Trade / BOP

Special Report

HighlightsEuropean fiscal stimulus will not drive European equity outperformance – Europe needs China to open the stimulus taps.Our mega-theme of European integration continues – the continent is politically stable.The U.S.-China trade war is an opportunity for Europe. Any Sino-American trade deal is unlikely to resolve tech disputes. Go long European tech stocks versus American.The euro has room to grow as a global reserve currency given the dollar’s mounting structural flaws. Look for an opportunity to go long EUR/USD on a strategic basis within the near future.FeatureTalk of European fiscal stimulus is accelerating as investors look for reasons to take advantage of depressed European valuations (Chart 1) and traditional late-cycle outperformance relative to the U.S. (Chart 2). We are skeptical of the thesis. Chart 1European 'Cheapness' An Obvious Inducement  Chart 2Euro Stocks Outperform Late In The Cycle Europe is a price taker, not a price maker, when it comes to global growth. In order for investors to generate alpha from an overweight Europe position, the rest of the world needs to pick up the slack and reverse the current decline in economic fundamentals. That will require policy action on the behalf of the Fed, the Trump administration, and – most relevant to Europe – Chinese fiscal policy.That said, long-term investors should start thinking about increasing exposure to Europe. Not only is the continent well priced relative to the rest of the world, but it may have two more things going for it. First, political risks remain low. Second, Europe stands to gain in any prolonged China-U.S. confrontation. The flipside risk is that it stands to lose enormously in any temporary resolution as well.Europe Is A Derivative – Not A Source – Of Global Growth…Despite accounting for 16% of global GDP, the Euro Area generates an ever-shrinking proportion of the annual incremental change in global GDP (Chart 3). This is not surprising, given that the world has undergone significant transformation due to China’s industrialization and the growth of EM economies. Chart 3Europe’s Contribution To Global Growth Declining China’s imports today drive Euro Area manufacturing PMI broadly and Chinese retail sales drive German manufacturing orders specifically (Chart 4). As such, it is critically important to watch Chinese total social financing (TSF) impulse, which closely leads Europe’s exports to China by six months (Chart 5). Chart 4Europe And Germany Rely On China  Chart 5China's Credit Cycle Drives EU Exports  The problem is that the Chinese credit impulse has only tepidly recovered and implies more downside to European exports ahead. In addition, hopes of a rebound in Chinese retail sales have been dashed (Chart 6). The jump in auto sales in June was the result of heavy discounts offered by manufacturers and dealers to clear inventory before new emission standards came into effect on July 1. Due to the frontloading, car sales are now declining in what is traditionally an off-season for car purchases in China. While the worst may be over, weakness could linger for months. Chart 6China's Retail Sales Flashing Red The bottom line is that without an upturn in global growth, Europe will remain in the doldrums. The good news is that BCA’s Chief Strategist Peter Berezin expects precisely such a development in the second half of 2019.1 The bad news is that Chinese credit stimulus appears to be weighed down by a combination of impaired transmission mechanisms and policymaker unwillingness to launch an old-school credit orgy (Chart 7). This is creating a highly unusual – for this cycle – development where China is not playing its usual counter-cyclical role amidst the global manufacturing cycle (Chart 8). Chart 7China's Credit Stimulus Restrained Thus Far  Chart 8Beijing Goes On Strike As Global Spender Without more Chinese stimulus, European fiscal spending won’t be that meaningful.As such, it is difficult to get excited about European growth. As we discussed in last week’s missive, Europe is moving gingerly towards more fiscal spending. However, it has already done so this year, with fiscal thrust at 0.46% of GDP, the highest figure since 2009 (Chart 9). Did anyone notice? Not really. Chart 9Headwinds Overpower EU's Strong Fiscal Thrust Moreover Euro Area countries have to submit their 2020 budgets in early Q4 to the European Commission. It is unlikely that these proposals will be meaningful, given that there is not yet enough panic to spur massive stimulus.Bottom Line: Yes, Europe will provide more fiscal spending in 2020. But it will remain at the mercy of global growth given its high-beta nature.…But At Least It Is Not Falling Apart!   That said, not all is disappointing on the Old Continent. For one, the aforementioned fiscal thrust at least prevented a deeper slowdown this year – and the drop-off in thrust next year will be less dramatic as budgets turn more accommodative.Meanwhile political risk is falling. Anti-establishment parties are either cleaning up their act, putting on a tie, and becoming part of the establishment, or they are losing power. Our long-held thesis that European integration would persist into the next decade remains well-supplied with empirical evidence.2On the Euroskepticism front, much of the hype today surrounds the collapse of the Five Star Movement (M5S) coalition with the League in Italy. The formerly Euroskeptic M5S has shed its critique of European integration and has decided to partner with the center-left and pro-establishment Democratic Party (PD).This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Several key developments throughout 2019 have signaled to investors that the Euroskeptic moment has passed. For a plethora of data and polling to support this view, please refer to our May report on the European Parliament (EP) election. Here we merely survey the latest developments:European Parliament Election: As expected in our EP election forecast, the May contest was a non-event. Support for the euro and the EU is trending higher (Chart 10 and 11), and 73% of Euroskeptic seats are held by Eastern European or U.K. MEPs (Chart 12), both irrelevant for EU policy.3  Chart 10Even Italy Swings In Favor Of Euro  Chart 11Public Opinion Supports The Union  Chart 12Euroskepticism Overstated Random Elections: We rarely cover politics in Denmark or Finland, but the two Nordic countries have been at the forefront of the anti-establishment, right-wing, evolution in Europe. As such, the elections in Denmark (in June) and Finland (in April) were relevant. The Danish People’s Party (DPP) – one of the original “People’s Parties,” founded in 1995 – was massacred, losing 21 seats in the 179-seat legislature.In Finland, the moderately Euroskeptic Finns similarly saw a disappointing – if not as disastrous – performance.Finally, Austrian election on September 29 will likely see the other Europe’s prominent right-wing, Euroskeptic, party – the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) – decline below 20% for the first time since 2008. Chart 13Macron Recovering In Polls France: Our high conviction view in February that the Yellow Vest protest would ultimately dissipate proved correct. President Emmanuel Macron has also seen a recovery in polling. Although tepid, at least he appears to be diverging from the trajectory of his disastrously unpopular predecessor François Hollande (Chart 13).The good news for Macron is that he continues to lead Marine Le Pen by double digits in the theoretical 2022 second round. While this represents a considerable improvement for Le Pen from her 2017 performance, the fact is that she has had to adjust her policies and rebrand the National Front in order to close the gap with Macron. The party is now called the National Rally and has publicly revised its stance towards both the EU and the euro.4The events in France, Denmark, Finland, and Austria have largely gone unnoticed amidst the China-U.S. trade war, attacks against Federal Reserve independence, and general breakdown in global institutions and paradigms. But they reveal that Euroskepticism in Europe is evolving from a definitive one – in or out – to a much more nuanced position.For students of history, this is not a surprise. European integration has always been a push-pull process. Charles de Gaulle famously caused a total breakdown in integration during the 1965 “Empty Chair Crisis” when France recalled its representative in Brussels and refused to take its seat on the Council.De Gaulle was a Euroskeptic in so far as he believed that European integration was a national, not a supra-national process.5 It could proceed apace, but only if controlled by national capitals. As such, he warred with the Commission all the time. However, de Gaulle did not want to eliminate European integration as he understood its geopolitical and economic imperative. He simply wanted to shape the process to fit French interests.Absolutist Euroskepticism – the idea that all European institutions ought to be replaced by national ones – is an alien idea to the post-World War Two continent, one imported from the nineteenth century. The irony of Brexit, therefore, is that the most vociferous supporters of an absolute end to the EU integrationist project are now abandoning their fellow absolutists on the continent.Geopolitical and structural factors are also pushing European Euroskeptics to evolve from absolutists to modern-era Gaullists. We have identified most of these factors before, but they are worth repeating:Europe has a geopolitical imperative to integrate. In a multipolar world dominated by global powers like the U.S. and China – and with Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and Turkey playing an increasingly independent role – European states are not large enough on their own to defend their economic and geopolitical interests. Chart 14Geopolitical Forces Behind Integration The purpose of integration is to aggregate the geopolitical power of Europe’s individual states amidst rising global multipolarity. Chart 14 is a stylized visualization of what European integration is attempting. It illustrates that the average BCA Geopolitical Power Index (GPI) score of an EMU-5 country is well below that of a BRIC state.6 By aggregating their geopolitical power, European states retain some semblance of relevance in the world.Obviously this is merely a thought experiment as European integration is not aggregation and never will be. Not only is aggregation politically unfeasible, but there is also a lot of double counting in simply adding GPI scores of European states. Nonetheless, the point is that European countries are asymptotically moving from the average to the aggregate score. Chart 15No Basis For Fascism In Great Recession No, the Nazis are not coming. Europe has managed to recover from a generational financial crisis. Pessimists point to the depth of the crisis to explain why Europe is unsustainable, with angst matching the severity of the downturn. However, analogizing to the 1930s is folly. First, Europe’s shared memories of the ravages of populism act as antibodies preventing precisely the same infection from breaking out on the continent.7 Second, the European financial crisis was simply nowhere close to the depth of the Great Depression that rocked Germany as it descended into National Socialism (Chart 15). As for the argument that the European Central Bank fed populism through unorthodox policy easing, the tide of populism would have been much more formidable if Europe had been allowed to sink into deeper recession and deflation.Europeans are just not that desperate. Europe scores much better than the U.S. (or the U.K.) when it comes to the balance between the median income and middle-income share of total population. Chart 16 shows that most Euro Area economies have around 70% of their population in the middle-income bracket. Those that fall short nonetheless hug the line of best fit closely (Italy, Spain, Greece, and the Baltic States). The U.S., on the other hand, has one of the highest median income levels, but with barely 50% of the population considered in the middle-income. Meaning that a lot of the people below the median line are far below it. This is a recipe for actual populist political outcomes (President Trump), as opposed to artificial ones (Italy). Chart 16U.S. At Greater Risk Of Populism Than EU European populism is artificial, U.S. populism is actual.What of the risks in Europe? For example, investors are concerned about mounting Target2 imbalances. Here we agree with our colleague Dhaval Joshi, who has pointed out that growing imbalances in Europe’s monetary system will only further constrain centrifugal forces among the nations.Target2 has seen a steady outflow of Italian cash to German banks as the ECB’s QE saw respective central banks purchase domestic bonds (Chart 17). This means that the Bank of Italy holds assets – BTPs – denominated in Italian euros, while the Bundesbank has a new liability to German banks denominated in German euros. EMU dissolution would be too painful due to this mismatch. Target2 is therefore not a threat to the EMU, but rather a Gordian Knot that can only be unraveled with immense pain and violence.That said, there may be an upcoming headline risk in Europe: the end of Chancellor Merkel’s reign. In our view, Merkel’s role in stabilizing Europe is greatly overstated. Her dithering and lack of conviction caused several crises to descend into chaos amidst the sovereign debt imbroglio. As such, an infusion of new blood will be positive for Europe. The populist threat is also overstated, with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) performing relatively tepidly in the polls. In fact, the liberal, Europhile, Greens are starting to gain votes (Chart 18). As such, an early election in Germany would create volatility and uncertainty but would not undermine our secular thesis on Europe. Chart 17Gordian Knot Supports Integration  Chart 18Germany Not Falling To Populism Bottom Line: There is an ever-strengthening case for the sustainability of the Euro Area and European integration well into the next decade.From Geopolitical Gambit To A Geopolitical Safe-Haven?At this point, we have built a strong case for why Europe will remain a high-beta play on global growth that is unlikely to collapse. As such, investors should plow into Europe when the rest of the world is doing well with confidence that the continent will not descend into chaos.The U.S.- China trade war offers an intriguing opportunity for Europe.This is largely underwhelming as an investment thesis. Could there be something more exciting to the story given a slew of well-known headwinds to European growth from demographics, low productivity, and regulatory malaise?The trade war between the U.S. and China does offer an intriguing opportunity for Europe.There appears to be an interesting development where European equities outperform those of the U.S. during periods of trade war turbulence (Chart 19). The outperformance is not major, but it is highly counterintuitive. Chart 19Europe Outperforms Amid Trade War Shocks As is understood, Europe is a high-beta play on global growth. Presumably, investors should abandon high-growth derivative plays when trade war accelerates. It is one of the reasons that EM equities and EM FX suffer whenever trade war accelerates.So why is Europe different? Because European exporters generally compete with their American counterparts (and Japanese and South Korean) for Chinese market share. And if China retaliates against U.S. companies, European companies stand to benefit, potentially massively.Take Boeing and Airbus. Boeing expects China to demand 7,700 new airplanes over the next two decades, an order valued at $1.2 trillion. It would be disastrous to the U.S. airline industry if the entirety of that order went to Airbus and its subsidiaries.8 According to the latest news reports, China has slowed down its airplane procurement to a crawl as it awaits the outcome of the dispute with the U.S.9 It is predictably using the procurement decision as leverage in the negotiations. Chart 20Europe To Lose If China Strikes U.S. Deal Yet this “substitution effect” thesis is a double-edged sword for Europe. A resolution of the trade war between the U.S. and China would likely include a massive purchase of U.S. agricultural, commodity, and manufacturing goods: the so-called “Beef and Boeings” deal. China bears often point out that such a massive purchase will negatively impact China’s current account, which is barely in surplus thanks to China’s trade surplus with the U.S. (Chart 20). This is false. Chinese policymakers are not suicidal. The last thing China needs is a balance of payments crisis due to a trade deal with the U.S.China would simply rob Peter to pay Paul, pulling its orders of soy from Brazil and Airbus from Europe in order to make a deal with the U.S. As such, it is highly likely that European capital goods exporters would suffer in any trade war resolution between China and the U.S.That said, a substantive trade deal that resolves all U.S.-China tensions is extremely unlikely. The U.S. and China are not just commercial rivals, they are also geopolitical rivals. As such, the tech conflict between the U.S. and China will continue well beyond any resolution of the trade war. This could create an opportunity for Europe’s traditionally beleaguered tech stocks to finally outperform their American counterparts (Chart 21). Chart 21Go Long EU Tech Versus U.S. Tech Bottom Line: A deterioration of the U.S.