 18 percentage points lower than in 2008 (Chart 8). Lenders are also more circumspect than they were before the Great Recession. For example, banks have been tightening lending standards on credit and automobile loans, which should reverse the increase in delinquency rates seen in those categories (Chart 9). Chart 8U.S. Private Debt Still Below Pre-Recession Levels Chart 9Lenders Are More Circumspect These Days Resilience to Fed tightening may not extend to the rest of the world, however. Following the script of the late 1990s, it is likely that the combination of higher U.S. rates and a stronger dollar will cause some emerging markets to fall out of bed before U.S. financial conditions have tightened by enough to slow U.S. growth (Chart 10). This week's turbulence in Turkey and Argentina may be a sign of things to come. For now, investors should underweight EM assets relative to their developed market peers. Chart 10Tightening U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com APPENDIX A The Swan Diagram The Swan Diagram depicts four "zones of economic unhappiness," each one representing the different ways in which an economy can deviate from "internal balance" (low and stable unemployment) and "external balance" (an optimal current account position). A rightward movement along the horizontal axis represents an easing of fiscal policy, whereas an upward movement along the vertical axis represents an easing in monetary policy. All things equal, easier monetary policy is assumed to result in a weaker currency. The internal balance schedule is downward sloping because an easing in fiscal policy must be offset by a tightening in monetary policy in order keep the unemployment rate stable. The external balance schedule is upward sloping because easier fiscal policy raises aggregate demand, which results in higher imports, and hence a deterioration in the trade balance. To bring imports back down, the currency must weaken. Any point to right of the internal balance schedule represents overheating; any point to the left represents rising unemployment. Likewise, any point to the right of the external balance schedule represents a larger-than-acceptable current account deficit, whereas any point to the left represents an excessively large current account surplus. Appendix Chart 1Four Zones Of Unhappiness Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The U.S. dollar still has meaningful upside versus the majority of currencies. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: TRY, ZAR, BRL, IDR, MYR and KRW. Fixed-income investors should continue to adopt a defensive allocation with respect EM local bonds. Asset allocators should underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit within a global credit portfolio. Argentine financial markets are rioting. We elaborate on our investment strategy below. Downgrade Indonesian stocks from neutral to underweight within an EM equity portfolio. Feature The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought. Rüdiger Dornbusch Emerging markets (EM) currencies have come under substantial selling pressure. Various indexes of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar have broken below their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-1). EM sovereign spreads are widening, and local bonds yields are moving higher from very low levels. Chart I-1EM Currencies: A Breakdown? Our view is that we are witnessing the beginning of a major down leg in EM currencies and a major up leg in the U.S. dollar. This constitutes a negative environment for all EM risk assets. As the above quote from professor Rüdiger Dornbusch eloquently states, a meltdown in financial markets could take much longer to develop, but once it commences it is likely to play out much faster than investors expect. This does not mean we are certain that a full-blown EM crisis is bound to happen. Neither can we predict the speed of financial market moves. Nevertheless, based on our macro themes, we maintain that this down leg in EM currencies and EM risk assets will likely be large enough to qualify as a bear market rather than a correction. Consistently, we continue to recommend that investors adopt defensive strategies or play EM risk assets on the short side. This bear market in EM could be comparable to the EM selloff episodes of 2013 (Taper Tantrum) or 2015 (China's slowdown). In this report, we first discuss the outlook for the broad U.S. dollar, then examine the factors that typically drive EM currencies, and those that do not. The Dollar: A Major Bottom In Place The U.S. dollar has recently rebounded sharply, and we believe this marks the beginning of a major rally. The following factors will support the greenback in the months ahead: The U.S. dollar does well in periods of a slowdown in global trade (Chart I-2). The average manufacturing PMI index of export-oriented Asia economies such as Korea, Taiwan and Singapore points to a peak in global export volumes (Chart I-3). Further, China's Container Freight index signifies an impending deceleration in Asian export shipments (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Chart I-3A Peak In Global Export Growth Chart I-4A Leading Indicator For Asian Exports ##br##And Asian Currencies Notably, this freight index - the price to ship containers - also correlates with emerging Asia currencies, and suggests that the latter stands to depreciate (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-5U.S. Dollar Liquidity And Exchange Rate The dollar should do particularly well if the epicenter of the global growth slowdown is centred in China - and if U.S. domestic demand remains robust due to fiscal stimulus, as we expect. Within advanced economies, the U.S. is the least vulnerable to a China and EM slowdown. Delta of relative growth will be shifting in favor of the U.S. versus the rest of the world. This will propel the dollar higher. Amid weakness in the world trade, growth will be priced at a premium. This will favor financial markets with stronger growth. The greenback will be the winner in the coming months. The U.S. twin deficits - the current account and budget deficits - would have acted as a drag on the dollar if global growth was robust/recovering. However, amid weakening global growth, the U.S. twin deficits are not a malignant phenomenon for the dollar; they will in fact support it as they instigate and reflect strong U.S. growth. As the Federal Reserve continues to reduce its balance sheet, the banking system's excess reserves will decline. Our U.S. dollar liquidity measure has petered out, which has historically been consistent with a bottom in the dollar; the latter is shown inverted on Chart I-5. As we have argued for some time, and to the contrary of widespread investor consensus, the U.S. dollar is not expensive. According to the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs, the greenback is fairly valued, as is the euro (Chart I-6). The yen is cheap but the Korean won is expensive (Chart I-6, bottom two panels). In our opinion, a real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs is the most pertinent measure of exchange rate valuation. The basis is that it takes into account both wages and productivity. Labor costs are the largest cost component in many companies and unit labor costs are critical to competitiveness. Chart I-7 demonstrates that commodities-related currencies including those of Australia, New Zealand and Norway are on the expensive side, while the Canadian dollar is fairly valued. Chart I-6The U.S. Dollar Is Not Expensive Chart I-7Commodities Currencies Are Not Cheap There are no measures of real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs for many EM currencies. If DM commodities currencies are not cheap, then it is fair to assume that EM commodities currencies are not cheap either. We are not suggesting that exchange rates of commodity producing EM nations are expensive, but we do believe their valuations are probably closer to neutral. When valuations are neutral, they are not a constraint for the underlying asset price. The latter can go either up or down. In short, the dollar is not expensive, and valuations will not deter its appreciation in the coming months. Finally, from the perspective of market technicals, the dollar's exchange rates versus many currencies appear to have encountered resistance at their long-term moving averages, as illustrated in Chart I-8A and Chart I-8B. Usually, when a market finds support (or resistance) at its long-term moving average, it often makes new highs (or lows). Chart I-8ATechnicals Are Positive For Dollar, ##br##Negative For EM Currencies Chart I-8BTechnicals Are Positive For Dollar, ##br##Negative For EM Currencies We are not certain if the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar will make a new high. However, some EM currencies will drop close to or retest their early 2016 lows. Such potential downside is substantial enough to short the most vulnerable EM currencies. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar has meaningful upside versus the majority of currencies. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: TRY, ZAR, BRL, IDR, MYR and KRW. What Really Drives EM Currencies A common narrative is that EM balance of payments and fiscal balances have already improved, making many EMs less vulnerable than they were during the 2013 Taper Tantrum. What's more, the interest rate differential between EM and the U.S. is still positive, heralding upward pressure on EM currencies. We do not subscribe to this analysis. First, current account balances do not always drive EM exchange rates. Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B illustrates that there is no meaningful positive correlation between EM currencies and both the level and changes in their current account balances. The same holds for the correlation between fiscal balances and exchange rates. Chart I-9ACurrent Account Balances ##br##And Currencies: No Correlation Chart I-9BCurrent Account Balances ##br##And Currencies: No Correlation Second, neither nominal nor real interest rate differentials over U.S. rates explain the trend in EM currencies, as shown in Chart I-10. Further, neither the level nor changes in interest rate differentials explain trends in EM exchange rates. On the contrary, it is the trend in EM currencies that drives local interest rates in EM. That is why getting the currencies right is of paramount importance to investors in various EM asset classes. So which factors do drive EM exchange rates? The key variables that define trends in EM currencies are U.S. bond yields, global trade cycles and commodities prices. The changes in U.S. bond yields and TIPS (inflation-adjusted) yields - not their difference with EM yields - have explained EM currency moves in recent years (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Interest Rate Differential Does Not ##br##Explain EM Exchange Rates Moves Chart I-11EM Currencies And U.S. Bond Yields Chart I-4 on page 3 demonstrates that China's Container Freight index leads regional exports and strongly correlates with emerging Asian currencies. Non-Asian EM currencies are mostly leveraged to commodities prices, as these countries (all nations in Latin America, Russia and South Africa) produce commodities. Not surprisingly, the EM exchange rate composed primarily of EM non-Asian currencies correlates well with commodities prices (Chart I-12). Finally, EM currencies are substantially more exposed to China than to DM economies. Chart I-13 shows that when Chinese imports are underperforming DM imports, EM currencies tend to depreciate. Chart I-12EM Currencies And Commodities Prices Chart I-13EM Currencies Are Exposed To China Not DM As such, what has caused EM currencies to riot in recent weeks? In short, it is the combination of the rise in U.S. bond yields and budding signs of slowdown in global trade. Chart I-14EM Currencies' Vol Is Still Low Commodities prices have so far been firm with oil prices skyrocketing. We expect the combination of China's slowdown and a stronger U.S. dollar to eventually suppress commodities prices in the months ahead. That will produce another down leg in EM currencies. Finally, the volatility measure for EM currencies is still very low, albeit rising (Chart I-14). This suggests that investors remain somewhat complacent on EM exchange rates. Bottom Line: Our negative view on EM currencies has been anchored on two pillars: the U.S. dollar rally driven by higher U.S. interest rate expectations and weaker Chinese growth/lower commodities prices. We are now witnessing the first down leg in EM currency bear market propelled by the first pillar. It is not over yet. The second down leg will come when China's growth slows and commodities prices relapse in the coming months. All in all, there is still material downside in EM exchange rates. EM Local Bond And Credit Markets EM local bond yields typically rise when EM currencies drop meaningfully (Chart I-15). Foreign investors hold a large share of EM local currency bonds (Table I-1). Chart I-15EM Local Bond Yields And EM Currencies Table I-1Foreign Ownership Of EM Local Bonds As EM currency depreciation erodes foreign investors' returns on EM local currency bonds, there could be a rush to exit their positions. Chart I-16 portrays that the total return on J.P. Morgan GBI EM local currency bonds in U.S. dollar terms has broken below its 200-day moving average. Fluctuations in total return on local bonds is primary driven by currency moves. If our negative EM currency view is correct, there will be more downside in this EM domestic bonds total return index. EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads often widen when EM currencies depreciate (Chart I-17). As EM currencies lose value, U.S. dollar debt becomes more expensive to service, and credit spreads should widen to reflect higher credit risks. Chart I-16EM Local Bonds Total ##br##Return Index In U.S. Dollars Chart I-17EM Credit Spreads And EM Currencies Finally, the ratios of U.S. dollar debt-to-exports and U.S. dollar debt-to-international reserves for EM ex-China are very elevated (Chart I-18). If these nations' exports stumble in the months ahead, the inflows of foreign currency will diminish, and credit spreads could widen to price this in. Chart I-18EM Ex-China: U.S. Dollar Debt ##br##Burden In Perspective To be sure, this does not mean there will be widespread defaults. Simply, credit spreads are too low and investor sentiment is too upbeat. As EM growth deteriorates, asset prices will have to re-price. Bottom Line: Asset allocators should continue to adopt a defensive allocation with respect EM local bonds. Asset allocators should underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit within a global credit portfolio. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Argentina Is Under Fire 10 May 2018 Argentine financial markets have been rioting, with the currency plunging by 11% versus the U.S. dollar since the beginning of April. What is the underlying cause of turbulence, and what should investors do? Argentina's macro vulnerability stems from the following factors: First, the country has very large twin deficits, and has relied on foreign portfolio flows to finance them (Chart II-1). Second, private credit growth has lately surged as households and companies have borrowed to buy imported consumer goods and capital goods (Chart II-2). This has created demand for U.S. dollars at a time when the greenback has begun to rebound and foreign investors' appetite for EM assets has diminished. Finally, progress on disinflation has been slow. Core inflation is still above 20% as sticky regulated prices have kept inflation high (Chart II-3). Chart II-1Argentina's Achilles Heal: Twin Deficits Chart II-2Argentina: Credit Growth Has To Be Reined In Chart II-3Argentina: Inflation Is Still A Problem Faced with a market riot, the Argentine central bank hiked its policy rate from 27.25% to 40% in the span of 8 days. Furthermore the government has requested a $30 billion IMF credit line. The aggressive rate hikes prove that the Argentine authorities, unlike many of their EM counterparts, have been adhering to orthodox macro policies. This makes Argentina stand out versus others in general, and Turkey in particular. Such orthodox macro policy responses leads us to maintain our long position in Argentine local bonds. The central bank has hiked interest rates well above both the inflation rate and nominal GDP growth (Chart II-4). Real interest rates are now at their highest level in the past 13 years (Chart II-5). We reckon that this policy tightening will likely be sufficient to stabilize macro dynamics, albeit at the cost of a growth downturn. Chart II-4Argentina: Are Interest ##br##Rates High Enough? Chart II-5Argentina: Highest Real Interest ##br##Rates In Over 13 Years! The drastic monetary tightening will crash credit growth and hence depress domestic demand and imports (Chart II-6). This will help narrow the trade deficit. The monetary squeeze with some fiscal tightening, shrinking real wages (deflated by headline consumer inflation) and a minimum wage nominal growth ceiling of 12.5% for 2018, will bring down inflation, albeit with a time lag (Chart II-7). The fixed-income market could look through the near-term spike in inflation due to the currency plunge. Chart II-6Argentina: High Borrowing Costs ##br##Will Crash Domestic Demand Chart II-7Argentina: Real Wage Growth Is Moderate Finally, the authorities have been gradually implementing their structural reform agenda. Crucially, recent tax and pension reforms were major wins for President Mauricio Macri's Cambiemos coalition, and should help ameliorate the country's fiscal balance. This stands in stark contrast to Brazil, which has so far failed to enact social security reforms despite a mushrooming public debt burden. High interest rates and a domestic demand squeeze are negative for corporate profits, including banks' earnings. However, they are positive for local bonds and ultimately for the currency. The diminishing current account deficit - due to contracting imports - and IMF financing will ultimately put a floor under the Argentine exchange rate. In turn, a cyclical growth downturn, moderating inflation, orthodox macro policies and high yields will entice investors into local currency bonds. Investment Recommendations Wait for the currency to depreciate another 5-10% versus the dollar in the next several weeks, and use that as an opportunity to double down on local currency bonds. While the peso could still depreciate by another 10% in the following 12 months, the extremely high coupon and potential for capital gains as yields ultimately decline will more than offset losses on the exchange rate. This makes the risk-reward of local bonds attractive. Maintain long Argentine sovereign credit and short Venezuelan and Brazilian sovereign credit positions. Orthodox macro policies, a continuation of structural reforms and an IMF credit line will likely cap upside in sovereign credit spreads versus Venezuela and Brazil, where public debt dynamics are worse. The difference between Argentine local currency bonds and U.S. dollar bonds is as follows: Local currency bond yields at 18% offer better value than sovereign credit spreads trading at 300 basis points over U.S. Treasurys. This is the reason why we are taking the risk of an unhedged position in domestic bonds, but remain reluctant to bet on the nation's sovereign U.S. dollar bonds in absolute terms. In addition, correlation among EM nations' sovereign spreads is much higher than correlation between their local bonds. We expect more turmoil in EM financial markets, but there is a chance that Argentine local bonds could decouple from the EM aggregates in the coming weeks or months. We are closing our long ARS/short BRL and long Argentine banks/short Brazilian banks trades. We had been expecting a riot in EM financial markets, but had not anticipated that Argentina would be affected more than Brazil. Finally, structurally we remain optimistic on Argentina's equity outperformance versus the frontier equity benchmark. Tactically (say the next 3 months), however, Argentine equities could underperform. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Facing Major Headwinds 10 May 2018 Indonesian stocks appear to be in freefall in absolute terms and relative to the EM benchmark (Chart III-1). Meanwhile, the currency has been selling off and local currency as well as sovereign (U.S. dollar) bonds spreads are widening versus U.S. Treasurys from low levels (Chart III-2). Chart III-1Indonesian Equities: Absolute ##br##And Relative Performance Chart III-2Indonesian Local Bonds ##br##And Sovereign Spreads These developments have been occurring due to vulnerabilities relating to Indonesia's balance of payments (BoP) dynamics. We believe Indonesia's BoP dynamics will deteriorate further and as such there is more downside for both the rupiah and its financial markets from here: Stronger U.S. growth and higher inflation prints will likely lead to higher interest rate expectations in the U.S. and lift the U.S. dollar further. This will likely lead to Indonesia's underperformance. Chart III-3 shows that Indonesia's relative equity performance versus the EM benchmark has been extremely sensitive to moves in U.S. Treasury yields. Hence, the cost of funding has been a critical variable for Indonesia. Indonesia is also a large commodities exporting nation and the latter account for around 30% of its exports. Specifically, coal, palm oil and copper make up about 9%, 8% and 2% of its exports, respectively. Coal exports are facing major headwinds. The Chinese government has moved to restrict coal imports in several Chinese ports in order to protect its domestic coal producers as we argued in our Special Report titled Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms.1 This development will be devastating for Indonesia's coal industry. Chart III-4 shows that the Adaro Energy's stock price - a large Indonesian coal mining company - is falling sharply. This stock price has already fallen by 40% in U.S. dollar terms since its peak on January 30. Chart III-3Indonesia Is Very Sensitive ##br##To U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-4Trouble In Indonesia's Coal Sector Further, palm oil prices have been weak while copper prices might be on edge of breaking down. Meanwhile, there are others negatives related to shipments of these commodities. Palm oil exports are at risk because India has imposed import duties on palm oil, while the European Parliament voted in favor of a ban on the use of palm oil in bio fuel by 2021. Offsetting these, however, China has just agreed to purchase more palm oil from Indonesia. In regard to copper, the ongoing dispute on environmental regulation between Freeport-McMoRan - a U.S. mining company that operates a large copper mine in Indonesia - and the Indonesian government, risks disrupting Freeport's copper production in Indonesia, hurting the country's export revenues. On the whole, export revenues are at risk of plummeting at a time when Indonesian imports are already too strong. This will worsen BoP dynamics further. Chart III-5 shows that a deteriorating trade balance in Indonesia is usually bearish for its equity market. It seems that the current account deficit will be widening when foreign funding is drying up. This requires either a major depreciation in the currency or much higher interest rates. As such, Bank Indonesia (BI) - Indonesia's central bank - might be forced to raise interest rates to cool down domestic demand and attract foreign funding to stabilize the rupiah. Even if the BI does not raise rates, it might opt to defend the rupiah by selling its international reserves. This would still bid up local interbank rates as defending the currency entails drawing down banking system liquidity, i.e., banks' reserves at the central bank. Chart III-6 shows that Indonesian interbank rates are starting to rise in response to falling international reserves. Chart III-5Indonesia: Swings In Trade ##br##Balance And Share Prices Chart III-6Indonesia: Currency Defense By Selling ##br##FX Reserves Leads To Higher Interbank Rates Higher rates will weaken domestic demand and are bearish for share prices. Importantly, foreign ownership of local bonds is still high at 39% and a weaker rupiah could cause selling by foreign investors, pushing yields even higher. Chart III-7Indonesia: Banks Profits Are At Risk Finally, a word on Indonesian banks is warranted. Financials account for 42% of Indonesia's MSCI market cap and 47% of its total earnings. Thus their performance is also very crucial for the outlook of the overall stock market. In our March 1st Weekly Report,2 we argued that Indonesian banks have been lowering their provisions to artificially boost earnings. This is not sustainable as these provisions are insufficient and will have to rise. As they ultimately rise, bank profits and share prices will hurt (Chart III-7). Bottom Line: We recommend investors to downgrade Indonesia's stocks from neutral to underweight within an EM equity portfolio. We also reiterate our short IDR / long USD trade and the short position in local bonds. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms," dated April 26, 2018, the link available on page 23. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM Equity Valuations (Part II)," dated March 1, 2018, the link available on page 23. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights At just under 3-in-10 odds, the probability Brent crude oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end is now more than double what it was at the beginning of the year, following President Trump's announcement he would withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and re-impose all economic sanctions against Iran (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekProbability Brent Exceeds $90/bbl Is Understated By Markets We believe these odds are too low. Indeed, we think the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are higher than the 1-in-8 chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. We also expect sharper down moves going forward, as news flows become noisier. Speculators have loaded the boat on the long side, and they will be exquisitely sensitive to any unexpected softening in fundamentals - e.g., a supply increase or the whiff of lower demand - given their positioning (Chart 2). Chart 2Specs Have Loaded the Boat##BR##Getting Long Brent and WTI Exposure Our research indicates that spec positioning in the underlying futures can, under some circumstances, dominate the evolution of oil options' implied volatility, the markets' key gauge of risk and the essential component of option pricing. As new risk factors arising from Trump's decision emerge, we expect option implied volatility to increase, as the frequency of spec re-positioning increases. Energy: Overweight. We are getting long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectation. We also recommend getting long Aug/19 $75 Brent calls vs. short Aug/19 $80/bbl calls. We already are long Dec/18 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short $70/bbl calls expiring at the end of Oct/18, which are up 74.2% since they were recommended in Feb/18. Rising vol favors long options positions. The new positions will put on at tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. Refined copper imports in China grew 47% y/y in March. For the first four months of 2018 they are up 15% y/y. Imports of copper ores and concentrates were up 9.7% y/y in the January - April period. Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain strategically long gold and tactically long spot silver. A stronger USD continues to weigh on both. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's weekly Crop Progress report indicates farmers in the U.S. are catching up in their spring planting, converging toward averages for this time of year. Nevertheless, the condition of winter wheat remains a concern. Feature The wild swings in crude oil prices following President Trump's decision not to waive nuclear-related sanctions against Iran - down ~ 2% after Trump's announcement Tuesday, then up more than 2.5% the following morning - resolved one of the more important "known unknowns" ahead of schedule - to wit, would the U.S. re-impose nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, or continue to waive them.1 Ahead of Trump's announcement this week, speculators clearly were building long positions in Brent and WTI, as seen in Chart 2. Among other things, stout fundamentals, which we have been highlighting, and a possible tightening of supply on the back of the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions were obvious catalysts for building the bullish positions. We find specs do not Granger-cause oil prices, and typically these traders are reacting to fundamental news.2 This is consistent with other research into this topic.3 In other words, we find specs essentially follow the fundamentals, they don't lead them, and, as a result, the level of oil prices largely is explained by supply, demand and inventories. Based on the Granger-causality tests and our fundamental modeling, we believe oil markets are, to a very large extent, efficient in the sense that prices reflect most publicly available information.4 This is not to say, however, that the role of speculation can be dismissed as trivial to price formation. Spec Positioning Matters For Implied Volatility In Oil Our most recent research, building on earlier work on speculation in oil markets, finds that the concentration of speculators on the long side or the short side of the market actually does play a significant role in how volatility evolves (Chart 3, bottom panel).5 Other factors are important to the evolution of volatility, as well - i.e., U.S. financial conditions, particularly the stress in the system as measured by the St. Louis Fed's Financial Stress Index; EM equity volatility; and y/y percent changes in WTI oil prices themselves (Chart 3). But spec positioning clearly dominates: In periods of rising or elevated volatility, it explains most of the change in WTI option implied volatilities (Chart 4). This can push volatility higher when it occurs. However, on the downside, this does not hold - Working's T Index is not material to the evolution of implied volatility when uncertainty about future oil prices is low or decreasing. Chart 3Key Variables##BR##Explaining Volatility Chart 4Spec Positioning Dominates##BR##Evolution of WTI Implied Volatility Working's T Index and implied volatility are independent of price direction - they are directionless, therefore they cannot be used to forecast prices.6 These variables tend to increase when the quality of information available to the market deteriorates - i.e., when it becomes more difficult to form expectations about future oil prices. This is, we believe, an attractive time for informed speculators to enter the market and use their information to make profits. We find two-way Granger-causality between WTI implied volatility and Working's T, when the annual change in excess speculation is one-standard deviation above or below its mean. This means the more specs are concentrated on one side of the market in the underlying futures - long or short - the more influence their positioning has on volatility, and that the higher volatility is the more specs are drawn to the market. Given that specs' beliefs are different, this means there is a rising number of long or short spec contracts relative not only to specs on the other side of the market, but also to long and short hedgers. Why Speculation Is Important Prices do not suddenly manifest themselves in markets fully aligned with fundamentals. They are made efficient by hedgers off-loading risk based on their marginal costs, and speculators uncovering information that is material to the level at which prices clear markets. The goal of speculation is to buy low and sell high. Hedging and speculation are both done in the presence of noise, or pseudo-information that has no real connection with where markets clear.7 Information is to noise as substance is to a void. Noise can look like information, as Black (1986) notes, and people can trade on it, but they will lose money and eventually go out of business. Information, on the other hand, is costly, as Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) point out. To incentivize someone (a speculator) to gather it and feed it into prices via the market clearing - i.e., buying and selling based on information - they have to be able to make a profit. Speculators supply the liquidity necessary for trading - and, most importantly, hedging - to occur. Successful speculators make profits. Therefore, the information on which they trade is more often germane to the market-clearing process than not. To be successful they have to be willing to buy when prices are low, expecting them to go higher, and to sell when prices are high, expecting them to go lower. As Paul Samuelson wryly observed, "Is there any other kind of price than 'speculative' price? Uncertainty pervades real life and future prices are never knowable with precision. An investor is a speculator who has been successful; a speculator is merely an investor who last lost his money."8 Known Unknowns Will Keep Vol Elevated Chart 5BCA's Oil Price Forecast Unchanged,##BR##Following Trump's Iran Announcement In the wake of Trump's announcement, the fundamental and geopolitical landscape has been re-cast, creating additional "known unknowns", particularly re how the U.S. will implement the renewed sanctions and the timing of these moves. Among the new known unknowns, which can only be resolved with the passage of time, are: The precise timing and extent of the re-imposed sanctions on the part of the U.S., which will evolve over the next 90 to 180 days. Demand-side implications of higher prices, particularly in EM economies where policymakers used the low prices following OPEC's 2014 - 16 market-share war to eliminate fuel subsidies, which prevented high prices from being experienced by their citizens. The supply-side implications of higher prices on U.S. shale production - does production and investment, including pipeline take-away capacity, take another leg higher? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's (KSA) ability to raise output, given the Kingdom said it would be raising output in the event Iranian volumes are lost to export markets. The fate of the Saudi Aramco IPO, and how the re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. on Iran affects the royal family's decision on whether to float 5% of the company publicly. Will production in distressed states in- and outside of OPEC be negatively affected by increasing geopolitical risk?9 Among the "known unknowns," Iran's next moves rank high, as do responses to such moves by the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. and its Gulf allies clearly view Iran as a threat and, with the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran, are confronting it. Iran has a similar view vis-à-vis the U.S. and its Gulf allies. Left to be determined: Does Iran increase its level of direct action against KSA, upping the ante, so to speak, in its ongoing proxy wars with the Kingdom? Is Gulf production threatened? Are U.S. - European relations threatened by Trump's action? Thus far, European leaders have indicated they remain committed to the sanctions deal Trump walked away from. What would it take for OPEC 2.0 to restore actual production cuts we estimate at 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d to the market? What would it take to trigger a release of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), estimated at just under 664-million-barrel, which could be released to the market at a rate of 500k to 1mm b/d? These known unknowns are not causing us to change our price forecast for this year - $74/bbl for Brent and $70/bbl for WTI, based on our fundamental modeling (Chart 5). However, we do think price risk is to the upside in both markets, given the elevated geopolitical tensions in the market. We continue to expect more frequent prices excursions to and through $80/bbl for the balance of the year, particularly for Brent. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 We lay out some of these "known unknowns" in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," published April 19, 2018. In addition to the Iran issues, which have been resolved, Venezuela looms large. Oil production declined by 900k b/d between December 2015 and March 2018, with half of that occurring in the past six months. We are carrying Venezuela's current production at ~ 1.5mm b/d, although other estimates have it lower. With the country moving closer to collapsing as a functioning state, the risk to its oil output and exports is high. 2 Granger-causality refers to an econometric test developed by Clive Granger, the 2003 Nobel laureate in economics. It determines whether past values of one variable can be said to predict, or cause, the present value of another variable. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published April 26, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also the International Energy Agency's "Oil: Medium-Term Market Report 2012;" and "The Role of Speculation in Oil Markets: What Have We Learned So Far?" by Bassam Fattouh, Lutz Kilian and Lavan Mahadeva, published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies. Also, see "Speculation, Fundamentals, and The Price of Crude Oil," by Kenneth B. Medlock III, published by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, August 2013. 4 This is the semi-strong form of market efficiency. For a discussion of how markets impound information in prices, please see Eugene Fama's Noble lecture, "Two Pillars of Asset Pricing," which was reprinted in the June 2014 issue of The American Economic Review (p. 1467). 5 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published April 26, 2018, in which we introduce Holbrook Working's "T Index," a measure of speculative concentration in futures and options markets. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Briefly, Working's T Index shows how much speculative positioning exceeds the net demand for hedging from commercial participants in the market. Excessive speculation - spec positioning in excess of hedging demand by commercial interests - could be read into index values above 1.0. However, the U.S. CFTC notes values of Working's T at or below 1.15 do not provide sufficient liquidity to support hedging, even though "there is an excess of speculation, technically speaking." Formally, Working's T Index looks like this: 6 Please see Irwin, S. H. and D. R. Sanders (2010), "The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets: Preliminary Results", OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 27. 7 Please see Black, Fischer (1986), "Noise," in the Journal of Finance, 41:3; and Grossman, Sanford J., and Stiglitz, Joseph E. (1980), "On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets," in the June issue of the American Economic Review. 8 Please see Samuelson, Paul A. (1973), "Mathematics Of Speculative Price," in the January 1973 SIAM Review, 15:1. 9 Please see "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," published by BCA's Energy Sector Strategy on May 9, 2018, which discusses these production risks in depth. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Special Report