-China trade relationship would be a boon for European exporters. Short of a total breakdown of U.S.-China trade, however, European tech stocks may finally begin outperforming their U.S. counterparts thanks to the open distrust between U.S. and China.In addition, U.S. technology firms are likely going to face a slew of regulatory challenges over the next decade. While not necessarily negative, these challenges will nonetheless create new headwinds for the sector.10 We are therefore initiating a structural theme of being long European tech relative to U.S.Investment ImplicationsAre there any broader themes to be extracted from the combined geopolitical forecasts presented in this report? Europe will not collapse, and it may benefit from the souring of U.S.-China geopolitical and economic relations.Long euro is an obvious theme. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi has recently pointed out, the chasm between monetary policies of the Fed and the ECB has become a major geopolitical risk. This is because it has depressed the euro versus the dollar by at least 10 percent – based on the ECB’s own competitiveness indicators. The exchange rate distortion stemming from polarized monetary policies is the culprit for the euro area’s huge trade surplus with the United States (Chart 22).In the short term, EUR/USD may have reached its practical (and geopolitically acceptable) lows. Yes, the ECB is readying another round of monetary stimulus on September 12, but the fiscal policy counterpart is likely to be tepid and thus fail to (yet again) take advantage of historically depressed borrowing costs on the continent. The September 12 ECB meeting may therefore be a “sell the rumor, buy the news” event for EUR/USD. Chart 22Monetary Policy Accounts For Bilateral Surplus  Chart 23U.S. Rivals Buying Gold, Ditching Dollar On the more cyclical and secular horizon, we see an opportunity for the euro to reestablish some of its lost reserve currency status due to the geopolitical conflict between China and the U.S. Washington’s willingness to use trade and financial sanctions for geopolitical benefit has given pause to central bank authorities around the world in using dollars as a reserve currency. Purchases of gold for FX reserve have surged, particularly among America’s geopolitical rivals (Chart 23), as our colleague Chester Ntonifor has recently pointed out.As we argued in a report entitled “Is King Dollar Facing Regicide?” the euro has some catch-up potential. In 1990, the combined currencies of the countries that today comprise the Euro Area accounted for 35% of total composition of global currency reserves. Today, the figure is merely 20% (Chart 24). Chart 24Euro Has Plenty Of Room To Grow As Reserve Currency Could Europe supply the world with enough euros to replace USD as a reserve currency? This is highly unlikely. However, at the margin, an expansion of European liquidity is possible, particularly if Germany finally learns to love fiscal expansion and if European policymakers capitulate on the issuance of Eurobonds. However, such a lack of euro liquidity is not negative for the euro. The world could soon experience a situation where the demand for non-USD liquid assets dramatically increases due to the politicization of America’s reserve currency status while the supply of USD-alternatives remains relatively low. This should be positive for the only true alternative to the USD as a global reserve currency: the euro.As such, we will be looking to initiate a strategic long EUR/USD position, potentially sometime this fall as the ECB and FOMC meetings take place and the risk of a no-deal Brexit is averted. We do not expect the massive monetary policy divergence between Europe and the U.S. to continue, while the Euro Area’s political stability, and the broader geopolitical demand for a non-USD reserve currency, create more long-term tailwinds for the euro.Marko PapicConsulting Editor, BCA Research              Chief Strategist, Clocktower GroupHousekeepingOur high-conviction view that no-deal Brexit odds were overrated has been confirmed by the recent events in the U.K. parliament. We are going long GBP-USD with a tight stop-loss of 3%. Since we expect further volatility – with an election likely and the Conservative Party performing well in the polls and monopolizing the Brexit vote in a first-past-the-post system – we will sell at the $1.30 mark.Footnotes1 Please see Global Investment Strategy, “Trade War: The Storm Before The Calm,” dated August 9, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy, “Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration,” dated November 3, 2011, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.3 The reason we extracted the U.K. Euroskeptics from the calculation is because with Brexit nigh, the U.K. members of European Parliament are no longer policy relevant. As for Central European Euroskeptics, we extracted them because they are irrelevant for EU policy as they hail from member states that – in truth – nobody seriously thinks would ever leave the EU.4 Ahead of the May EP election, National Rally electoral platform focused on “local, ecological, and socially responsible production." The party advocates combining environmentalism with protectionism, creating an ecological custom barrier at the EU’s doorstep which would defend the European market from products manufactured or produced with less environmentally friendly processes. On the matters of EU membership, the party now advocates a more traditionally Euroskeptic line, a purely Gaullist form of Euroskepticism that seeks to curb – or, at best, abolish – the EU Commission and replace its legislative prerogative by giving the Council of the EU all legislative powers. 5  Please see Julian Jackson, De Gaulle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2018).6 We chose to use EMU-5 in the chart because it focuses on the top-five economies in the Euro Area: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands. If we focused on the overall average EMU score, even one we weighed by population, the results would be even more stark in terms of loss of importance.7 And, worryingly, the U.S. lacks precisely the same shared memory of how wild pendulum swings of polarization can descend into extreme nationalism or left-wing extremism.8 Airbus would not have the capacity to fulfill that entire order today. However, demand creates its own supply, giving Airbus a reason to surge capex and reap the profits.9 Please see Reuters, “Exclusive: Boeing CEO eyes major aircraft order under any U.S.-China trade deal.”10 Please see Geopolitical Strategy, “Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?,” dated August 1, 2018 and “Surviving A Breakup: The Investor’s Guide To Monopoly-Busting In America,” dated March 20, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The lingering global manufacturing recession and the substantial drop in U.S. bond yields have been behind the decoupling between both EM stocks and the S&P 500, and cyclical and defensive equities. Neither the most recent economic data, nor the relative performance of global cyclicals, China-related plays and high-beta markets herald a broad-based and lasting risk-on phase in global markets. On the contrary, economic and market signposts continue to indicate either further bifurcation in global markets or a risk-off period. We review some of our long-standing themes and associated recommendations. Feature Global financial markets have become bifurcated. On one hand, numerous segments of global financial markets leveraged to global growth, including EM stocks, have already sold off (Chart I-1). On the other hand, share prices of growth companies, defensive stocks and global credit markets have remained resilient. Chart I-2 shows that a similar divergence has taken place within EM asset classes: EM share prices have plummeted while EM corporate credit excess returns have not dropped much. Chart I-1Bifurcated Equity Markets Chart I-2Bifurcated Markets In EM   How to explain this market bifurcation? Financial markets sensitive to global trade and manufacturing cycles have been mirroring worsening conditions in global trade and manufacturing. Some of the affected segments include: Global cyclical equity sectors. Emerging Asia manufacturing-related currencies (KRW, TWD and SGD) versus the U.S. dollar (Chart I-3). EM and DM commodity currencies (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Total Return (Including Carry): KRW, TWD And SGD Vs. USD Chart I-4EM And DM Commodity Currencies   Industrial and energy commodities prices. U.S. high-beta stocks as well as U.S. small caps (Chart I-5). Chart I-5U.S. High-Beta Stocks DM bond yields.  Crucially, the current global trade and manufacturing downturns have taken place despite robust U.S. consumer spending. In fact, our theme for the past several years has been that a global business cycle downturn would occur despite ongoing strength in American household spending. The rationale has been that China and the rest of EM combined are large enough on their own to bring down global trade and manufacturing, irrespective of strength in U.S. consumer spending. At the current juncture, one wonders whether such a market bifurcation is justified. It is not irrational. The basis for decoupling between cyclical and defensive equities has been U.S. bond yields. The substantial downshift in U.S. interest rate expectations has led to a re-rating of non-cyclicals and growth company stocks. Corporate bonds have also done well, given the background of a falling risk-free rate. Will the current market bifurcation continue? Or will these segments in global financial markets recouple and in which direction? What To Watch China rather than the U.S. has been the epicenter of this slowdown, as we have argued repeatedly in the past. Hence, a major rally in global cyclical equities and EM risk assets all hinge on a recovery in the Chinese business cycle. The basis for decoupling between cyclical and defensive equities has been U.S. bond yields. The substantial downshift in U.S. interest rate expectations has led to a re-rating of non-cyclicals and growth company stocks. Even though Caixin’s PMI for China was slightly up in August, many other economic indicators remain downbeat: The latest hard economic data out of Asia suggest that global trade/manufacturing continues to contract. Korea’s total exports in August contracted by 12.5% from a year ago, and its shipments to China plunged by 20% (Chart I-6). The import sub-component of China’s manufacturing PMI is not showing signs of amelioration (Chart I-7). The mainland’s import recovery is very critical to a revival in global trade and manufacturing. Chart I-6Korean Exports: No Recovery Chart I-7Chinese Imports To Remain Weak Chart I-8German Manufacturing Confidence German manufacturing IFO business expectations and current conditions both suggest that it is still early to bet on a global trade recovery (Chart I-8). Newly released August data points reveal that U.S., Taiwanese, and Swedish manufacturing new export orders continue to tumble. To gauge whether bifurcated markets will recouple and whether it will occur to the downside or the upside, investors should watch the relative performance of China-exposed markets, global cyclicals and high-beta plays – the ones that have already sold off substantially. The notion is as follows: These markets’ relative performance will likely bottom before their absolute performance recovers. If so, their relative performance will likely foretell the outlook for their absolute performance. Concerning share prices of growth companies, defensive equity sectors and credit markets, these segments are at risk because of expensive valuations and crowded investor positioning. In other words, they could sell off even if a global recession is avoided. Concerning share prices of growth companies, defensive equity sectors and credit markets, these segments are at risk because of expensive valuations and crowded investor positioning. To assess the outlook for global cyclicals and China-related plays, we are monitoring the following financial market indicators: The Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio is the average of high-beta commodity currencies such as the CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP and ZAR total return (including carry) indices relative to the average of JPY and CHF total returns (including carry). This ratio is dollar-agnostic. This ratio is making a new cyclical low (Chart I-9). Hence, it presently warrants a negative view on global growth, China’s industrial sector and commodities. Global cyclical equity sectors seem to be on the edge of breaking down versus defensives (Chart I-10). This ratio does not signal ameliorating global growth conditions. Chart I-9The Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency Ratio Chart I-10Global Cyclicals Versus Defensives Chart I-11U.S. High-Beta Stocks Versus S&P 500 Finally, U.S. high-beta stocks continue to underperform the S&P 500 (Chart I-11). This is consistent with overall U.S. growth deceleration. Bottom Line: Neither the most recent economic data, nor the relative performance of global cyclicals, China-related plays and high-beta markets herald a broad-based and lasting risk-on phase in global markets. On the contrary, economic and market signposts continue to foreshadow either further bifurcation in global markets or a risk-off period. Continue trading EM stocks and currencies on the short side, and underweighting EM risk assets versus DM. Our Investment Themes And Positions Some of our open positions often run for years because they reflect our long-standing themes. Our core theme has for some time been that a global trade/manufacturing recession will be generated by a growth relapse in China. To capitalize on this theme, we have been recommending a short EM stocks / long 30-year U.S. Treasurys strategy since April 2017. This recommendation has produced a 25% gain since its initiation (Chart I-12). Continue betting on lower local interest rates in emerging economies where the central bank can cut rates despite currency depreciation. To implement this theme, we have been recommending receiving swap rates in Korea and Chile for the past several years. Our reluctance to recommend an outright buy on local bonds stems from our bearish view on both currencies – the Korean won and Chilean peso. In fact, we have been shorting both the KRW and the CLP against the U.S. dollar. Chart I-13 shows that swap rates in Korea and Chile have dropped substantially since our recommendations to receive rates in these countries. More rate cuts are forthcoming in these economies, and we are maintaining these positions. Chart I-12EM Stocks Have Massively Underperformed U.S. Bonds Chart I-13Continue Receiving Rates In Korea And Chile   We have been bearish on EM banks in general and Chinese banks in particular. We have expressed these themes in a number of ways: Short EM and Chinese / long U.S. bank stocks. Short EM banks / long EM consumer staples (Chart I-14). Within Chinese banks, we have been short Chinese medium and small banks / long large ones. All these strategies remain valid. In credit markets, we have been favoring U.S. corporate credit versus EM sovereign and corporate credit. Ability to service debt is better among U.S. debtors than EM/Chinese borrowers. We have been playing this theme in the following ways: Underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit / overweight U.S. investment-grade corporates (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Short EM Banks / Long EM Consumer Staples Chart I-15Underweight EM Credit / Overweight U.S. Investment-Grade Corporates   Underweight Asian high-yield corporate credit / overweight emerging Asian investment-grade corporates. As a bet on a deteriorating political and business climate in Hong Kong, in our Special Report on Hong Kong SAR from June 27, we reiterated the following positions: Short Hong Kong property stocks / long Singapore equities. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Mexico: Crying Out For Policy Easing The Mexican economy is heading into a full-blown recession. Most segments of the economy are in contraction, and leading indicators point to further downside. Both manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs are well below 50 (Chart II-1). Monetary policy remains too restrictive: Nominal and real interest rates are both very high and plunging narrow money (M1) growth is signaling  further downside in economic activity (Chart II-2). Chart II-1The Economy Is Deteriorating Chart II-2Narrow Money Points To Negative Growth   An inverted yield curve signifies that the central bank is behind the curve and foreshadows growth contraction (Chart II-3). Fiscal policy has tightened as the government has remained committed to achieving a primary fiscal surplus of 1% of GDP in 2019 (Chart II-4, top panel). Consequently, nominal government expenditures have been curbed (Chart II-4, bottom panel). The government’s fiscal stimulus has not been large and has been implemented too late. Chart II-3A Message From The Inverted Yield Curve Chart II-4Fiscal Policy Has Tightened A Lot   Finally, business confidence is extremely low due to uncertainty over President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) policies towards the private sector. The president is attempting to revive business confidence, but it will take time. Chart II-5Mexico Versus EM: Domestic Bonds And Sovereign Credit Our major theme for Mexico has been that both monetary and fiscal policies are very tight. Consequently, we have been recommending overweight positions in Mexican domestic bonds and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. (Chart II-5). Recessions are bad for share prices, but in tandem with prudent macro policies, they can be positive for fixed-income markets. Meanwhile, we have been favoring the Mexican peso relative to other EM currencies due to the fact that AMLO is not as negative for the country as was initially perceived by markets. With inflation falling and the Federal Reserve cutting rates, Banxico will ease further. Yet, it will likely cut rates slower than warranted by the economy. The longer the central bank takes to ease, the lower domestic bond yields will drop. Concerning sovereign credit, investors should remain overweight Mexico within an EM credit portfolio. Mexico’s fiscal position is healthier, and macroeconomic policies will be more prudent relative to what the market is currently pricing. We continue to believe concerns about Pemex’s financing and its impact on government debt are overblown, as we discussed in detail in our previous Special Report. In July, the government released an action plan for Pemex financing. We view this plan as marginally positive. To supplement this plan, the government can use the $14.5 billion federal budget stabilization fund to fill in financing shortfalls in the coming years. Importantly, the starting point of Mexican public debt is quite low, which will allow the government to finance Pemex in the years to come by borrowing more from markets. Recessions are bad for share prices, but in tandem with prudent macro policies, they can be positive for fixed-income markets. Lastly, our overweight recommendation in Mexican stocks has not played out. However, we are maintaining it for the following reasons: Chart II-6 illustrates that when Mexican domestic bond yields decline relative to EM ones (shown inverted on Chart II-6), Mexican share prices usually outperform their EM counterparts in common currency terms. Consistent with our view that Mexican local currency bonds will outperform their EM peers, we expect Mexican stocks to outpace the EM equity benchmark. The Mexican bourse’s relative performance against EM often swings with the relative performance of EM consumer staples versus the EM equity benchmark. This is due to the large share of consumer staples stocks in Mexico (34.5%) compared to that in the EM benchmark (7%). Consumer staples stocks are beginning to outpace the EM equity index, raising the odds of Mexican equity outperformance versus its EM peers (Chart II-7). Chart II-6Local Bond Yields And Relative Stocks: Mexico Versus EM Chart II-7Consumer Staples Have A Large Weight In Mexican Bourse   We do not expect a major rally in this nation’s stock market given the negative growth outlook. Our bet is that Mexican share prices - having already deflated considerably - will drop less in dollar terms than the overall EM equity index. Bottom Line: We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Mexican sovereign credit, domestic bonds and equities relative to their respective EM benchmarks. The main risk to the Mexican peso stems from persisting selloff in EM currencies. Traders’ net long positions in the MXN are elevated posing non-trivial risk (Chart II-8). We have been long MXN versus ZAR but are taking profit today. This trade has generated a 9.7% gain since March 29, 2018. A plunging oil-gold ratio warrants a caution on this cross rate in the near term (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Investors Are Long MXN Chart II-9Take Profits On Long MXN / Short ZAR Trade   Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

As the summer holidays become a memory, central banks globally are mobilizing to fight mounting recession risks. More than 30 at last count are busily easing financial conditions to boost growth (Chart of the Week). Going into 4Q19, this monetary stimulus – coupled with fiscal stimulus globally – should allow growth ex-U.S. to revive, which will weaken the USD. This will be bullish for commodity demand in general, oil in particular. Fundamentally, the supply side of the oil market is in good shape. Production discipline by OPEC 2.0 will be maintained, while members of the coalition iterate on the level of output required to keep the rate of growth on the supply side below that of consumption.1 Capital discipline is being forced on U.S. shale-oil operators by markets. This will restrain their output growth rates to levels markets can absorb without inducing unintended inventory accumulation. A ceasefire in the Sino-U.S. trade war also could brighten short-term demand prospects and revive global trade volumes. This would indicate a recovery in manufacturing, given the heavy weight of manufactured goods in trade flows, and also in the the low-sulfur marine fuel markets. Going into 4Q19 and 1Q20, these supply-demand fundamentals will tighten markets, and force crude oil and refined product inventories lower. This will push Brent crude oil prices to our forecast levels of $66 and $75/bbl on average this year and next, with WTI trading $6.50 and $4/bbl under that. In addition, it would further backwardate crude oil forward curves. Chart of the WeekFinancial Conditions Continue Easing Among the risks to this view: Too-weak monetary/fiscal stimulus, leading to a failure to revive demand and stave off recession; a breakdown in OPEC 2.0’s production discipline; an expansion of the Sino-U.S. trade war; a disorderly Brexit; and, critically, a stubbornly strong USD, which raises the risk of direct intervention in FX markets by the U.S. central bank. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Saudi Aramco’s board of directors apparently has ruled out a listing of its IPO in New York, owing to legal risk in the U.S., according to Reuters news service.2 Riyadh and London reportedly are favored by board members. The Kingdom’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly has the final say. Base Metals: Neutral. The nickel rally likely corrects over the short term, after a vertical shot that lifted the metal ~56.2% between early June and this week. This was partly fueled by speculation over commentary from an Indonesian official in July reinforcing the country’s stated goal of banning raw ore exports by 2022. Indonesia is the largest nickel ore producer in the world.3 Precious Metals: Neutral. Our tactical long platinum position is up 3.9% since it was recommended last week. We continue to expect platinum will draft in gold’s wake, benefiting from safe-haven demand for precious metals generally. Fundamentally, the risk of power outages in South Africa, which produces ~67% of the world’s platinum, remains high this month, putting platinum-group metal production at risk there. Technically, the metal held long-term support at $785/oz this year – a level that goes back to the Global Financial Crisis lows – and has since rallied ~ 18%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese tariffs on U.S. soybean imports went up 5% to a total of 30% September 1, coinciding with the imposition of additional tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese imports. Feature USD strength remains a headwind to stronger EM growth, which is keeping oil demand growth in check (Chart 2).4 Indeed, in local-currency terms, oil prices remain closer to their 2014 highs, when Brent and WTI were trading above $100/bbl (Chart 3). The persistently strong USD is one reason we lowered our oil-demand forecast four times this year, which puts it at 1.2mm b/d for 2019. Chart 2USD Strength Hinders Oil Demand Growth Chart 3USD Strength Keeps Local-Currency Costs High The slowdown in global oil demand began in 2H18 and picked up speed in 1H19. We believe this largely was the result of a global tightening in financial conditions – apparent in the Chart of the Week – led by the Fed, which, with near-singular determination, raised its policy rate four times last year. Fed policy kept USD-denominated assets well bid, but, equally importantly, it raised the costs of commodities and all goods and services invoiced in USD globally in local-currency terms. This reduced aggregate demand ex-U.S. as households’ and firms’ discretionary incomes fell.5 Commodity demand also was derailed by the extended de-leveraging campaign by Chinese policymakers, which ran from 2017-18 and succeeded in its goal of bringing down the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio and the growth rate of leverage. Central Banks Scramble To Revive Growth The Treasury may be forced to up the ante and directly intervene in FX markets to weaken the dollar. To reverse the tightening of monetary conditions worldwide, central banks this year started moving to more accommodative monetary-policy settings, which we expect will continue to support looser financial conditions around the globe. In addition, fiscal stimulus either is being deployed or readied in key EM economies like China and India, which, together, account for 36% of the 53.5mm b/d of EM oil consumption we estimate for 2019. These policy responses should revive GDP growth – particularly in EM economies – and, all else equal, oil demand in the process going into 4Q19. The performance of our leading indicators support this expectation (Chart 4). That said, with so many systematically important central banks weakening their currencies, the USD could remain strong in relative terms.6 If the dollar remains a safe-haven asset in uncertain markets, while serving as the world’s reserve/invoicing/funding currency, weakening the USD during a period of high financial stress could be difficult. In that case, the Treasury may be forced to up the ante and directly intervene in FX markets to weaken the dollar. Chart 4Global LEIs Bottomed And Are Moving Up   Managing Financial Conditions In A Trade War We do not expect the Sino-U.S. trade war to be resolved. National security, foreign policy and technology positions that have been advanced by both sides appear impossible to walk back (e.g., protecting 5G networks from spying, and safeguarding intellectual property). This suggests the Sino-U.S. relationship is in the early stages of a Cold War, which could go hot in the short run.7 Still, a short-term agreement or ceasefire this year or next is still possible. The basis for such a shift would be President Trump staging a retreat to try to clinch a deal and improve the economy prior to his re-election campaign. China might accept a temporary reprieve. This would allow both sides to retreat to re-group for the almost-certain renewed trade tension that will mark the Sino-U.S. relationship going forward. Over the short run, a ceasefire could brighten demand prospects and revive global trade volumes. This would be supportive of crude oil and refined-products markets, particularly the low-sulfur marine fuel market, which, on January 1, will be bound by IMO 2020 standards.8 In the medium to longer-run, however, neither the U.S. nor China will cede ground if it strengthens the hand of the other, particularly regarding national security and technology, which will continue to be the key concern for all national security issues. This complicates fiscal and monetary policy for both sides going forward, along with trade relationships for each. We do not believe either side has these issues sorted, and likely will need time and space to develop policies for the medium- and longer-term. It also means each side’s respective allies will have to make hard choices in deciding whose camp they will migrate toward. These considerations cloud the outlook for the medium- to long-term oil markets. We will be exploring them in greater depth in forthcoming Commodity & Energy Strategy reports. Investment Implications We remain broadly long in our exposure to oil markets, expecting the fundamentals outlined above to tighten supply, strengthen demand and draw down inventories. Given this view, we remain long WTI flat price, and long 4Q19 Brent futures vs. short 4Q20 Brent futures, expecting a steeper backwardation. We also remain long the S&P GSCI commodity index, given its relatively heavy exposure to energy markets. Bottom Line: Supply-demand fundamentals, coupled with a favorable fiscal and monetary backdrop, indicate oil prices will move higher from current levels toward our forecasts of $75/bbl and $71/bbl next year for Brent and WTI, respectively. This view is not without risk – chiefly around the Sino-U.S. trade war, and the risk that an expansion of tensions would stunt global demand for oil significantly. We continue to follow this closely.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. It was formed in 2016 to manage production and reduce oil inventory levels globally. For a complete summary of our supply-demand expectations for this year and next, please see the August 22, 2019 Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "USD Strength Slows Oil Demand Growth; 2020 Brent Forecast Remains At $75/bbl". 2      Please see Exclusive: Saudi Aramco board sees too many risks for New York IPO - sources, published by reuters.com August 30, 2019. 3      Please see Nickel price forecast revised up as speculative rally boosts tight market — report, published by mining.com August 29, 2019. 4      We have shown in previous research EM income growth accounts for most of the growth in oil demand globally. This year, for example, we expect EM demand growth to account for 87% of 2019’s 1.2mm b/d growth in oil consumption. Next year, EM is expected to account for 79% of the 1.5mm b/d of growth we expect. For this reason, oil prices – and base metals prices – are a good barometer of the of EM income growth. 5      Maurice Obstfeld noted at the Fed’s June 2019 Conference on Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communication Practices (A Fed Listens Event) that the USD is not only the world’s reserve currency, it also is the dominant invoicing and funding currency. “… the dollar’s invoice-currency role affects the international price mechanism by influencing how U.S. monetary policy will move real exchange rates, inflation, and export competitiveness throughout the world. … (The) dollar’s funding currency role mediates the transmission of U.S. monetary policy to global financing conditions. “Through both mechanisms, U.S. monetary policy has an outsized impact on global economic activity – consistent with the evidence on unconventional policy spillovers. … The Federal Reserve, more than other central banks, should therefore consider spillbacks from the global economy as a relevant transmission mechanism for its policies.” Prof. Obstfeld’s paper can be downloaded at the Fed website, Global Dimensions of U.S. Monetary Policy. 6      In the August 26, 2019, issue of BCA Research’s U.S. Investment Strategy, our colleague Doug Peta, chief U.S. investment strategist, notes, “No central bank wants a stronger currency while confronting a demand deficiency aggravated by trade tensions and a global manufacturing slowdown. The New York Times Business section put the prevailing policy winds into living color in a nearly full-page, four-column graphic spotlighting the 32 central banks that have cut their policy rate so far this year.” For further discussion, please see Market Messages, published August 26, 2019, by BCA Research’s U.S. Investment Strategy. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7      Our geopolitical strategists make the odds of a trade agreement 40%, perhaps a bit higher. Please see Big Trouble In Greater China, published August 23, 2019, by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy, for an excellent discussion of the fraught Sino-U.S. relationship. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8      We expect global shipping-fuels market to tighten as UN-mandated fuel standards kick in next year. This will keep ship fuels, specifically Gasoil and ULSFO, and other distillate prices – e.g., diesel and jet fuel – elevated relative to other refined products like gasoline. This will boost demand for lighter, sweeter crudes – particularly Brent and similar grades – that allow refiners to raise distillate yields, as they scramble to meet higher demand for low-sulfur ship-fuel next year. For more information on IMO 2020, please see IMO 2020: The Greening Of The Ship-Fuel Market, published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 28, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights While a self-fulfilling crisis of confidence that plunges the global economy into recession cannot be excluded, it is far from our base case. Provided the trade war does not spiral out of control, it is highly likely that global equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. The auto sector has been the main driver of the global manufacturing slowdown. As automobile output begins to recover later this year, so too will global manufacturing. Go long auto stocks. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will weaken once global growth picks up. We expect to upgrade EM and European equities later this year along with cyclical equity sectors such as industrials, energy, and materials. Financials should also benefit from steeper yield curves. We still like gold as a long-term investment. However, the combination of higher bond yields and diminished trade tensions could cause bullion to sell off in the near term. As such, we are closing our tactical long gold trade for a gain of 20.5%. Feature “The Democrats are trying to 'will' the Economy to be bad for purposes of the 2020 Election. Very Selfish!” – @realDonaldTrump, 19 August 2019 8:26 am “The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election” – @realDonaldTrump, 15 August 2019 9:52 am Bad Juju Chart 1Spike In Google Searches For The Word Recession President Trump’s remarks, made just a few days after the U.S. yield curve inverted, were no doubt meant to deflect attention away from the trade war, while providing cover for any economic weakness that might occur on his watch. But does the larger point still stand? Google searches for the word “recession” have spiked recently, even though underlying U.S. growth has remained robust (Chart 1). Could rising angst induce an actual recession? Theoretically, the answer is yes. A sudden drop in confidence can generate a self-fulfilling cycle where rising pessimism leads to less private-sector spending, higher unemployment, lower corporate profits, weaker stock prices, and ultimately, even deeper pessimism. Two things make such a vicious cycle more probable in the current environment. First, the value of risk assets is quite high in relation to GDP in many economies (Chart 2). This means that any pullback in equity prices or jump in credit spreads will have an outsized impact on financial conditions.   Chart 2The Total Market Value Of Risk Assets Is Elevated Chart 3Not Much Scope To Cut Rates Second, policymakers are currently more constrained in their ability to react to adverse shocks, such as an intensification of the trade war, than in the past. Interest rates in Europe and Japan are already at zero or in negative territory (Chart 3). Even in the U.S., the zero-lower bound constraint – though squishier than once believed – remains a formidable obstacle. Chart 4 shows that the Federal Reserve has cut rates by over five percentage points, on average, during past recessions. It would be impossible to cut rates by that much this time around if the U.S. economy were to experience a major downturn.   Chart 4The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound Fiscal stimulus could help buttress growth. However, both political and economic considerations are likely to limit the policy response. While China is stimulating its economy, concerns about excessively high debt levels have caused the authorities to adopt a reactive, tentative approach. Japan is set to raise the consumption tax on October 1st. Although a variety of offsetting measures will mitigate the impact on the Japanese economy, the net effect will still be a tightening of fiscal policy. Germany has mused over launching its own Green New Deal, but so far there has been a lot more talk than action. President Trump floated the idea of cutting payroll taxes, only to abandon it once it became clear that the Democrats were unwilling to go along. On The Positive Side Despite these clear risks, we are inclined to maintain our fairly sanguine 12-to-18 month global macro view. There are a number of reasons for this: First, the weakness in global manufacturing over the past 18 months has not infected the much larger service sector (Chart 5). Even in Germany, with its large manufacturing base, the service sector PMI remains above 50, and is actually higher than it was late last year. This suggests that the latest global slowdown is more akin to the 2015-16 episode than the 2007-08 or 2000-01 downturns. Chart 5AThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 5BThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (II) Second, manufacturing activity should benefit from a turn in the inventory cycle over the remainder of the year. A slower pace of inventory accumulation shaved 90 basis points off of U.S. growth in the second quarter and is set to knock another 40 basis points from growth in the third quarter, according to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model. Excluding inventories, U.S. GDP growth would have been 3% in Q2 and is tracking at 2.7% in Q3 – a fairly healthy pace given the weak global backdrop (Chart 6). Chart 6The U.S. Economy Is Still Holding Up Well Outside the U.S., inventories are making a negative contribution to growth (Chart 7). In addition to the official data, this can be seen in the commentary accompanying the Markit manufacturing surveys, which suggest that many firms are liquidating inventories (Box 1). Falling inventory levels imply that sales are outstripping production, a state of affairs that cannot persist indefinitely. Third, and related to the point above, the automobile sector has been the key driver of the global manufacturing slowdown. This is in contrast to 2015-16, when the main culprit was declining energy capex. According to Wards, global vehicle production is down about 10% from year-ago levels, by far the biggest drop since the Great Recession (Chart 8). The drop in automobile production helps explain why the German economy has taken it on the chin recently. Chart 7Inventories Are Making A Negative Contribution To Growth Chart 8Auto Sector: The Culprit Behind The Manufacturing Slowdown Importantly, motor vehicle production growth has fallen more than sales growth, implying that inventory levels are coming down. Despite secular shifts in automobile ownership preferences, there is still plenty of upside to automobile usage. Per capita automobile ownership in China is only one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 9). This suggests that the recent drop in Chinese auto sales will be reversed. As automobile output begins to recover later this year, so too will global manufacturing. Investors should consider going long automobile makers. Chart 10 shows that the All-Country World MSCI automobiles index is trading near its lows on both a forward P/E and price-to-book basis, and sports a juicy dividend yield of nearly 4%.1 Chart 9The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Chart 10Auto Stocks Are A Compelling Buy   Fourth, our research has shown that globally, the neutral rate of interest is generally higher than widely believed. This means that monetary policy is currently stimulative, and will become even more accommodative as the Fed and a number of other central banks continue to cut rates. Remember that unemployment rates have been trending lower since the Great Recession and have continued falling even during the latest slowdown, implying that GDP growth has remained above trend (Chart 11). As diminished labor market slack causes inflation to rebound from today’s depressed levels, real policy rates will decline, leading to more spending through the economy.  Chart 11Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower The Trade War Remains The Biggest Risk The points discussed above will not matter much if the trade war spirals out of control. It is impossible to know what will happen for sure, but we can deduce the likely course of action based on the incentives that both sides face. President Trump has shown a clear tendency in recent weeks to try to de-escalate trade tensions whenever the stock market drops. This is not surprising: Despite his efforts to deflect blame for any selloff on others, he knows full well that many voters will blame him for losses in their 401(k) accounts and for slower domestic growth and rising unemployment. What about the Chinese? An increasing number of pundits have warmed up to the idea that China is more than willing to let the global economy crash if this means that Trump won’t be re-elected. If this is China’s true intention, the Chinese will resist making any deal, and could even try to escalate tensions as the U.S. election approaches. It is an intriguing thesis. However, it is not particularly plausible. U.S. goods exports to China account for 0.5% of U.S. GDP, while Chinese exports to the U.S. account for 3.4% of Chinese GDP. Total manufacturing value-added represents 29% of Chinese GDP, compared to 11% for the United States. There is no way that China could torpedo the U.S. economy without greatly hurting itself first. Any effort by China to undermine Trump’s re-election prospects would invite extreme retaliatory actions, including the invocation of the War Powers Act, which would make it onerous for U.S. companies to continue operating in China. Even if Trump loses the election, he could still wreak a lot of havoc on China during the time he has left in office. Moreover, as Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, has stressed, if Trump were to feel that he could not run for re-election on a strong economy, he would try to position himself as a “War President,” hoping that Americans rally around the flag. That would be a dangerous outcome for China.  Chart 12Would China Really Be Better Off Negotiating With A Democrat As President? In any case, it is not clear whether China would be better off with a Democrat as president. The popular betting site PredictIt currently gives Elizabeth Warren a 34% chance of winning, followed by Joe Biden with 26%, and Bernie Sanders with 15% (Chart 12). This means that two far-left candidates with protectionist leanings, who would stress environmental protection and human rights in their negotiations with China, have nearly twice as much support as the former Vice President. All this suggests that China has an incentive to de-escalate the trade war. Given that Trump also has an incentive to put the trade war on hiatus, some sort of détente between the U.S. and China, as well as between the U.S. and other players such as the EU, is more likely than not. Investment Conclusions Provided the trade war does not spiral out of control, it is very likely that global equities will outperform bonds over the next 12 months. Since it might take a few more months for the data on global growth to improve, equities will remain in a choppy range in the near term, before moving higher later this year. As we discussed last week, the equity risk premium is quite high in the U.S., and even higher abroad, where valuations are generally cheaper and interest rates are lower (Chart 13).2 Chart 13AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 13BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency (Chart 14). If global growth picks up later this year, the greenback should begin to weaken. European and emerging market stocks have typically outperformed the global benchmark in an environment of rising global growth and a weakening dollar (Chart 15). We expect to upgrade EM and European equities – along with more cyclical sectors of the stock market such as industrials, materials, and energy – later this year. Chart 14The U.S. Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15EM And Euro Area Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves     Thanks to the dovish shift by central banks around the world, government bond yields are unlikely to return to their 2018 highs anytime soon. Nevertheless, stronger economic growth should lift long-term yields at the margin, causing yield curves to steepen (Chart 16). Steeper yield curves will benefit beleaguered bank stocks. Chart 16Stronger Economic Growth Should Lift Long-Term Bond Yields, Causing Yield Curves To Steepen Finally, a word on gold: We still like gold as a long-term investment. However, the combination of higher bond yields and diminished trade tensions could cause bullion to sell off in the near term. As such, we are closing our tactical long gold trade for a gain of 20.5%. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 Evidence of Inventory Liquidation In The Manufacturing Sector Footnotes 1 The top ten constituents of the MSCI ACWI Automobiles Index are Toyota (22.6%), General Motors (7.8%), Daimler (7.3%), Honda Motor (6.2%), Ford Motor (5.7%), Tesla (4.8%), Volkswagen (4.8%), BMW (3.8%), Ferrari (3.0%), Hyundai Motor (2.4%). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights The chance of a U.S.-China trade agreement by November 2020 is still only 40% – but an upgrade may be around the corner. Trump is on the verge of a tactical trade retreat due to fears of economic slowdown and a loss in 2020. Xi Jinping is now the known unknown. His aggressive foreign policy is a major risk even if Trump softens. Political divisions in Greater China – Hong Kong unrest and Taiwan elections – could harm the trade talks. Maintain tactical caution but remain cyclically overweight global equities. Feature   “I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do it. So I’m taking on China. I’m taking on China on trade. And you know what, we’re winning.” – U.S. President Donald J. Trump, August 21, 2019 On August 1, United States President Donald Trump declared that he would raise a new tariff of 10% on the remaining $300 billion worth of imports from China not already subject to his administration’s sweeping 25% tariff. Then, on August 13, with the S&P 500 index down a mere 2.4%, Trump announced that he would partially delay the tariff, separating it into two tranches that will take effect on September 1 and December 15 (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo Six days later Trump’s Commerce Department renewed the 90-day temporary general license for U.S. companies to do business with embattled Chinese telecom company Huawei, which has ties to the Chinese state and is viewed as a threat to U.S. network security. The same pattern played out on August 23 when President Trump responded to China’s retaliatory tariffs by declaring he would raise tariffs to 30% on the first half of imports and 15% on the remainder by December 15. Within a single weekend he softened his rhetoric and said he still wanted a deal. Trump’s tendency to take two steps forward with coercive measures and then one step back to control the damage is by now familiar to global investors. Yet this backpedaling reveals that like other politicians he is concerned about reelection. After all, there is a clear chain of consequence leading from trade war to bear market to recession to a Democrat taking the White House in November 2020. Trump’s approval rating is already similar to that of presidents who fell short of re-election amid recession (Chart II-2) – an actual recession would consign him to history. Will Trump Stage A Tactical Retreat On Trade? Yes. Trump’s predicament suggests that he will have to adjust his policies. Global trade, capital spending, and sentiment have deteriorated significantly since the last escalation-and-delay episode with China in May and June. Beijing’s economic stimulus measures disappointed expectations, exacerbating the global slowdown (Chart II-3). This leaves him less room for maneuver going forward. The fourth quarter of 2019 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. Even “Fortress America” – consumer-driven and relatively insulated from global trade – has seen manufacturing, private investment, and business sentiment weaken. GDP growth is slowing and has been revised downward for 2018 despite a surge in budget deficit projections to above $1 trillion dollars (Chart II-4). Chart II-3China's Gradual Stimulus Yet To Revive Global Economy Chart II-4Trump's Economy Grew Slower Than Thought Despite Fiscal Stimulus   The U.S. Treasury yield curve inversion is deepening. While we at BCA would point out reasons that this may not be a reliable signal of imminent recession, Trump cannot afford to ignore it. He is sensitive to the widening talk of “recession” in American airwaves and is openly contemplating stimulus options (Chart II-5). His approval rating has lost momentum, partly due to his perceived mishandling of a domestic terrorist attack motivated by racist anti-immigrant sentiment in El Paso, Texas, but negative financial and economic news have likely also played a part (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Trump Fears Growing Talk Of Recession In short, the fourth quarter of 2019 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. The core predicament for Trump continues to be the divergence in American and Chinese policy. In the U.S., the stimulating effect of Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act is wearing off just as the deflationary effect of his trade policy begins to bite. In China, the lingering effects of Xi’s all-but-defunct deleveraging campaign are combining with the trade war, and slowing trend growth, to produce a drag on domestic demand and global trade. The result is a rising dollar, which increases the trade deficit – the opposite of what Trump wants and needs (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Trump's Fiscal Policy Undid His Trade Policy   The United States is insulated from global trade, but only to a point – it cannot escape a global recession should one develop (Chart II-8). With global and U.S. equities vulnerable to additional volatility in the near term, Trump will have to make at least a tactical retreat on his trade policy over the rest of the year. First and foremost this would mean: Chart II-8If Total Trade War Causes A Global Relapse, The U.S. Economy Cannot Escape Expediting a trade deal with Japan – this should get done before a China deal, possibly as early as September. Ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada “NAFTA 2.0” agreement – this requires support from moderate Democrats in Congress. The window for passage is closing fast but not yet closed. Removing the threat to slap tariffs on European car and car part imports in mid-November. There is some momentum given Europe’s need to boost growth and recent progress on U.S. beef exports to the EU. Lastly, if financial and economic pressure are sustained, Trump will be forced to soften his stance on China. The problem for global risk assets – in the very near term – is that Trump’s tactical retreat has not fully materialized yet. The new tariff on China is still slated to take effect on September 1. This tariff hike or other disagreements could result in a cancellation of talks or failure to make any progress.1 Even if Trump does pivot on trade, China’s position has hardened. It is no longer clear that Beijing will accept a deal that is transparently designed to boost Trump’s reelection chances. Thus, the biggest question in the trade talks is no longer Trump, but Xi. Is Xi prepared to receive Trump kindly if the latter comes crawling back? How will he handle rising political risk in Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan island,2 and will the outcome derail the trade talks? The biggest question in the trade talks is no longer Trump, but Xi. Bottom Line: Global economic growth is fragile and President Trump has only rhetorically retracted his latest salvo against China. Nevertheless, the clear signal is that he is sensitive to the financial and economic constraints that affect his presidential run next year – and therefore investors should expect U.S. trade policy to turn less market-negative on the margin in the coming months. This is positive for the cyclical view on global risk assets. But the risk to the view is China: whether Trump will take a conciliatory turn and whether Xi will reciprocate. Can Xi Jinping Accept A Deal? Yes. It is extremely difficult for Xi Jinping to offer concessions in the short term. He is facing another tariff hike, U.S. military shows of force, persistent social unrest in Hong Kong, and a critical election in Taiwan. Certainly, he will not risk any sign of weakness ahead of the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, which will be a nationalist rally in defiance of imperialist western powers. After that, however, there is potential for Xi to be receptive to any Trump pivot on trade. China’s strategy in the trade talks has generally been to offer limited concessions and wait for Trump to resign himself to them. Concessions thus far are not negligible, but they can easily be picked apart. They consist largely of preexisting trends (large commodity purchases); minor adjustments (e.g. to car tariffs and foreign ownership rules); unverifiable promises (on foreign investment, technological transfer, and intellectual property); or reversible strategic cooperation (partial enforcement of North Korean and Iranian sanctions) (Table II-1). Many of these concessions have been postponed as a result of Trump’s punitive measures. It is unlikely that Beijing will offer much more under today’s adverse circumstances. The exception is cooperation on North Korea, which should improve. So the contours of a deal are generally known. This is what Trump will have to accept if he seeks to calm markets and restore confidence in the economy ahead of his election. But this slate of concessions is ultimately acceptable for the U.S. Chart II-9China's Ultimate Economic Constraint China’s demands are that Trump roll back all his tariffs, that purchases of U.S. goods must be reasonable in scale, and that any agreement be balanced and conducted with mutual respect. Of these three, the tariffs and the “respect” pose the most trouble. Trade balance: Washington and Beijing can agree on the terms of specific purchases. China can increase select imports substantially – it remains a cash-rich nation with a state sector that can be commanded to buy American goods. Tariff rollback: This is tougher but can be done. The U.S. will insist on some tariffs – or the threat of tech sanctions – as an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Beijing implements the structural concessions necessary for an agreement. But China might accept a deal in which tariffs were mostly rolled back – say to the original 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of goods. This would likely offset the degree of yuan appreciation to be expected from the likely currency addendum to any agreement. Balance and respect: This qualitative demand is the sticking point. Fundamentally, China cannot reward Trump for his aggressive and unilateral protectionist measures. This would be to set a precedent for future American presidents that sweeping tariffs on national security grounds are a legitimate way of coercing China into making economic structural reforms. Moreover if the U.S. wants to improve the trade balance, China thinks, it cannot embargo Chinese high-tech imports but must actually increase its high-tech exports. Clearly this is a major impasse in the talks. The last point, mutual respect, is the likeliest deal-breaker. It may ultimately hinge on strategic events outside of the realm of trade. But before discussing it further, it is important to recognize that China is not invincible – it has a pain threshold. Deterioration in China’s labor market is of utmost seriousness to any Chinese leader (Chart II-9). And the economy is still struggling to revive. Xi’s reform and deleveraging campaign of 2017-18 has largely been postponed but the lingering effects are weighing on growth and the property sector remains under tight regulation. Moreover the removal of implicit guarantees, and rare toleration of creative destruction (Chart II-10), have left banks and corporations afraid to take on new risks. The state’s reflationary measures, including a big boost to local government spending, have so far been merely sufficient for domestic stability. Chart II-10Creative Destruction In China These problems can be addressed by additional policy easing. But the domestic political crackdown and the break with the U.S. have shaken manufacturers and private entrepreneurs to the bone, suppressing animal spirits and reducing the demand for loans. Ultimately a short-term trade deal to ease this economic stress would make sense for Xi Jinping, even though he knows that U.S. protectionism and the conflict over technological acquisition will persist beyond 2020 and beyond Trump. The threat of a sharp and destabilizing divorce from the U.S. is a real and present danger to the long-term stability of China’s economy and the Communist regime. Xi is a strongman leader, but is he really ready for Mao Zedong-style austerity? Is he not more like former President Jiang Zemin (ruled 1993-2003), who imposed some austerity while prizing domestic economic and political stability above all? To this question we now turn. Bottom Line: China has become the wild card in the trade war. Trump’s need to prevent a recession is known. Beijing has a higher pain threshold and could walk away from the deal to punish Trump (upsetting the global economy and diminishing Trump’s reelection prospects). This would set the precedent for future American presidents that China will not bow to gunboat diplomacy. Will Xi Jinping Overplay His Hand? Be Afraid. For decades China’s main foreign policy principle has been to “lie low and bide its time,” to paraphrase former leader Deng Xiaoping. In the current context this means maintaining a willingness to engage with the U.S. whenever it engages sincerely. This approach implies making the above concessions to minimize the immediate threat to stability from the trade war, while biding time in the longer run rivalry against the United States. Such an approach would also imply assisting the diplomatic process on the Korean peninsula, avoiding a military crackdown in Hong Kong, and refraining from aggressive military intimidation ahead of Taiwan’s election in January. Chart II-11China's Vast Market Its Most Persuasive Tool After all, there is no better way for the Communist Party to undercut dissidents in Hong Kong and Taiwan than to strike a deal with the United States. This would demonstrate that Xi is a pragmatic leader who is still committed to “reform and opening up.” It would help generate an economic rebound that would bring other countries deeper into Beijing’s orbit (Chart II-11). China’s vast domestic market is ultimately its greatest strength in its contest with the United States. In short, conventional Chinese policy suggests that Xi should perpetuate the long success story since 1978 by striking another deal with another Republican president. The catch is that Xi Jinping is not conventional. Since coming to power in 2012, Xi has eschewed the subtle strategies of Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping in favor of a more ambitious approach: that of declaring China’s arrival as a major power and leveraging its economic and military heft to pursue foreign policy and commercial interests aggressively. Xi’s reassertion of Communist rule and state-guided technological acquisition is the biggest factor behind the new U.S. political consensus – entirely aside from Trump – that China is foe rather than friend. There are several empirical reasons to think that Xi might overplay his hand: Xi failed to make substantive concessions with President Barack Obama’s administration on North Korea, the South China Sea, and cyber security, resulting in Obama’s decision to harden U.S. policy toward both China and North Korea in 2015 – a trend that predates Trump. Xi formally removed presidential term limits from China’s constitution even though he could have attracted less negative attention from the West by ruling from behind the scenes after his term in office, like Deng Xiaoping or Jiang Zemin. China has mostly played for time in negotiations with the Trump administration, as mentioned, and this aggravated tensions. Deep revisions to the draft agreement, and the  extent of tariff rollback which was supposedly 90% complete, broke the negotiations in May, sparking this summer’s standoff. Aggressive policies in territorial disputes have alienated even China’s potential allies. This includes regional states whose current ruling parties have courted China in recent years, in some cases obsequiously – South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The East and South China Seas remain a genuine source of “black swans” – unpredictable, low-probability, high-impact events – due to their status as critical sea lanes for the major Asian economies. China continues to militarize the islands there and aggressively prosecute its maritime-territorial disputes. We calculate that $6.4 trillion worth of goods flowed through this bottleneck in the year ending April 2019, 8% of which consists of energy goods from the Middle East that are vital to China and its East Asian neighbors, none of whom can stomach Chinese domination of this geographic space (Diagram II-1). Even if Washington abandoned the region, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would see Chinese control as a threat to their security. Ultimately, however, China’s adventures in its neighboring seas are a matter of choice. Not so for Greater China – in Hong Kong and Taiwan, political risk is rapidly mounting in a way that enflames the U.S.-China strategic distrust and threatens to prevent a trade agreement. Hong Kong: The Dust Has Not Settled Mass protests in Hong Kong have lost some momentum, based on the size of the largest rally in August versus June. But do not be fooled: the political crisis is deepening. A plurality of Hong Kongers now harbors negative feelings toward mainland Chinese people as well as the government in Beijing – a trend that is spiking amid today’s protests but began with the Great Recession and has roots in the deeper socioeconomic malaise of this capitalist enclave (Chart II-12A & II-12B).   A majority also lacks confidence in the political arrangement that ensures some autonomy from Beijing – known as “One Country, Two Systems” (Chart II-13). This is a particularly worrisome sign since this is the fundamental basis for stable political relations with Beijing. With clashes continuing between protesters and police, students calling for a boycott of school this fall, and Beijing rotating troops into the city and openly drilling its security forces in Shenzhen for a potential intervention, Hong Kong’s unrest is not yet laid to rest and could flare up again ahead of China’s sensitive National Day celebration. U.S. tariffs and sanctions are already in effect, reducing the ability of the U.S. to deter China from using force if it believes instability has gone too far. And as President Trump has warned – and would be true of any U.S. administration – a violent crackdown on civilian demonstrators would greatly reduce the political viability of a trade deal in the United States. Taiwan: The Black Swan Arrives Since Taiwan’s 2016 election, we have argued that it is a potential source of “black swans.” Mass protests in Hong Kong may have taken the cake. But these protests are now affecting the Taiwanese election dynamic and potentially the U.S.-China trade talks. Chart II-14U.S. Approves Big New Arms Sale To Taiwan On August 20, the United States Department of Defense informed Congress that it is proceeding with an $8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets and other military arms and equipment to Taiwan – the largest sale in 22 years and the largest aircraft sale since 1992 (Chart II-14). This sale is not yet complete and delivered, but ultimately will be – the question is the timing. Arms sales to Taiwan are a perennial source of tension between the United States and China – and China is increasingly assertive in using economic sanctions to get its way over such issues, as it showed in the lead up to South Korea’s election in 2017. This sale is not a military “game changer” – the U.S. did not send over fifth-generation F-35s, for instance – but China will respond vehemently. It is threatening to impose sanctions on American companies like Lockheed Martin and General Electric for their part in the deal. The sale does not in itself preclude the chance of a trade agreement but it contributes to a rise in strategic tensions that ultimately could. Chart II-15A 'Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis' Would Have A Seismic Equity Impact The context is Taiwan’s hugely important election in January. Four years ago, President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party swept to power on the back of a popular protest movement – the “Sunflower Movement” – that opposed deeper cross-strait economic integration. It dangerously resembled the kind of anti-Communist “color revolutions” that motivate Xi Jinping’s hardline policies. Tsai shocked the world when she called Trump personally to congratulate him after his election, which violated diplomatic protocol given that Taiwan is a territory of China and not an independent nation-state. Since then Trump has largely avoided provoking the Taiwan issue so as not to strike at a core Chinese interest and obliterate the chance of a trade deal. But the U.S. has always argued that the provision of defensive arms to Taiwan is a condition of the U.S.-China détente – and Trump is so far moving forward with the sale. How will Xi Jinping react if the sale goes through? In 1995-96, China’s use of missile tests to try to intimidate Taiwan produced the opposite effect – driving voters into the arms of Lee Teng-hui, the candidate Beijing opposed. This was the occasion of the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, in which U.S. President Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carriers to the region, one that sailed through the Taiwan Strait. The negative effect on markets at that time was local, whereas anything resembling this level of tensions would today be a seismic global risk-off (Chart II-15). Since the 1990s, leaders in Beijing have avoided direct military coercion ahead of elections. But Xi Jinping has hardened his stance on Taiwan throughout his term. He has dabbled with such coercion in his use of military drills that encircle Taiwan in recent years. While one must assume that he will use economic sanctions rather than outright military threats – as he did with South Korea – saber-rattling cannot be ruled out. The pressure on him is rising. Prior to the Hong Kong unrest, Taiwan’s elections looked likely to return the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) to power and remove the incumbent President Tsai – a boon for Beijing. That outlook has changed and Tsai now has a fighting chance of staying in power (Chart II-16). The prospect of four more years of Tsai would not be too problematic for Beijing if not for the fact that the U.S. political establishment is now firmly in agreement on challenging China. But even if Tsai loses, Taiwan’s outlook is troublesome. And this makes Xi’s decision-making harder to predict. Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis in the long run than Hong Kong. It is not that Tsai or her party will necessarily prevail. The manufacturing slowdown will take a toll and third-party candidates, particularly Ko Wen-je, would likely split Tsai’s vote. Moreover her Democratic Progressives still tie the KMT in opinion polling (Chart II-17). The Taiwanese people are primarily concerned about maintaining the strong economy and cross-strait peace and stability, which her reelection could jeopardize (Chart II-18). Tsai could very well lose, or she could be a lame duck presiding over the KMT in the legislature.   