Highlights The grand U.S.-China strategic negotiation is focused on Korea and trade - only Korea is seeing good news; The trade war is expanding to include investment - and Chinese capital account liberalization is the silver bullet; Capital account openness has mixed benefits for EMs, yet the risks are dire. China's policymakers will move only gradually; If Trump demands faster liberalization, a full-blown trade war is more likely; Favor DM equities over EM. Feature The American and Chinese economies have diverged for years (Chart 1), threatening to remove the constraint on broader strategic disagreements. Amidst the uncertainty, a grand U.S.-China negotiation is taking place, focused on two primary dimensions: Korea and trade. Chart 1Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes On the Korea front, the news is mostly positive.1 The leaders of North and South Korea have held their third summit, promising an end to hostilities and a new beginning for economic engagement and possibly denuclearization. They are laying the groundwork for U.S. President Donald Trump to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sometime this month, or in June. From China's point of view, the North Korean developments are mostly positive. A belligerent North Korea provides the U.S. and its allies with a reason to build up their military assets in the region, which can also serve to contain China. A calmer North Korea removes this reason and, over the long run, holds out the potential for the reduction of U.S. troops in South Korea. On net, China has benefited from the opening up of the formerly reclusive Vietnamese and Myanmar economies and stands to do the same if North Korea follows suit. On U.S.-China trade, however, the news is not so good.2 The two countries have just seen another high-level embassy conclude without progress, all but ensuring that relations will get worse before they get better. Investors should prepare for the U.S. to take additional punitive measures and for China to retaliate in kind. The U.S. Treasury Department is on the verge of imposing landmark new restrictions on Chinese investment by May 21 or sooner. Congress, separate from the Trump administration and in a notable sign of bipartisan unity, is considering legislation that would do the same. This is independent from Trump's impending tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of Chinese goods, which could also come as early as May 21. In other words, the U.S.-China economic conflict is rotating from trade to investment. Hence, in this report, we take a look at the "Holy Grail" of American demands on China: capital account liberalization. So far the Trump administration has not pushed its demands this far. That is a good thing, because China is not willing to move quickly on this front. Rapid and complete opening to global capital flows is a "red line" for China, so it is an important indicator of whether the two great powers are heading toward a full-blown trade war. The Uncertainties Of Capital Account Liberalization A country's capital account covers foreign direct investment (FDI), portfolio investment, cross-border banking transactions, and other miscellaneous international capital flows. Since the 1960s, especially since 1989, developed market economies in the West have encouraged the free flow of capital across national borders (Chart 2). As with the free flow of goods, services, and labor, the flow of capital promised integrated markets and more efficient uses of resources. Just as freer trade would lower prices, spur competition, and improve efficiency and innovation, so would the unfettered movement of capital. Trading partners could use savings to invest in each other's areas of productive potential that lacked funds. In this sense, capital flows were nothing but future trade flows: today's cross-border investment would be tomorrow's production of freely tradable goods.3 The laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon economies promoted capital account liberalization for several reasons. First, economic theory and practice supported free trade as a means of increasing wealth, and free trade requires some degree of capital liberalization. Furthermore, liberalization played to the advantage of London and New York City, as international financial hubs, and both the U.S. and the U.K. sought to expand their role as providers of global reserve currencies.4 The European Community also sought freer capital flows due to the fact that the creation of the common market, at minimum, required it for trade financing. In the 1980s, France's bad experience with capital controls led it to adopt a more laissez-faire approach, prompting a convergence across Europe to the Anglo-Saxon model. Capital account liberalization joined free trade, fiscal conservatism, and deregulation as part of the "Washington Consensus" orthodoxy. Major economies were encouraged to liberalize their capital accounts if they wanted to join the OECD, like Japan, or if they sought economic and financial assistance from the IMF (Table 1).5 And yet the empirical evidence of the benefits of capital account liberalization is surprisingly mixed. There is not a clear causal connection between free movement of capital and improved macroeconomic variables like higher rates of growth, investment, or productivity. Relative to other kinds of international liberalization - of labor markets, for example - capital account liberalization is likely to bring small gains to growth rates (Table 2). Chart 2Global Capital Flows Expand Table 1Capital Account Liberalization: A Timeline Table 2Economic Benefits Of Open Borders We can illustrate this point simply by showing that emerging market economies with more open capital accounts, whether defined by the IMF's Capital Account Openness Index or by the ratio of direct and portfolio capital flows to GDP, do not necessarily have higher potential GDP growth or productivity (Chart 3 A&B). A change in openness also does not correlate with a change in growth potential or productivity. Chart 3AEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (1) Chart 3BEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (2) This conclusion can be reinforced by looking at portfolio investment. Portfolio investment is usually one of the last types of investment to be deregulated. Hence a large ratio of portfolio investment to GDP is a proxy for capital liberalization. However, emerging markets that rank high in this regard do not record higher potential growth, productivity, or capital productivity contributions to GDP growth (Chart 4). Chart 4EM: Larger Foreign Stock Inflows Not Correlated With Capital Productivity While the benefits of capital account liberalization are debatable, the risks are dire. It has contributed to, if not caused, a number of financial crises in recent decades. Latin America saw a series of such crises from 1982-89. Mexico's peso crisis of 1994 also owed much of its severity to destabilizing capital flows. Japan opened its capital account in 1979 and over the succeeding decade experienced a rollercoaster of massive capital influx, culminating in the property bubble and financial crash of 1990. Thailand, South Korea, and other Asian countries suffered the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 as a result of premature and poorly sequenced liberalization. All of these countries faced different financial and economic circumstances, and the crises had different causes, but what they shared in common was a relatively recent openness to large inflows and outflows of global capital that triggered or exacerbated currency moves and liquidity shortages.6 This is not to say that there are not benefits to capital account liberalization, or that the benefits never outweigh the costs. The major multilateral global institutions continue to believe that capital account liberalization is optimal policy, if only because the richest, freest, best governed, and most advanced economies have all liberalized. Capital account openness is positively correlated with "rule of law" governance indicators. And back-of-the-envelope exercises such as those shown above suggest that developed market economies do see higher potential growth and capital productivity as a result of capital account liberalization, at least up to a point (Charts 5A & 5B). Chart 5ADM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (1) Chart 5BDM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (2) While a number of countries have experienced financial and economic crises after opening their capital accounts, studies have shown that the causal connection is not always clear (the crisis did not necessarily stem from capital account liberalization).7 The removal of barriers to entry or exit of capital does not have a unidirectional effect but can exacerbate capital flows when times are good or bad. Moreover, some research shows that countries are more likely to suffer financial crises from capital controls than from the removal of them.8 And it is very difficult for countries with open current accounts (free trade) to enforce rigid capital controls anyway, since the distinction between capital flows covering trade transactions and other capital flows is difficult in practice to enforce, resulting in leakage. Because of the link between trade and capital, no country has ever fully and permanently reversed liberalization.9 The academic debate rages on, but from a political point of view, two things are clear. First, the best practices of the most advanced countries suggest that capital account liberalization is optimal policy. Second, policymakers in less open economies are faced with uncertainty and a range of views from economic advisers, orthodox and unorthodox. In the wake of crises in recent decades, this uncertainty has made them less inclined over the years to trust to economic orthodoxy or the "Washington Consensus" when making critical decisions about capital flows. Rather, opening is likely when economic problems call for a change in tack, while capital controls are likely when flows are considered excessive or destabilizing. Bottom Line: Capital account liberalization is the best practice among advanced economies but the risk-reward ratio for policymakers in EMs and partly closed economies is likely skewed to the downside. China's Stalled Capital Account Liberalization Chart 6China's Fear Of Capital Flight In recent years China's policymakers have struggled with the problem of capital account liberalization. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis they announced that they would speed up the process. In 2015 they pledged to complete it by 2020, only to re-impose capital controls when financial turmoil that year prompted large capital outflows (Chart 6). In 2017 President Xi Jinping claimed that the country remains committed to gradual liberalization. We have argued that his administration would ease these controls later rather than sooner, in order to pursue tricky domestic financial reforms first.10 As we have seen (Chart 3 above), China lies on the low end of the IMF's "Capital Account Openness" index, which ranks countries across the world based on six economic indicators and 12 asset classes. By this measure, China is slightly more open than India - a notoriously hermetic economy - and less open than the Philippines. China's closed capital account is also clear from its international investment position. China has fewer international assets and liabilities, as a share of output, than the U.S., Japan, Europe, or South Korea (Charts 7A & 7B). China's international assets are largely the result of its government's $3.1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, as well as outward FDI. As for its liabilities, China has opened up to FDI more so than portfolio investment or other capital flows. This is because FDI is long-term capital that tends to be more closely tied to real production; it is difficult to unwind it in times of crisis. China allows inward and outward FDI to gain knowhow, technology, and natural resources. It is more closed, however, to short-term capital flows, such as dollar-denominated bank debt, currency speculation, and portfolio investment. Typically it is these short-term flows that are most destabilizing, especially when countries are newly open to them. Chart 7AChina Has Fewer Foreign Assets, Mostly Official Forex Reserves Chart 7BChina Has Fewer Foreign Liabilities, Mostly FDI Western economies, however, stand to benefit if China opens up to these shorter-term capital flows. They have a comparative advantage in financial services and thus can rebalance their relationships with China if it gives its households and corporations more freedom to manage their wealth in foreign currencies and assets. It is logical that China's FDI and portfolio investment in western countries would rise if Chinese investors were allowed to go abroad, simply because the latter would wish to diversify their portfolios for the first time. China's neighbors and trade partners would receive a windfall of new investments. Meanwhile they would gain new investment opportunities, as private capital would be able to venture into China, and flee out of it, more easily.11 Western countries are also increasingly agitating for China to loosen its inward capital restrictions. Despite China's openness to FDI relative to other capital flows, it is still one of the world's most restrictive countries in which to invest long-term capital (Chart 8). China's heavy restrictions have granted monopolies to Chinese companies, depriving foreigners of the fruits of China's growth. This is especially important as China moves into consumer- and services-oriented growth. Western countries have a comparative advantage in high-end consumer goods and services relative to low-end goods and manufacturing in general, where they have largely lost out to Chinese competition in recent decades. Chart 8China Is Highly Restrictive Toward Foreign Direct Investment China, too, stands to benefit from freer capital flows, and policymakers believe there is a self-interest in liberalizing. But Beijing has repeatedly demonstrated that it wants to move very gradually because of the skewed risk-reward assessment. China's harrowing experience with capital flight in 2014-16 has vindicated this policy.12 It is not necessarily capital account opening per se that causes destabilizing capital outflows - it is also the macro and financial environment. And China has all the hallmarks of an economy that could suffer a crisis from premature liberalization, including: Large macro imbalances (Chart 9); An immature and shallow financial system (Chart 10); Lack of information transparency; Weak rule of law. Chart 9China Has Macro Imbalances Chart 10China's Financial System Is Shallow Bottom Line: It is guaranteed that China will not pursue capital account liberalization rapidly. It will continue to take small steps, and ultimately "two steps forward and one step back" if necessary to maintain overall stability. Will China Liberalize? By the same logic, why should China liberalize at all? The 2014-16 crisis not only revealed the dangers of too-rapid opening but also the dangers of an inflexible currency and draconian capital controls. When Chinese authorities devalued the yuan in August 2015, they made the capital flight (and global panic) worse. Since then, by imposing strict capital controls, China's leaders have signaled to domestic and foreign investors (1) that they are unwilling to allow global capital flows to discipline their fiscal or monetary policies (a negative sign for China's macro fundamentals), and (2) that they may deny investors the rights of their property or even confiscate it.13 This is why China has made important policy changes since the 2014-16 crisis. First, it has maintained a more flexible "managed float" of the RMB, allowing it to trade more freely along with a basket of currencies that belong to major trading partners and abandoning the dollar peg. Various measures of the exchange rate - offshore deliverable forwards, spot rates, and the exchange rate at interest rate parity - have converged, revealing an exchange rate that is more market-oriented, i.e. less heavily managed by the People's Bank of China (Chart 11).14 This process is being pursued with the long-term interest of rebalancing the economy - making it more flexible and less fixed to an export-led manufacturing model. It is also necessary in order to internationalize the yuan, which is a long and rocky road but, it is hoped, will eventually reduce foreign exchange risk to China's economy (Chart 12). One of the main reasons that governments, including China, have maintained closed capital accounts is to control exchange rates. As currencies float more freely, the economy becomes better able to withstand large or volatile capital flows. At the same time, the yuan will never be a global reserve currency if China never opens the capital account. Chart 11The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely Chart 12The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly Second, while tight capital controls remain in place, Beijing is pursuing long-delayed reforms to the financial sector and fiscal and legal systems to allow for better financial regulation, supervision, and transparency. For instance, the new central bank Governor Yi Gang's reported desire to genuinely liberalize domestic deposit interest rates will prepare China's banks for greater competition with each other, and hence ultimately to greater competition from abroad. This in turn will improve allocation of capital across the economy. Another example is the expansion of the domestic and offshore bond markets - and gradual formalization of the local government debt market - in order to deepen the financial sector.15 These reforms are desirable in themselves but also necessary for eventual capital account liberalization, as countries with deep domestic financial markets have less vulnerability to new surges of foreign inflows or outflows. Naturally, the reform process is taking place on China's timeline. Since Beijing stresses overall stability above all else, it is gradual. But we would expect the Xi administration to continue with piecemeal opening measures through the coming years, so that by 2021, the capital account is materially more open than it is today. As for full liberalization, it is beyond our forecasting horizon. Xi's goal of turning China into a "modern socialist country" by 2035 is not too late of a timeframe to consider, given the potential for serious setbacks. But such delayed progress raises the prospect of a clash with the U.S. A risk to this view is that China backslides yet again on the internal reforms, making it impossible to move to the subsequent stage of opening up to international flows. Vested financial and non-financial corporate interests often oppose capital account liberalization. State-controlled companies, for instance, will gradually have to compete more intensely for capital that comes from better disciplined domestic banks, all while watching small and medium-sized rivals gain market share due to the newfound access to foreign capital, which makes them more competitive.16 Backsliding will, again, antagonize the West. Bottom Line: China is preparing to open its capital account further, as we are in the "two steps forward" phase following Xi Jinping's political recapitalization in 2017. A New Front In The U.S.-China Trade War The U.S. has long argued that China maintains excessive capital controls that violate the conditions of China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001.17 The following statement, from one of the U.S. government's annual reports on China's compliance with the WTO, was written before the Trump administration took office and is typical of such reports and of the overall U.S. position: Although China continues to consider reforms to its investment regime ... many aspects of China's investment regime, including lack of a substantially liberalized market, maintenance of administrative approvals and the potential for a new and overly broad national security review system, continue to cause foreign investors great concern ... China has added a variety of restrictions on investment that appear designed to shield inefficient or monopolistic Chinese enterprises from foreign competition.18 The Trump administration's own reports on China's WTO compliance have amplified such criticisms.19 Remember that it was partly China's lack of WTO compliance that the Trump administration highlighted as justification for the sanctions announced in March under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. In particular, the administration argues that U.S.-China investment relations are not fair or reciprocal, i.e. that the U.S. does not have as great of investment access in China as vice versa (Chart 13). Even in FDI, where China is relatively open and the bilateral sums are fairly reciprocal, the U.S. share is smaller than that of comparable developed economies, such as Japan and Europe (Chart 14). While it is not a foregone conclusion that this is the result of discriminatory policies, the U.S. argues that it suffers from unfair practices. What is clear is that China designates a number of sectors "strategic," excluding them from foreign investment, and places caps on foreign ownership. The two countries tried but failed to conclude a bilateral investment treaty under the Obama administration, which was meant to resolve this problem and stimulate private capital flows. China also has not implemented a nationwide foreign investment "negative list," which it has promised since 2013.20 A negative list would explicitly designate sectors that are off-limits to foreign investment and thus implicitly liberalize investment in all others. Chart 13The U.S. Wants Investment Reciprocity Chart 14The U.S. Wants More Investment Access The U.S. is also demanding greater reciprocity for its banks to lend to Chinese borrowers. China is well-known for heavily restricting foreign bank access, with foreign loans accounting for only 2.75% of total. The U.S. grants much larger market access to Chinese lenders than vice versa (Chart 15). While there are perfectly good reasons for U.S. banks to hold a smaller share of China's total cross-border bank loans than European banks and comparable Asian banks (U.S. banks focus on their large domestic market while European and Japanese banks are bigger international lenders), nevertheless the Americans will see their smaller market share as evidence that American market access can go up (Chart 16). Chart 15The U.S. Wants Banking Reciprocity Chart 16The U.S. Wants More Banking Access Thus the silver bullet for the Trump administration would be to demand accelerated, full capital account liberalization from Beijing. This would address the above problems of investment access while also constituting a larger demand for China to hasten structural reforms that would favor American interests. This is why American officials have urged China to liberalize during high-level bilateral dialogues in the past - while knowing that the reform itself was of such significance that China would only move gradually.21 Chart 17Is The RMB Undervalued? So far the Trump administration has not demanded that China accelerate capital account liberalization, perhaps knowing that it would be a non-starter for China.22 One reason may be the expectation that the RMB could depreciate. True, the yuan is roughly at fair value in real effective terms, after a 7.4% appreciation since Trump's inauguration. However, China's 2014-16 capital flight episode suggests that, under the circumstances of a rapid opening of the capital account, outflow pressure could resume and the currency could fall. This would, at least for a time, drive down CNY/USD, contrary to Trump's oft-repeated desire that the currency appreciate. Trump adheres to a view that the RMB is structurally undervalued, as illustrated here by the IMF's purchasing power parity model, which suggests that it should rise by 45% against the greenback (Chart 17). Given Trump's rhetoric, it may not be far-fetched to suggest that Trump is disinclined to push for capital account liberalization and would rather see China maintain its current "managed" system in order to manage the CNY/USD even further upward. The broader point, however, is that previous U.S. administrations have pushed for faster capital account liberalization, and the Trump administration could eventually follow suit. This would mark a major escalation in the standoff, since China possibly cannot, and certainly will not, deliver such a momentous structural change on a timeline imposed by a foreign power. Bottom Line: Rapid capital account liberalization represents China's "red line" in the trade talks. If Trump pushes his demands this far, then he will be seen as threatening China's stability and will be rebuffed. This is a pathway to