Rather, the problem for Xi Jinping is that the Taiwanese people clearly sympathize with the protesters in Hong Kong (Chart II-19). They fear that their own governance system faces the same fate as Hong Kong’s, with the Communist Party encroaching on traditional political liberties over time.   While Hong Kong ultimately has zero choice as to whether to accept Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan has much greater autonomy – and the military support of outside forces. It is not a foregone conclusion that Taiwan must suffer the same political dependency as Hong Kong. Indeed, Taiwan has a long history of exercising the democratic vote and has even dabbled into the realm of popular referendums. In short, Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis in the long run than Hong Kong. But the Hong Kong events have accentuated this fact, for two key reasons: First, Taiwanese people identify increasingly as exclusively Taiwanese, rather than as both Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart II-20). The incidents in Hong Kong reveal that this sentiment is tied to immediate political relations and therefore deterioration would encourage further alienation from the mainland. Second, while a strong majority of Taiwanese wish to maintain the political status quo to avoid conflict with the mainland, a substantial subset – approaching one-fourth – supports eventual or immediate independence (Chart II-21).   This means that relations with the mainland will eventually deteriorate even if the KMT wins the election. The KMT itself must respond to popular demand not to cozy up too much with Beijing, which is how it fell from power in 2016. Meanwhile, under KMT rule, Taiwan’s progressive-leaning youth are likely to set about reviving their protest movement in the subsequent years and imitating their Hong Kong peers, especially if the KMT warms up relations too fast with the mainland. Ultimately these points suggest that Xi Jinping will strive to avoid a violent crackdown in Hong Kong. A crackdown would be the surest way for him to harm the KMT in the Taiwanese election and to hasten the rebuilding of U.S.-Taiwan security ties. Call The President The best argument for Xi to lie low and avoid a larger crisis in Greater China is that it would unify the West and its allies against China. So far Xi’s foreign policy has not been so aggressive as to lead to diplomatic isolation. Europe is maintaining a studied neutrality due to its own differences with the United States; Asian neighbors are wary of provoking Chinese sanctions or military threats. A humanitarian crisis in Hong Kong or a “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” would change that. For markets, the best-case scenario is that Xi Jinping exercises restraint. This would help Hong Kong protests lose steam, North Korean diplomacy get back on track, and Taiwanese independence sentiment simmer down. China would be more likely to halt U.S. tariffs and tech sanctions, settle a short-term trade agreement, and delay the upgrade in U.S.-Taiwan defense relations. China would still face adverse long-term political trends in both the U.S. and Taiwan, but an immediate crisis would be averted. The worst-case scenario is that Xi indulges his ambition. Hong Kong protests could explode, relations with Taiwan would deteriorate, and U.S.-China relations would move more rapidly in their downward spiral. Trade talks could collapse. Xi Jinping would face the possibility of a unified Western front, instability within Greater China, and a global recession. This might get rid of Donald Trump, but it would not get rid of the U.S. Congress, Navy, or Department of Defense. The choice seems pretty clear. Xi, like Trump, faces constraints that should motivate a tactical retreat from confrontation, at least after October 1. While this does not necessarily mean a settled trade agreement, it does suggest at least a ceasefire or truce. Our GeoRisk indicators show that market-based political risk in Taiwan – and less so South Korea – moves in keeping with global economic policy uncertainty. The underlying U.S.-China strategic confrontation and trade war are driving both (Chart II-22). A deterioration in this region has global consequences. Chart II-22U.S.-China Strategic Conflict Fuels Global Economic Uncertainty And Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk In Tandem Xi is a markedly aggressive “strongman” Chinese leader who has not been afraid to model his leadership on that of Chairman Mao. He could still overplay his hand. This is why we maintain that the odds of a U.S.-China trade agreement remain 40%, though we are prepared to upgrade that probability if Trump and Xi make pro-market decisions. Investment Implications On the three-month tactical horizon, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy is paring back our tactical safe-haven trades: we are closing our “Doomsday Basket” of long gold and Swiss bonds for a gain of 13.6%, while maintaining our simple gold portfolio hedge going forward.  Trump has not yet decisively staged his tactical retreat on trade policy, while rising political risk in Greater China increases uncertainty over Xi Jinping’s next moves. On the cyclical horizon, the above suggests that there is a light at the end of the tunnel – if both Trump and Xi recognize their political constraints. This means that there is still a political and geopolitical basis to reinforce BCA’s House View to remain optimistic on global and U.S. equities over the next 12 months, with the potential for non-U.S. equities to recover and bond yields to reverse their deep dive.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy   Footnotes 1     Negotiations between Trump and Xi are slated for September in Washington. There is a prospect for Trump to hold another summit with Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in late September and at the APEC summit in Chile in mid-November. 2     Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, while Taiwan is recognized as a province or territory.

Special Report

Highlights The chance of a U.S.-China trade agreement is still only 40% – but an upgrade may be around the corner. Trump is on the verge of a tactical trade retreat due to fears of economic slowdown and a loss in 2020. Xi Jinping is now the known unknown. His aggressive foreign policy is a major risk even if Trump softens. Political divisions in Greater China – Hong Kong unrest and Taiwan elections – could harm the trade talks. Maintain tactical caution but remain cyclically overweight global equities. Feature “I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do it. So I’m taking on China. I’m taking on China on trade. And you know what, we’re winning.” – U.S. President Donald J. Trump, August 21, 2019 On August 1, United States President Donald Trump declared that he would raise a new tariff of 10% on the remaining $300 billion worth of imports from China not already subject to his administration’s sweeping 25% tariff. Then, on August 13, with the S&P 500 index down a mere 2.4%, Trump announced that he would partially delay the tariff, separating it into two tranches that will take effect on September 1 and December 15 (Chart 1). Chart 1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo Six days later Trump’s Commerce Department renewed the 90-day temporary general license for U.S. companies to do business with embattled Chinese telecom company Huawei, which has ties to the Chinese state and is viewed as a threat to U.S. network security. Trump’s tendency to take two steps forward with coercive measures and then one step back to control the damage is by now familiar to global investors. Yet this backpedaling reveals that like other politicians he is concerned about reelection. After all, there is a clear chain of consequence leading from trade war to bear market to recession to a Democrat taking the White House in November 2020. Trump’s approval rating is already similar to that of presidents who fell short of re-election amid recession (Chart 2) – an actual recession would consign him to the dustbin of history. Will Trump Stage A Tactical Retreat On Trade? Yes. Trump’s predicament suggests that he will have to adjust his policies. Global trade, capital spending, and sentiment have deteriorated significantly since the last escalation-and-delay episode with China in May and June. Beijing’s economic stimulus measures disappointed expectations, exacerbating the global slowdown (Chart 3). This leaves him less room for maneuver going forward. Chart 3China's Gradual Stimulus Yet To Revive Global Economy Chart 4Trump's Economy Grew Slower Than Thought Despite Fiscal Stimulus Even “Fortress America” – consumer-driven and relatively insulated from global trade – has seen manufacturing, private investment, and business sentiment weaken. GDP growth is slowing and has been revised downward for 2018 despite a surge in budget deficit projections to above $1 trillion dollars (Chart 4).   Q4 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. The U.S. Treasury yield curve inversion is deepening. While we at BCA would point out reasons that this may not be a reliable signal of imminent recession, Trump cannot afford to ignore it. He is sensitive to the widening talk of “recession” in American airwaves and is openly contemplating stimulus options (Chart 5). His approval rating has lost momentum, partly due to his perceived mishandling of a domestic terrorist attack motivated by racist anti-immigrant sentiment in El Paso, Texas, but negative financial and economic news have likely also played a part (Chart 6). Chart 5Trump Fears Growing Talk Of Recession In short, the fourth quarter of 2019 may be Trump’s last chance to save the business cycle and his presidency. The core predicament for Trump continues to be the divergence in American and Chinese policy. Chart 7Trump's Fiscal Policy Undid His Trade Policy In the U.S., the stimulating effect of Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act is wearing off just as the deflationary effect of his trade policy begins to bite. In China, the lingering effects of Xi’s all-but-defunct deleveraging campaign are combining with the trade war, and slowing trend growth, to produce a drag on domestic demand and global trade. The result is a rising dollar, which increases the trade deficit – the opposite of what Trump wants and needs (Chart 7). The United States is insulated from global trade, but only to a point – it cannot escape a global recession should one develop, given that its economy is still closely linked to the rest of the world (Chart 8). With global and U.S. equities vulnerable to additional volatility in the near term, Trump will have to make at least a tactical retreat on his trade policy over the rest of the year. First and foremost this would mean: Chart 8If Total Trade War Causes A Global Relapse, The U.S. Economy Cannot Escape Expediting a trade deal with Japan – this should get done before a China deal, possibly as early as September. Ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada “NAFTA 2.0” agreement – this requires support from moderate Democrats in Congress. The window for passage is closing fast but not closed. Removing the threat to slap tariffs on European car and car part imports in mid-November. There is some momentum given Europe’s need to boost growth and recent progress on U.S. beef exports to the EU. Lastly, if financial and economic pressure are sustained, Trump will be forced to soften his stance on China. The problem for global risk assets – in the very near term – is that Trump’s tactical retreat has not fully materialized yet. The new tariff on China is still slated to take effect on September 1. This tariff hike or other disagreements could result in a cancellation of talks or failure to make any progress.1 Even if Trump does pivot on trade, China’s position has hardened. It is no longer clear that Beijing will accept a deal that is transparently designed to boost Trump’s reelection chances. Thus, the biggest question in the trade talks is no longer Trump, but Xi. Is Xi prepared to receive Trump kindly if the latter comes crawling back? How will he handle rising political risk in Hong Kong SAR and Taiwan island,2 and will the outcome derail the trade talks? Bottom Line: Global economic growth is fragile and President Trump has only tentatively retracted his latest salvo against China. Nevertheless, the clear signal is that he is sensitive to the financial and economic constraints that affect his presidential run next year – and therefore investors should expect U.S. trade policy to turn less market-negative on the margin in the coming months. This is positive for the cyclical view on global risk assets. But the risk to the view is China: whether Trump will take a conciliatory turn and whether Xi will reciprocate. Can Xi Jinping Accept A Deal? Yes. It is extremely difficult for Xi Jinping to offer concessions in the short term. He is facing another tariff hike, U.S. military shows of force, persistent social unrest in Hong Kong, and a critical election in Taiwan. Certainly, he will not risk any sign of weakness ahead of the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, which will be a nationalist rally in defiance of imperialist western powers. After that, however, there is potential for Xi to be receptive to any Trump pivot on trade. China’s strategy in the trade talks has generally been to offer limited concessions and wait for Trump to resign himself to them. Concessions thus far are not negligible, but they can easily be picked apart. They consist largely of preexisting trends (large commodity purchases); minor adjustments (e.g. to car tariffs and foreign ownership rules); unverifiable promises (on foreign investment, technological transfer, and intellectual property); or reversible strategic cooperation (partial enforcement of North Korean and Iranian sanctions) (Table 1). Many of these concessions have been postponed as a result of Trump’s punitive measures. Table 1China’s Offers Thus Far In The Trade War It is unlikely that Beijing will offer much more under today’s adverse circumstances. The exception is cooperation on North Korea, which should improve. So the contours of a deal are generally known. This is what Trump will have to accept if he seeks to calm markets and restore confidence in the economy ahead of his election. But this slate of concessions is ultimately acceptable for the U.S. China’s demands are that Trump roll back all his tariffs, that purchases of U.S. goods must be reasonable in scale, and that any agreement be balanced and conducted with mutual respect. Of these three, the tariffs and the “balance” pose the most trouble. Trade balance: Washington and Beijing can agree on the terms of specific purchases. China can increase select imports substantially – it remains a cash-rich nation with a state sector that can be commanded to buy American goods. Tariff rollback: This is tougher but can be done. The U.S. will insist on some tariffs – or the threat of tech sanctions – as an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Beijing implements the structural concessions necessary for an agreement. But China might accept a deal in which tariffs were mostly rolled back – say to the original 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of goods. This would likely offset the degree of yuan appreciation to be expected from the likely currency addendum to any agreement. Balance and respect: This qualitative demand is the sticking point. Fundamentally, China cannot reward Trump for his aggressive and unilateral protectionist measures. This would be to set a precedent for future American presidents that sweeping tariffs on national security grounds are a legitimate way of coercing China into making economic structural reforms. Moreover if the U.S. wants to improve the trade balance, China thinks, it cannot embargo Chinese high-tech imports but must actually increase its high-tech exports. Clearly this is a major impasse in the talks. The last point is the likeliest deal-breaker. It may ultimately hinge on strategic events outside of the realm of trade. But before discussing it further, it is important to recognize that China is not invincible – it has a pain threshold. The threat of a divorce from the U.S. is a danger to China’s economy and the Communist regime. Chart 9China's Ultimate Economic Constraint Deterioration in China’s labor market is of utmost seriousness to any Chinese leader (Chart 9). And the economy is still struggling to revive. Xi’s reform and deleveraging campaign of 2017-18 has been postponed but the lingering effects are weighing on growth and the property sector remains under tight regulation. Moreover the removal of implicit guarantees, and rare toleration of creative destruction (Chart 10), have left banks and corporations afraid to take on new risks. The state’s reflationary measures, including a big boost to local government spending, have so far been merely sufficient for domestic stability. These problems can be addressed by additional policy easing. But the domestic political crackdown and the break with the U.S. have shaken manufacturers and private entrepreneurs to the bone, suppressing