a full-blown trade war. Investment Conclusions Capital account liberalization is by no means the only indicator for gauging whether the U.S. and China are heading toward a full-blown trade war. As things stand, Trump will soon impose Section 301 tariffs, China will retaliate, and Trump will retaliate to the retaliation. This is our definition of a trade war. Not only is Trump threatening tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of imports. He is now demanding that China reduce the U.S.'s trade deficit by $200 billion, or 53% of the total, twice as much as earlier. To give an indication of how significant such a change would be for China over the long haul, Table 3 provides a very simple scenario analysis of what would happen to China's trade surplus, current account surplus, and GDP growth rate if the U.S. reduced its bilateral trade deficit by 10%, 33%, or 50%. It shows that if the deficit fell by 33%, Trump's initial goal, then China's current account balance would fall to less than one percent of GDP, and GDP growth would slow down to 6.24% for the year. Table 3Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes U.S. Trade Deficit With China Table 4 takes the worst-case scenario for China, in which the U.S. cuts the deficit by 50%, while oil prices average $90/bbl due to oil price shocks from unplanned production outages in Iran (where Trump is re-imposing sanctions), or Venezuela or others, amid a very tight global oil market.23 China's current account surplus would go negative, while GDP growth would fall to 5.32%! Table 4Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes Deficit, Oil Prices Soar These scenarios are significant because they are not very far-fetched. Instead, they show how easily China could undergo a symbolic transition into a "twin deficit" country - a country with an estimated 13% budget deficit and a negative current account balance. Such a development would not necessarily have immediate concrete ramifications. But it would, if it became a trend, mark a turning point in which China begins exporting rather than importing global wealth. It would cause global investors to scrutinize the country in different ways than before and to question the status and long-term trajectory of China's traditional buffers against financial and economic challenges: the country's large national savings and foreign exchange reserves. These scenarios are merely suggestive and meant to show the gravity of Trump's threats and the seriousness with which Xi will take them. In the current U.S.-China trade conflict, if China allows the CNY/USD to weaken - the logical way of alleviating tariff impacts - then it will be depreciating the currency in Trump's face: conflict will intensify. It is not clear how long the conflict will last or how bad it will get, so investors would be wise to hedge their exposure to stocks along the U.S.-China value chain, favoring small caps and domestic plays in both countries. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends staying long DM equities relative to EM equities. We are short Chinese technology stocks outright, and short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks. By contrast, BCA's China Investment Strategy service continues to recommend that investors stay overweight Chinese stocks excluding the technology sector (versus global ex-tech stocks) over the coming 6-12 months with a short leash. As highlighted in this report, the near-term risks to China from the external sector are clearly to the downside, which supports the decision of the China Investment Strategy team to place Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for Q2.24 This watch remains in effect for the coming two months, a period during which we hope fuller clarity on the U.S.-China trade dispute and the pace of decline in China's industrial sector will emerge. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Barry Eichengreen, "Capital Account Liberalization: What Do Cross-Country Studies Tell Us?" World Bank Economic Review 15:3 (2001), 341-65. Available at documents.worldbank.org. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Is King Dollar Facing Regicide?" dated April 27, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Jeff Chelsky, "Capital Account Liberalization: Does Advanced Economy Experience Provide Lessons for China?" World Bank Economic Premise 74 (2012), available at openknowledge.worldbank.org. 6 Please see Donald J. Mathieson and Liliana Rojas-Suarez, "Liberalization of the Capital Account: Experiences and Issues," International Monetary Fund, March 15, 1993, available at www.imf.org; Ricardo Gottschalk, "Sequencing Trade and Capital Account Liberalization: The Experience of Brazil in the 1990s," United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and United Nations Development Programme Occasional Paper (2004), available at unctad.org; see also Sarah M. Brooks, "Explaining Capital Account Liberalization In Latin America: A Transitional Cost Approach," World Politics 56:3 (2004), 389-430. 7 Please see Peter Blair Henry, "Capital Account Liberalization: Theory, Evidence, and Speculation," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2007-32 (2006); see also Eichengreen in footnote 1 above. 8 Please see Reuven Glick, Xueyan Guo, and Michael Hutchison, "Currency Crises, Capital-Account Liberalization, and Selection Bias," The Review of Economics and Statistics 88:4 (2006), 698-714, available at www.mitpressjournals.org. 9 Please see M. Ayhan Kose and Eswar Prasad, "Capital Accounts: Liberalize Or Not?" International Monetary Fund, Finance and Development, dated July 29, 2017, available at www.imf.org. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 This western interest in Chinese capital account liberalization exists entirely aside from any of the aforementioned capital flight pressures from Chinese investors, which could reignite again. Foreign countries would welcome such inflows to some extent but not to the point that they become destabilizing at home or abroad. 12 The earliest rumored deadline for capital account liberalization was the seventeenth National Party Congress of the Communist Party in 2007. Please see Derek Scissors, "Liberalization In Reverse," The Heritage Foundation, May 4, 2009, available at www.heritage.org. 13 Eichengreen highlighted these points with regard to the literature and observations on capital account liberalization across a range of countries. They are highly relevant to China today. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has The RMB Gone Too Far?" dated February 1, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Embracing Chinese Bonds," dated July 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 16 Raghuram G. Rajan and Luigi Zingales, "The Great Reversals: The Politics of Financial Development in the Twentieth Century," Journal of Financial Economics 69 (2003), 5-50, available at faculty.chicagobooth.edu. 17 China did not commit to fully liberalizing the capital account as part of its WTO accession agreements, but rather the U.S. cites China's use of capital controls as a means of violating other WTO commitments regarding market access, subsidization, etc. At the time China joined the WTO, it was widely believed that its commitments would include gradual liberalization. For instance, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange lifted capital controls imposed during the Asian Financial Crisis in September 2001. Please see Lin Guijun and Ronald M. Schramm, "China's Foreign Exchange Policies Since 1979: A Review of Developments and an Assessment," China Economic Review 14:3 (2003), 246-280, available at www.sciencedirect.com. 18 U.S. Trade Representative, "2015 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," December 2015, available at ustr.gov. 19 U.S. Trade Representative, "2017 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 20 Please see U.S. Department of State, "2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty," available at www.state.gov. See also U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Joint U.S.-China Economic Track Fact Sheet of the Fifth Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue," July 12, 2013, available at www.treasury.gov. 21 See, for instance, U.S. Department of the Treasury, "2015 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue Joint U.S.-China Fact Sheet - Economic Track," June 6, 2015, available at www.treasury.gov. 22 However, Michael Pillsbury, director of the Center for Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and an adviser on Trump's transition team, has argued that the Trump administration's endgame is to implement the well-known World Bank and China State Council Development Research Center report, China 2030, which full-throatedly endorses capital account liberalization. Please see Robert Delaney, "Donald Trump's trade endgame said to be the opening of China's economy," South China Morning Post, April 3, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. For the report, see "China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative Society," 2013, available at www.worldbank.org. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight," dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The greenback normally weakens when the U.S. business cycle matures; 2018 may prove an exception to this rule. Rising U.S. inflation could clash with deteriorating global growth, bringing the monetary divergence narrative back in vogue. This would help the dollar. EM assets are especially at risk from a rising dollar. Tightening EM financial conditions would ensue, creating additional support for the dollar. The yen is caught between bearish and bullish crosscurrents. Continue to favor short EUR/JPY and short AUD/JPY over bets on USD/JPY. Set a stop sell on EUR/GBP at 0.895, with a target at 0.8300 and a stop loss at 0.917. Feature Late in the business cycle, U.S. growth begins to slow relative to the rest of the world, and normally the U.S. dollar weakens in the process. The general trajectory of the dollar this business cycle is likely to end up following this historical pattern, and last year's decline for the greenback was fully in line with past experience. However, 2018 could be an odd year, where the dollar manages to rally thanks to a combination of softening global growth and rising inflationary pressures in the U.S., which forces the Federal Reserve to be less sensitive to the trajectory of global economic conditions than it has been since the recession ended in 2009. Normally, The USD Sags Late Cycle We have already showed that EUR/USD tends to rally once the U.S. business cycle matures enough that the Fed pushes interest rates closer to their neutral level. Essentially, because the eurozone business cycle tends to lag that of the U.S., the European Central Bank also lags the Fed, which also implies that European policy rates remain accommodative longer than those in the U.S. Paradoxically, this means that late in the cycle, European growth can outperform that of the U.S., and markets can price in more upcoming interest rate increases in Europe than in the U.S., lifting the euro in the process (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The Euro Rallies Late In The Business Cycle Not too surprisingly, these dynamics can be recreated for the entire dollar index. As Chart I-2 illustrates, when we move into the later innings of the business cycle, global growth begins to outperform U.S. growth, and in the process, the DXY weakens. There has been an exception to these dynamics - the late 1990s - when the dollar managed to rally despite the lateness of the U.S. business cycle. Back then, the dollar was in a bubble, and the strong sensitivity of the dollar to momentum (Chart I-3) helped foment self-fulfilling dollar strength.1 Moreover, EM growth was generally weak. This begs the question, could 2018 evoke the late 1990s? Chart I-2What Works For The Euro Mirrors What Works For The Dollar Chart I-3Momentum Winners: USD And JPY Crosses Bottom Line: Normally, the U.S. dollar tends to weaken in the later innings of the U.S. business cycle, as non-U.S. growth overtakes U.S. growth. However, in 1999 and in 2000, the dollar managed to rally despite the U.S. business cycle moving toward its last hurrah. Not A Normal Cycle This cycle has been anything but normal. Growth in the entire G-10 has been rather tepid. While it is true that potential growth, or the supply side of the economy, is lower than it once was, courtesy of anemic productivity growth and an ageing population, demand growth has also suffered thanks to a protracted period of deleveraging. But the U.S. has been quicker than most other major economies in dealing with the ills that ailed her, executing a quicker private sector deleveraging than the rest of the G-10 (Chart I-4). As a result, today the U.S. output and unemployment gaps are more closed than is the case in the rest of the G-10. As Chart I-5 illustrates, aggregate U.S. capacity utilization - which incorporates both industrial capacity utilization and labor market conditions - is at its highest level since 2006. With growth staying above trend, the inevitable is finally materializing and inflation is picking up. Chart I-4The U.S. Delevered, It Is Now Reaping The Benefits Chart I-5The Fed Is Now Less Sensitive To Foreign Shocks As Chart I-5 illustrates, aggregate U.S. capacity utilization - which incorporates both industrial capacity utilization and labor market conditions - is at its highest level since 2006. With growth staying above trend, the inevitable is finally materializing and inflation is picking up. Core PCE is now at 1.9%, and thus the 2% target is finally within reach. Just as importantly, 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakevens have rebounded to 2.17% and 2.24% respectively, close to the 2.3% to 2.5% range - consistent with the Fed achieving its inflation target (Chart I-6). This implies that inflation expectations are getting re-anchored at comfortable levels for the Fed. As the threat of deflation and deflationary expectation passes, the Fed is escaping the fate of the Bank of Japan in the late 1990s. It also means that the Fed is now less likely to respond as vigorously to a deflationary shock emanating from outside the U.S. than was the case in 2016, when the U.S. economy still had plentiful slack, and realized and expected inflation was wobblier. The rest of the DM economies have not deleveraged, have more slack, and are more opened to global trade than the U.S. This exposure to the global economic cycle was a blessing in 2017, when global trade and global industrial activity were accelerating. But this is not the case anymore. As Chart I-7 illustrates, the Global Zew Economic Expectations survey is exhibiting negative momentum, which historically has preceded periods of deceleration in the momentum of global PMIs as well. Chart I-6Stage 1 Almost Complete The Fed Finally Enjoys ##br##Compliant Inflationary Conditions Chart I-7Downdraft In##br## Global Growth While this phenomenon is a global one, Asia stands at its epicenter. China's industrial activity is slowing sharply, as both the Li-Keqiang index2 and its leading index, developed by Jonathan LaBerge who runs BCA's China Investment Strategy service, are falling (Chart I-8, top panel). China is not alone: Korean exports and manufacturing production are now contracting on an annual basis; Singapore too is suffering from a clearly visible malaise (Chart I-8, middle and bottom panels). Advanced economies are also catching the Asian cold. Australia and Sweden, two small open economies, have seen key leading economic gauges slow (Chart I-9, top panel). Even Canadian export volumes have rolled over (Chart I-9, middle panel). Finally, the more closed European economy is showing worrying signs, with exports slowing sharply and PMIs rolling over. As we highlighted two weeks ago, even the European locomotive - Germany - is being affected, with domestic manufacturing orders now contracting on an annual basis.3 Chart I-8Asia Is The Source Of The Malaise Chart I-9The Cold Might Be Spreading This dichotomy between U.S. inflation and weakening global activity is resurrecting a theme that was all the rage in 2015 and 2016: monetary divergences. Fed officials sound as hawkish as ever and will likely push up the fed funds rate five times over the next 18 months even if global growth softens a bit. However, the ECB, the Riksbank, the Bank of England, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Bank of Canada and even the BoJ are all backpedaling on their removal of monetary accommodation. They worry that growth is not yet robust enough, or that capacity utilization is not as high as may seem. The theme of monetary divergence will therefore likely be the result of non-U.S. central banks softening their rhetoric, not the Fed tightening hers. The end result is likely to cause a period of strength in the U.S. dollar, one that may have already begun. In fact, that strength is likely to have further to go for the following five reasons: First, as we showed in Chart I-3, the dollar is a momentum currency, and as Chart I-10 illustrates, the dollar's momentum is improving after having formed a positive divergence with prices. Chart I-10USD Momentum Is Picking Up Second, speculators and levered investors currently hold near-record amounts of long bets on various currencies, implying they are massively short the dollar (Chart I-11). This raises the probability of a short squeeze if the dollar's autocorrelation of returns stays in place. Chart I-11 Third, the dollar is prodigiously cheap relative to interest rate differentials (Chart I-12). While divergences from interest rate parity are common in the FX market, they never last forever. Thus, if monetary divergences become once again a dominant narrative among FX market participants, a move toward UIP equilibria will grow more likely. Fourth, rising Libor-OIS spreads have been pointing to a growing shortage of dollars in the offshore market. The decline in excess reserves in the U.S. banking system corroborates the view that liquidity is slowing drying up. Historically, these occurrences point to a strong dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12A Return To Interest-Rate##br## Parity? Chart I-13Falling Excess Bank Reserves Equals Strong Greenback Liquidity Factors Point To A Dollar Rebound Fifth, a strong dollar tightens EM financial conditions (Chart I-14). This could deepen the malaise already visible in Asia that seems to be slowly spreading to the global economy. This last point is essential, as it lies at the crux of the reason why the USD is the epitome of "momentum currencies." Essentially, this reflects the importance of the dollar as a source of funding for emerging market governments and businesses. The amount of EM dollar debt has been rising. In fact, excluding China, dollar-denominated debt today represents 16% of EM GDP, 65% of EM exports and 75% of EM reserves - the highest levels since the turn of the millennium (Chart I-15). Practically, this means that the price of EM currencies versus the USD is a key component to the cost of capital in EM. Chart I-14The Dollar Is The Enemy ##br##Of EM Financial Conditions Chart I-15EM Have A Lot ##br##Of Dollar Debt Additionally, EM local currency debt instruments are exhibiting their highest duration since we have data, making them more vulnerable to higher global interest rates (Chart I-16). Hence, the capital losses resulting from a given move higher in interest rates have grown, sharpening the risk that EM bond markets could experience a violent liquidation event. Moreover according to the IIF, the average sovereign rating of EM debt is at its lowest level since 2009. Normally, the allocation of global institutional investors into EM debt is positively correlated with the quality of EM issuers, but today this allocation has risen to more than 12%, the highest share in over five years. This suggests that DM investors are overly exposed to EM risk, creating another source of potential selling of EM assets. Ultimately, these risk factors can create a powerful feedback loop that support the sensitivity of the dollar to momentum. A strong U.S. dollar hurts EM assets, which prompts overexposed global investors to sell EM currencies further. This can be seen in the negative correlation of the broad trade-weighted dollar and high-yield EM bond prices (Chart I-17, top panel). Additionally, because rising EM bond yields as well as falling EM equities and currencies tighten EM financial conditions, this hurts EM growth. However, the U.S. economy is not as sensitive to EM growth as the rest of the world is.4 As a result, weakness in EM assets also translates into dollar strength against the majors (Chart I-17, middle panel). Additionally, commodity currencies tend to suffer more in this environment than European ones, as shown by the rallies in EUR/AUD concurrent with EM bond price weakness (Chart I-17, bottom panel). These risky dynamics in EM markets therefore are a key reason why we expect the U.S. dollar to be able to rally, bucking the normal weakness associated with the late stages of a U.S. business cycle expansion. Specifically, EUR/USD is set to suffer this year as the euro's technical picture has deteriorated significantly (Chart I-18), and, as we argued two weeks ago, the euro area still has plenty of slack. Chart I-16Heightened EM Duration Risk Chart I-17EM Risks Help The Greenback Chart I-18EUR/USD Technicals Are Flimsy Bottom Line: For the remainder of 2018, the dollar is likely to buck the weakness it normally experiences in the late innings of a .S. business cycle expansion. The U.S. is significantly ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to inflation, giving more room for the Fed to hike rates. This difference is now put in sharper focus than last year as the global economy is weakening, which could prompt a period of dovish rhetoric in the rest of the world that will not be matched by an equivalent backtracking in the U.S. Moreover, while positioning and technical considerations also favor a dollar rebound, the vulnerability of EM assets increases this risk by creating an additional drag on foreign growth. What To Do With The Yen? The yen currently sits at a tricky spot. Historically, the yen tends to depreciate against the USD when we are at the tail end of a U.S. business cycle expansion (Chart I-19). Toward the end of the business cycle, U.S. bond yields experience some upside - upside that is not mimicked by Japanese interest rates. The resultant widening in interest rate differentials favors the dollar. Chart I-19The Yen Doesn't Enjoy Late Cycle Dynamics On the other hand, a period of weakness in EM assets, even if prompted by a dollar rebound, could help the yen. The yen is a crucial funding currency in global carry trades, and a reversal of these carry trades will spur some large yen buying. Moreover, Japan has a net international investment position of US$3.1 trillion. This means that Japanese investors, who are heavily exposed to EM assets, are likely to repatriate some funds back home. So what to do? We have to listen to economic conditions in Japan. So far, despite an unemployment rate at 25-year lows and a job-opening-to-applicant ratio at a 44-year highs, Japan has not been able to generate much inflationary pressures. In fact, while the national CPI data has remained robust, the Tokyo CPI, which provides one additional month of data, has begun to roll over (Chart I-20). The Japanese current account is deteriorating sharply. This mostly reflects the downshift in EM economic activity as 44% of Japanese exports are destined to those markets. Interestingly, in response to the deterioration in export growth, import growth is also decelerating sharply, pointing toward a domestic impact from the foreign weakness (Chart I-21). It is looking increasingly clear that overall economic momentum in Japan is slowing. Both the shipment-to-inventory ratio as well as the Cabinet Office leading diffusion index are exhibiting sharp drops - signs that normally foretell a slowdown in industrial production and therefore a deterioration in capacity utilization, which still stands well below pre-2008 levels (Chart I-22). Chart I-20Weakening Japanese Inflation Chart I-21The Asian Malaise Is Hitting Japan Chart I-22Japanese Outlook Deteriorating In response to these developments, BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda has been sounding more dovish. Moreover, after its latest policy meeting, the BoJ is acknowledging that it will take more time than anticipated for inflation to move toward its 2% target. In this environment, the yen has begun to weaken against the USD, especially as the greenback has been strong across the board. Moreover, USD/JPY was already trading at a discount to interest rate differentials. The downshift in Japanese economic data as well as the shift in tone by the BoJ are catalyzing the closure of this gap. Practically talking, USD/JPY is currently a very dangerous cross to play, as it is caught between various cross currents: a broad-based dollar rebound and a BoJ responding to a slowing economy can help USD/JPY; however, rising EM risks could boost it. On balance, we now expect the bullish USD forces to prevail on the yen, but we are not strongly committed to this view. Instead, have long maintained that the higher probability vehicle to play the yen is to short EUR/JPY.5 We remain committed to this strategy for the yen. Based on interest rate differentials, the price of commodities and global risk aversion, the euro can decline further against the yen, as previous overshoots are followed with significant undershoots (Chart 23, left panels). Moreover, speculators remains too long the euro versus the yen (Chart