animal spirits and reducing the demand for loans. Chart 10Creative Destruction In China Ultimately a short-term trade deal to ease this economic stress would make sense for Xi Jinping, even though he knows that U.S. protectionism and the conflict over technological acquisition will persist beyond 2020 and beyond Trump. The threat of a sharp and destabilizing divorce from the U.S. is a real and present danger to the long-term stability of China’s economy and the Communist regime. Xi is a strongman leader, but is he really ready for Mao Zedong-style austerity? Is he not more like former President Jiang Zemin (ruled 1993-2003), who imposed some austerity while prizing domestic economic and political stability above all? To this question we now turn. Bottom Line: China has become the wild card in the trade war. Trump’s need to prevent a recession is known. Beijing has a higher pain threshold and could walk away from the deal to punish Trump (upsetting the global economy and diminishing Trump’s reelection prospects). This would set the precedent for future American presidents that China will not bow to gunboat diplomacy. Will Xi Jinping Overplay His Hand? Be Afraid. For decades China’s main foreign policy principle has been to “lie low and bide its time,” to paraphrase former leader Deng Xiaoping. In the current context this means maintaining a willingness to engage with the U.S. whenever it engages sincerely. This approach implies making the above concessions to minimize the immediate threat to stability from the trade war, while biding time in the longer run rivalry against the United States. Such an approach would also imply assisting the diplomatic process on the Korean peninsula, avoiding a military crackdown in Hong Kong, and refraining from aggressive military intimidation ahead of Taiwan’s election in January. Chart 11China's Vast Market Its Most Persuasive Tool After all, there is no better way for the Communist Party to undercut dissidents in Hong Kong and Taiwan than to strike a deal with the United States. This would demonstrate that Xi is a pragmatic leader who is still committed to “reform and opening up.” It would help generate an economic rebound that would bring other countries deeper into Beijing’s orbit (Chart 11). China’s vast domestic market is ultimately its greatest strength in its contest with the United States. In short, conventional Chinese policy suggests that Xi should perpetuate the long success story since 1978 by striking another deal with another Republican president. The catch is that Xi Jinping is not conventional. Since coming to power in 2012, Xi has eschewed the subtle strategies of Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping in favor of a more ambitious approach: that of declaring China’s arrival as a major power and leveraging its economic and military heft to pursue foreign policy and commercial interests aggressively. Xi’s reassertion of Communist rule and state-guided technological acquisition is the biggest factor behind the new U.S. political consensus – entirely aside from Trump – that China is foe rather than friend. There are several empirical reasons to think that Xi might overplay his hand: Xi failed to make substantive concessions with President Barack Obama’s administration on North Korea, the South China Sea, and cyber security, resulting in Obama’s decision to harden U.S. policy toward both China and North Korea in 2015 – a trend that predates Trump. Xi formally removed presidential term limits from China’s constitution even though he could have attracted less negative attention from the West by ruling from behind the scenes after his term in office, like Deng Xiaoping or Jiang Zemin. China has mostly played for time in negotiations with the Trump administration, as mentioned, and this aggravated tensions. Deep revisions to the draft agreement, which was supposedly 90% complete, broke the negotiations in May, sparking this summer’s standoff. Aggressive policies in territorial disputes have alienated even China’s potential allies. This includes regional states whose current ruling parties have courted China in recent years, in some cases obsequiously – South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The East and South China Seas remain a genuine source of “black swans” – unpredictable, low-probability, high-impact events – due to their status as critical sea lanes for the major Asian economies. China continues to militarize the islands there and aggressively prosecute its maritime-territorial disputes. We calculate that $6.4 trillion worth of goods flowed through this bottleneck in the year ending April 2019, 8% of which consists of energy goods from the Middle East that are vital to China and its East Asian neighbors, none of whom can stomach Chinese domination of this geographic space (Diagram 1). Even if Washington abandoned the region, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would see Chinese control as a threat to their security. Diagram 1The South China Sea As The World’s Traffic Roundabout Ultimately, however, China’s adventures in its neighboring seas are a matter of choice. Not so for Greater China – in Hong Kong and Taiwan, political risk is rapidly mounting in a way that enflames the U.S.-China strategic distrust and threatens to prevent a trade agreement. Hong Kong: The Dust Has Not Settled Mass protests in Hong Kong have lost some momentum, based on the size of the largest rally in August versus June. But do not be fooled: the political crisis is deepening. A plurality of Hong Kongers now harbors negative feelings toward mainland Chinese people as well as the government in Beijing – a trend that is spiking amid today’s protests but began with the Great Recession and has roots in the deeper socioeconomic malaise of this capitalist enclave (Chart 12A & 12B). A majority also lacks confidence in the political arrangement that ensures some autonomy from Beijing – known as “One Country, Two Systems” (Chart 13). This is a particularly worrisome sign since this is the fundamental basis for stable political relations with Beijing. With clashes continuing between protesters and police, students calling for a boycott of school this fall, and Beijing openly drilling its security forces in Shenzhen for a potential intervention, Hong Kong’s unrest is not yet laid to rest and could flare up again ahead of China’s sensitive National Day celebration. U.S. tariffs and sanctions are already in effect, reducing the ability of the U.S. to deter China from using force if it believes instability has gone too far. And as President Trump has warned – and would be true of any U.S. administration – a violent crackdown on civilian demonstrators would greatly reduce the political viability of a trade deal in the United States. Taiwan: The Black Swan Arrives Since Taiwan’s 2016 election, we have argued that it is a potential source of “black swans.” Mass protests in Hong Kong may have taken the cake. But these protests are now affecting the Taiwanese election dynamic and potentially the U.S.-China trade talks. Chart 14U.S. Approves Big New Arms Sale To Taiwan On August 20, the United States Department of Defense informed Congress that it is proceeding with an $8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets and other military arms and equipment to Taiwan – the largest sale in 22 years and the largest aircraft sale since 1992 (Chart 14). This sale is not yet complete and delivered, but ultimately will be – the question is the timing. Arms sales to Taiwan are a perennial source of tension between the United States and China – and China is increasingly assertive in using economic sanctions to get its way over such issues, as it showed in the lead up to South Korea’s election in 2017. This sale is not a military “game changer” – the U.S. did not send over fifth-generation F-35s, for instance – but China will respond vehemently. It is threatening to impose sanctions on American companies like Lockheed Martin and General Electric for their part in the deal. The sale does not in itself preclude the chance of a trade agreement but it contributes to a rise in strategic tensions that ultimately could. The context is Taiwan’s hugely important election in January. Four years ago, President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party swept to power on the back of a popular protest movement – the “Sunflower Movement” – that opposed deeper cross-strait economic integration. It dangerously resembled the kind of anti-Communist “color revolutions” that motivate Xi Jinping’s hardline policies. Tsai shocked the world when she called Trump personally to congratulate him after his election, which violated diplomatic protocol given that Taiwan is a territory of China and not an independent nation-state. Since then Trump has largely avoided provoking the Taiwan issue so as not to strike at a core Chinese interest and obliterate the chance of a trade deal. But the U.S. has always argued that the provision of defensive arms to Taiwan is a condition of the U.S.-China détente – and Trump is so far moving forward with the sale. Chart 15A 'Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis' Would Have A Seismic Equity Impact How will Xi Jinping react if the sale goes through? In 1995-96, China’s use of missile tests to try to intimidate Taiwan produced the opposite effect – driving voters into the arms of Lee Teng-hui, the candidate Beijing opposed. This was the occasion of the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, in which U.S. President Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carriers to the region, one that sailed through the Taiwan Strait. The negative effect on markets at that time was local, whereas anything resembling this level of tensions would today be a seismic global risk-off (Chart 15). Since the 1990s, leaders in Beijing have avoided direct military coercion ahead of elections. But Xi Jinping has hardened his stance on Taiwan throughout his term. He has dabbled with such coercion in his use of military drills that encircle Taiwan in recent years. While one must assume that he will use economic sanctions rather than outright military threats – as he did with South Korea – saber-rattling cannot be ruled out. The pressure on him is rising. Prior to the Hong Kong unrest, Taiwan’s elections looked likely to return the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) to power and remove the incumbent President Tsai – a boon for Beijing. That outlook has changed and Tsai now has a fighting chance of staying in power (Chart 16). The prospect of four more years of Tsai would not be too problematic for Beijing if not for the fact that the U.S. political establishment is now firmly in agreement on challenging China. But even if Tsai loses, Taiwan’s outlook is troublesome. And this makes Xi’s decision-making harder to predict. It is not that Tsai or her party will necessarily prevail. The manufacturing slowdown will take a toll and third-party candidates, particularly Ko Wen-je, would likely split Tsai’s vote. Moreover her Democratic Progressives still tie the KMT in opinion polling (Chart 17). The Taiwanese people are primarily concerned about maintaining the strong economy and cross-strait peace and stability, which her reelection could jeopardize (Chart 18). Tsai could very well lose, or she could be a lame duck presiding over the KMT in the legislature. Rather, the problem for Xi Jinping is that the Taiwanese people clearly sympathize with the protesters in Hong Kong (Chart 19). They fear that their own governance system faces the same fate as Hong Kong’s, with the Communist Party encroaching on traditional political liberties over time. While Hong Kong ultimately has zero choice as to whether to accept Beijing’s supremacy, Taiwan has much greater autonomy – and the military support of outside forces. It is not a foregone conclusion that Taiwan must suffer the same political dependency as Hong Kong. Indeed, Taiwan has a long history of exercising the democratic vote and has even dabbled into the realm of popular referendums. In short, Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis in the long run than Hong Kong. But the Hong Kong events have accentuated this fact, for two key reasons: First, Taiwanese people identify increasingly as exclusively Taiwanese, rather than as both Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart 20). The incidents in Hong Kong reveal that this sentiment is tied to immediate political relations and therefore deterioration would encourage further alienation from the mainland. Second, while a strong majority of Taiwanese wish to maintain the political status quo to avoid conflict with the mainland, a substantial subset – approaching one-fourth – supports eventual or immediate independence (Chart 21). This means that relations with the mainland will eventually deteriorate even if the KMT wins the election. The KMT itself must respond to popular demand not to cozy up too much with Beijing, which is how it fell from power in 2016. Taiwan has a lot more dry powder for a political crisis than Hong Kong. Meanwhile, under KMT rule, Taiwan’s progressive-leaning youth are likely to set about reviving their protest movement in the subsequent years and imitating their Hong Kong peers, especially if the KMT warms up relations too fast with the mainland. Ultimately these points suggest that Xi Jinping will strive to avoid a violent crackdown in Hong Kong. A crackdown would be the surest way for him to harm the KMT in the Taiwanese election and to hasten the rebuilding of U.S.-Taiwan security ties. Call The President The best argument for Xi to lie low and avoid a larger crisis in Greater China is that it would unify the West and its allies against China. So far Xi’s foreign policy has not been so aggressive as to lead to diplomatic isolation. Europe is maintaining a studied neutrality due to its own differences with the United States; Asian neighbors are wary of provoking Chinese sanctions or military threats. A humanitarian crisis in Hong Kong or a “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” would change that. For markets, the best-case scenario is that Xi Jinping exercises restraint. This would help Hong Kong protests lose steam, North Korean diplomacy get back on track, and Taiwanese independence sentiment simmer down. China would be more likely to halt U.S. tariffs and tech sanctions, settle a short-term trade agreement, and delay the upgrade in U.S.-Taiwan defense relations. China would still face adverse long-term political trends in both the U.S. and Taiwan, but an immediate crisis would be averted. The worst-case scenario is that Xi indulges his ambition. Hong Kong protests could explode, relations with Taiwan would deteriorate, and U.S.-China relations would move more rapidly in their downward spiral. Trade talks could collapse. Xi Jinping would face the possibility of a unified Western front, instability within Greater China, and a global recession. This might get rid of Donald Trump, but it would not get rid of the U.S. Congress, Navy, or Department of Defense. The choice seems pretty clear. Xi, like Trump, faces constraints that should motivate a tactical retreat from confrontation, at least after October 1. While this does not necessarily mean a settled trade agreement, it does suggest at least a ceasefire or truce. Our GeoRisk indicators show that market-based political risk in Taiwan – and less so South Korea – moves in keeping with global economic policy uncertainty. The underlying U.S.-China strategic confrontation and trade war are driving both (Chart 22). A deterioration in this region has global consequences. Chart 22U.S.-China Strategic Conflict Fuels Global Economic Uncertainty And Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk In Tandem Xi is a markedly aggressive “strongman” Chinese leader who has not been afraid to model his leadership on that of Chairman Mao. He could still overplay his hand. This is why we maintain that the odds of a U.S.-China trade agreement remain 40%, though we are prepared to upgrade that probability if Trump and Xi make pro-market decisions. Investment Implications On the three-month tactical horizon, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy is paring back our tactical safe-haven trades: we are closing our “Doomsday Basket” of long gold and Swiss bonds for a gain of 13.6%, while maintaining our simple gold portfolio hedge going forward. Trump has not yet decisively staged his tactical retreat on trade policy, while rising political risk in Greater China increases uncertainty over Xi Jinping’s next moves. On the cyclical horizon, the above suggests that there is a light at the end of the tunnel – if both Trump and Xi recognize their political constraints. This means that there is still a political and geopolitical basis to reinforce BCA’s House View to remain optimistic on global and U.S. equities over the next 12 months, with the potential for non-U.S. equities to recover and bond yields to reverse their deep dive.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Negotiations between Trump and Xi are slated for September in Washington. There is a prospect for Trump to hold another summit with Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in late September and at the APEC summit in Chile in mid-November. 2 Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, while Taiwan is recognized as a province or territory.

Highlights The current global trade downtrend has primarily been due to a contraction in Chinese imports. The latter reflects weakness in China's domestic demand in general and capital spending in particular. The current global manufacturing and trade downturns will prove to be drawn out. Several important markets have already experienced technical breakdowns, and a few others are at risk of doing so. EM domestic bonds and EM credit markets could be the last shoe to drop in this EM selloff. Steel, iron ore and coal prices, will all deflate further due to supply outpacing demand in China. Feature In our report last week, we argued that the odds of a liquidation phase in EM are growing. This week’s report continues exploring this theme, offering additional rationale and evidence of a pending breakdown in EM. Trade Tariffs: The Wrong Focus? The media and many investors seem to be solely focused on the impact of U.S. tariffs against imports from China. Yet these tariffs have not been the primary cause of the ongoing global manufacturing and trade recessions. It appears that the headlines and many investors are looking at individual trees and ignoring the forest. Chart I-1Chinese Imports Are Worse Than Exports Global trade contraction and China’s growth slump are not solely due to the trade tariffs imposed by the U.S. but rather stem from weakening domestic demand in China. Chart I-1 illustrates that Chinese aggregate exports are faring much better than imports. If the imposed tariffs were the main culprit behind both weakness in Chinese growth and global trade, mainland exports would have registered a far-greater hit by now than imports. However, they have not yet done so. This entails that U.S. tariffs have so far not had a substantial impact on Chinese and global manufacturing. The key point we would like to emphasize is that the current global trade downtrend has primarily been due to a contraction in Chinese imports. In turn, the accelerating decline in mainland imports is a reflection of relapsing domestic demand in China. The latter has been instigated by lethargic money/credit impulses owing to the government’s 2017-2018 deleveraging campaign and its reluctance to undertake an economy-wide irrigation type stimulus. What’s more, the recent RMB depreciation will likely intensify the Chinese import contraction already underway, as the same amount of yuan will buy less goods priced in U.S. dollars than before (Chart I-2). Given the majority of goods and commodities procured by mainland companies are priced in dollars, suppliers will receive fewer dollars, and their revenue derived from sales to and in China will continue to shrink (Chart I-3). Chart I-2RMB Depreciation Will Depress China's Purchases From Rest Of The World Chart I-3China Is In A Recession From Perspective Of Its Suppliers   We do not deny that the trade war has prompted a deterioration in sentiment among Chinese businesses and consumers as well as multinational companies, which in turn has dented both their spending and global trade. We do not see these issues reversing anytime soon. If the imposed tariffs were the main culprit behind both weakness in Chinese growth and global trade, mainland exports would have registered a far-greater hit by now than imports. Chart I-4EM EPS Are Contracting Even though U.S. President Donald Trump is flip-flopping on tariffs and their implementation, barring a major deal between the U.S. and China, business sentiment worldwide will not improve on a dime. In brief, delaying some import tariffs from September to December is unlikely to promote an imminent global trade recovery. The confrontation between the U.S. and China is profoundly not about trade: it is a geopolitical confrontation for global hegemony that will last years if not decades. Businesses in China and CEOs of multinational companies realize this, and they will not change their investment plans on Trump’s latest tweet delaying some tariffs. For now, we do not detect signs of an impending growth turnaround in China’s domestic demand and global trade. Therefore, China-related risk assets, commodities and global cyclicals are at risk of breaking down. Economic Rationale The global trade and manufacturing recession will linger for a while longer, and a recovery is not in the offing: The business cycle in EM/China continues to downshift. Consistently, corporate earnings are already or soon will be contracting in EM, China and the rest of emerging Asia (Chart I-4). EM corporate EPS contraction is broad-based (Chart I-5A and I-5B). The recent declines in oil and base metals prices entail earnings shrinkage for energy and materials companies (Chart I-5B, bottom two panels). Chart I-5AEM EPS Contraction Is Broad Based Chart I-5BEM EPS Contraction Is Broad Based   China’s monetary and fiscal stimulus has not yet been sufficient to revive capital spending in general and construction activity in particular (Chart I-6). Chinese household spending is also exhibiting little signs of recovery (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China: Building Construction Is Dwindling Chart I-7China: Consumer Spending Has Not Yet Recovered   Domestic demand continues to deteriorate, not only in China but also in other emerging economies, as we documented in our July 25 report. In EM ex-China, imports of capital goods and auto sales are contracting (Chart I-8). High-frequency freight data point to ongoing weakness in shipments in both the U.S. and China (Chart I-9). Chart I-8EM Ex-China: Domestic Demand Is Depressed Bottom Line: The current global manufacturing and trade downturns will prove to be drawn out, and investors should be wary of betting on an impending recovery. This is BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy view and is different from BCA’s house view which is anticipating an imminent global business cycle recovery. Chart I-9Global Freight Does Not Signal Recovery   Breakdown Watch Financial market segments sensitive to the global business cycle have been splintering at the edges. These cracks appear to be proliferating to the center and will render considerable damage to aggregate equity indexes. EM corporate EPS contraction is broad-based. We explained our rationale behind using long-term moving averages to identify significant breakouts and breakdowns in last week’s report. We also highlighted the numerous breakdowns that have already transpired. Today, we supplement the list: EM equity relative performance versus DM has fallen below its previous lows (Chart I-10, top panel). Crucially, emerging Asian stocks’ relative performance versus DM has clearly breached its 2015-2016 lows (Chart I-10, bottom panel). The KOSPI and Chinese H-share indexes have broken below their three-year moving averages (Chart I-11, top two panels). Chart I-10EM Equities Relative Performance Has Broken Down Chinese bank stocks in particular have been responsible for dragging China’s H-share index lower (Chart I-11, bottom panel). In addition, Chinese small-cap stocks dropped below their December low, as have copper prices and our Risk-On versus Safe-Haven currency ratio1 (Chart I-12). Finally, German chemical and industrial share prices such as BASF, Siemens and ThyssenKrupp have decisively broken down (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Breakdowns In Korea And China...   Chart I-12...In Commodities Space As Well Chart I-13German Manufacturing Stocks Are In Free Fall   This implies that Germany’s manufacturing slowdown is not limited to the auto sector but rather is pervasive. Besides, these companies are greatly exposed to China/EM demand, and their share prices simply reflect the ongoing slump in China/EM capital spending. There are several other market signals that are at a critical technical juncture, and their move lower will confirm our downbeat view on global growth and cyclical markets. In particular: The global stocks-to-U.S. Treasurys ratio has dropped to a critical technical line (Chart I-14, top panel). Failure to hold this defense line would signal considerable downside in global cyclical assets. Similarly, the Chinese stock-to-bond ratio – calculated using total returns of both the MSCI China All-Share index and domestic government bonds – has plunged. The path of least resistance for this ratio might be to the downside (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Given China is the epicenter of the global slowdown, this ratio is of vital importance. The lack of recovery in this ratio signifies lingering downside growth risks. Finally, global cyclical sectors’ relative performance versus defensive ones is sitting on its three-year moving average (Chart I-15). A move lower will qualify as a major breakdown and confirm the absence of a global manufacturing and trade recovery. Chart I-14Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio: Sitting On Edge Chart I-15Global Cyclicals Versus Defensives: At A Critical Juncture   Bottom Line: Several important markets have already experienced technical breakdowns, and a few others are at risk of doing so. All in all, these provide us with confidence in maintaining our downbeat stance on EM risk assets and currencies. EM Bonds: The Last Shoe To Drop? Although EM share prices are back to their December lows, EM local currency and U.S. dollar bonds have done well this year, benefiting from the indiscriminate global bond market rally. However, there are limits to how far and for how long the performance of EM domestic and U.S. dollar bonds can diverge from EM stocks, currencies and commodities prices (Chart I-16). EM domestic bond yields have plunged close to the 2013 lows they touched prior to the Federal Reserve’s ‘Taper Tantrum’ selloff (Chart I-17, top panel). That said, on a total return basis in common currency terms, the GBI EM domestic bond index has not outperformed U.S. Treasurys, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart I-17. Chart I-16Which Way These Gaps Will Close? Chart I-17EM Domestic Bonds: Poor Risk-Reward Profile   Looking forward, EM exchange rates remain critical to the returns of this asset class. With the GBI EM local currency bond index’s yield spread over five-year U.S. Treasurys at about 400 basis points, EM currencies have very little room to depreciate before foreign investors begin experiencing losses. We believe that further RMB depreciation, commodities prices deflation and EM exports contraction all bode ill for EM exchange rates. Consequently, we expect EM local bonds to underperform U.S. Treasurys of similar duration over the next several months. German chemical and industrial share prices such as BASF, Siemens and ThyssenKrupp have decisively broken down. Finally, the euro has begun rapid appreciation versus EM currencies. This will erode EM local bonds’ returns to European investors and trigger a period of outflows. Within this asset class, our overweights are Mexico, Russia, Central Europe, Chile, Korea and Thailand, while we continue to recommend underweight positions in the Philippines, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Peru within an EM local currency bond portfolio. As to EM credit space (hard currency bonds), these markets are overbought, and investors positioning is heavy. EM currency depreciation and lower commodities prices typically herald widening spreads. Argentina has a large weight in the EM credit indexes, and the crash in Argentine markets could be a trigger for outflows from this asset class. Technically speaking, there are already several negative signposts. The excess returns on EM sovereign and corporate bonds seem to have rolled over, having failed to surpass their early 2018 highs (Chart I-18). Besides, EM sovereign CDS spreads are breaking out (Chart I-19, top panel). Chart I-18EM Credit Markets Is Toppy Chart I-19EM Credit Space Is Entering Selloff   Finally, there are noticeable cracks in the emerging Asian corporate credit market. The price index of China’s high-yield property bonds – that account for a very large portion not only of the Chinese but also the emerging Asian corporate bond universes – has petered out at an important technical resistance level (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Further, the relative total return of emerging Asia’s investment-grade corporate bonds against their high-yield peers is correlated with Asia corporate spreads, and presently points to wider spreads (Chart I-20). The rationale is that periods when safer parts of the credit universe outperform the riskier ones are usually associated with widening credit spreads. China’s property market remains vulnerable as the central authorities in Beijing have not provided much housing-related stimulus in the current downtrend. Furthermore, companies in this space are overleveraged, generate poor cash flow and have limited access to credit. The euro has