I-23, right panels). Additionally, EUR/JPY remains expensive on a long-term basis, trading 13% above its PPP-implied fair value. Finally, in contrast to Japan's large positive net international investment position, Europe's stands at -4.5% of GDP. Japanese investors have proportionally more funds held abroad than European investors do, and therefore more scope to repatriate funds in the event of rising EM asset volatility. We have also highlighted that selling AUD/JPY, while a more volatile bet than being short EUR/JPY, is another attractive way to play the risk to EM markets. Not only is AUD/JPY still very overvalued (Chart I-24), but Australia remains highly exposed to EM growth. This remains an attractive bet, despite a good selloff so far this year. Chart I-23AShort EUR/JPY Is A Cleaner Story (I) Chart I-23BShort EUR/JPY Is A Cleaner Story (II) Chart I-24AUD/JPY Is At Risk Bottom Line: The yen tends to depreciate against the USD in the later innings of a U.S. business cycle expansion, a response to rising U.S. bond yields. However, the yen also benefits when EM asset prices fall, a growing risk at the current economic juncture. Moreover, Japanese economic data are deteriorating and the BoJ is shifting toward a more dovish slant. The balance of these forces suggests that the yen rally against the dollar is done for now. However, the yen has further scope to rise against the EUR and the AUD. Two Charts On EUR/GBP Since we are anticipating EUR/USD to fall further toward 1.15, this also begs questions for the pound. Historically, a weak EUR/USD is accompanied by a depreciating EUR/GBP (Chart I-25). Essentially, the pound acts as a low-beta euro against the USD, and therefore when EUR/USD weakens, GBP/USD weakens less, resulting in a falling EUR/GBP. This time around, British economic developments further confirm this assessment. The spread between the British CBI retail sales survey actual and expected component has collapsed, pointing to a depreciating EUR/GBP (Chart I-26). Essentially, the brunt of the negative impact of Brexit on the British economy is currently being felt, which is affecting investor sentiment on the pound relative to the euro. Why could consumption, which represents nearly 70% of the U.K. economy, rebound from current poor readings? Once inflation weakens - a direct consequence of the previous rebound in cable - real incomes of British households will recover from their currently depressed levels, boosting consumption in the process. Chart I-25Where EUR/USD Goes,##br## EUR/GBP Follows Chart I-26Economic Conditions Also Point ##br##To A Weakening EUR/GBP Finally, today only 42% of the British electorate is pleased with having voted for Brexit, the lowest share of the population since that fateful June 2016 night. Moreover, this week, the House of Lords voted that Westminster can adjust the final deal with the EU before turning it into law. This implies that the probability of a soft Brexit, or even no Brexit at all, is increasing. However, the challenge to Theresa May's post-Brexit customs plan by MP Rees-Mogg, is creating yet another short-term hurdle that makes the path toward this outcome rather torturous. Additionally, it also raises the probability of a Corbyn-led government if the current one collapses. As a result, while the economic developments continue to favor being short EUR/GBP, the political environment is still filled with landmines, creating ample volatility in the pound crosses. We will use any rebound to EUR/GBP 0.895 to sell this pair. Bottom Line: If the euro weakens further, GBP/USD is likely to follow and depreciate as well. However, the pound will likely rally against the euro. Historically, GBP/USD behaves as a low-beta version of EUR/USD. Moreover, the maximum post-Brexit economic pain is potentially being felt right now, implying a less cloudy economic outlook for the U.K. Additionally, the probability of a soft Brexit or no Brexit at all is growing even if partial volatility remains. Set a stop sell on EUR/GBP at 0.895, with a target at 0.8300 and a stop loss at 0.917. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 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 2 The Li-Keqiang index is based on railway cargo volume, electricity consumption, and loan growth. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "The ECB's Dilemma", dated April 20, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 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 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YYC!", dated January 12, 2018, and Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now", dated February 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was marginally positive this week. As headline PCE climbed to the targeted 2% level, the underlying core PCE also edged up to 1.9%, highlighting growing inflationary forces. However, countering these positive releases were disappointing PMIs and a slowing ISM, as well as pending home sales, which contracted on a 4.4% annual basis. Regardless, the Fed acknowledged the strength of the U.S. economy. The FOMC referred to the inflation target as "symmetric", signaling that for now, inflation above target will not be used as an excuse to lift rates faster than currently forecasted in the dots. Nevertheless, the much-awaited breakout in the dollar materialized two weeks ago. As global growth wains, key central banks such as the ECB, BoJ, and BoE are likely to retreat to a more dovish tilt, as growth forecasts are revised down. This should give the greenback a substantial boost this year. Report Links: Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? - April 27, 2018 U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? - April 13, 2018 More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was weak: M3 and M1 money supply growth both weakened to 3.7% and 7.6%; Annual GDP growth slowed down to 2.5%, as expected; Both the headline and core measures of inflation disappointed, coming in at 1.2% and 0.7%, respectively. The euro broke down below a crucial upward-slopping trendline, which was defining the euro's rally last year. Additionally, EUR/USD has also broken the 200-day moving average technical barrier, highlighting the impact on the euro of weakening global growth and faltering European data. This decline in activity, along with the presence of hidden-labor market slack have been picked up by President Mario Draghi and other key ECB officials. Therefore, weakness in the euro is likely to continue for now. Report Links: More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Nikkei manufacturing PMI surprised to the upside, coming in at 53.8. However, Tokyo inflation ex-fresh food underperformed expectations, coming in at 0.6%. Moreover, consumer confidence also surprised negatively, coming in at 43.6. Finally, housing starts yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -8.3%. The Bank of Japan decided to keep its key policy rate at -0.1% last Friday. Overall, the BoJ sounded slightly more dovish, acknowledging that it might take more time for inflation to move to their 2% target. Taking this into account, it might be dangerous to short USD/JPY as the BoJ could adjust policy to depreciate the currency. However investors could short EUR/JPY to take advantage of increased risk aversion. Report Links: The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been negative: Gross domestic product yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.2%. Moreover, manufacturing PMI also surprised to the downside, coming in at 53.9. Additionally, both consumer credit and mortgage approvals underperformed expectations, coming in at 0.254 billion pounds, and 62.014 thousand approvals respectively. The pound has depreciated by nearly 5.5% in the past 2 weeks. Poor inflation and economic data as well as generalized dollar strength. Overall, we continue to be bearish on the pound, as the uncertainty surrounding Brexit will continue to scare away international capital. Moreover, the strength of the pound last year should weigh significantly on inflation, limiting the ability of the BoE to raise rates significantly. Report Links: Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was generally good: Building permits picked up, growing at a 14.5% annual rate, and a 2.6% monthly rate, beating expectations; The trade balance outperformed expectations comfortably, coming in at AUD 1.527 million; However, the AIG Performance of Manufacturing Index went down to 58.3 from 63.1; The AUD capitulated as a result of the growing global growth weakness, trading at just above 0.75. The RBA is reluctant to hike rates as Governor Lowe sited both stress in the money market and stretched household-debt levels as key reasons for his reluctance to hike. In other news, growing tension between Australia and its largest investor, China, are emerging in response to rumors that Chinese agents have been lobbying Australian officials in order to influence Australian politics. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: The unemployment rate surprised positively, coming in at 4.4%. Moreover, employment quarter-on-quarter growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.6%. However, the Labour cost index yearly growth surprised to the downside, coming in at 1.9%. Finally, the participation rate also surprised negatively, coming in at 70.8%. NZD/USD has depreciated by nearly 5%. Overall we continue to be negative on the kiwi, given that an environment of risk aversion will hurt high carry currencies like the New Zealand dollar. Moreover, a slowdown in global growth should also start to hurt the kiwi economy, given that this economy is very levered to China and emerging markets. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was mixed: Raw material price index increased by 2.1% in March, more than the expected 0.6%; GDP grew at a 0.4% monthly rate, beating expectations of 0.3%; However, the Markit manufacturing PMI disappointed slightly at 55.5. The CAD only suffered lightly despite the greenback's rally. Governor Poloz argued that the expensive Canadian housing market and the elevated household debt load have made the economy more sensitive to higher interest rates than in the past. He also pointed out that interest rates "will naturally move higher" to the neutral rate level, ultimately giving mixed signals. Despite these mixed comments by Poloz, the CAD managed to rise against most currencies expect the USD. Report Links: More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Real retail sales yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -1.8%. Moreover, the KOF leading indicator also surprised negatively, coming in at 105.3 However, the SVME Purchasing Manager's Index came in at 63.9. EUR/CHF has been flat these last 2 weeks. Overall, we continue to bullish on this cross on a cyclical basis, given that the SNB will keep intervening in currency markets, as the economy is still too weak, and inflationary pressures are still to tepid for Switzerland to sustain a strong franc. However, EUR/CHF could see some downside tactically in an environment of rising risk aversion. Report Links: The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Registered unemployment surprised positively, coming in at 2.4%. Moreover, the Norges Bank credit indicator also outperformed expectations, coming in at 6.3%. USD/NOK has risen by more than 4% these past 2 weeks. This has occurred even though oil has been flat during this same time period. Overall we are positive on USD/NOK, as this cross is more influenced by relative rate differentials between the U.S. and Norway than it is by oil prices. However, the krone could outperform other commodity currencies, as oil should outperform base metals, as the latter is more sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle than the latter. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The krona's collapse seem never ending. While the krona never responds well to an environment where global growth is weakening and where asset prices are becoming more volatile, Riksbank governor Stefan Ingves is not backing away from his dovish bias. In fact, the Swedish central bank is perfectly pleased with the krona's dismal performance. Thus, the Riksbank is creating a stealth devaluation of its currency, one that is falling under President Donald Trump's radar. Swedish core inflation currently stands at 1.5%, but it is set to increase. The Riksbank's resource utilization gauge is trending up and the Swedish housing bubble is supporting domestic consumption. As a result, the Swedish output gap is well above zero, and wage and inflationary pressures are growing. The Riksbank will ultimately be forced to hike rates much faster than it currently forecasts. Thus, we would anticipate than when the global soft patch passes, the SEK could begin to rally with great alacrity. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades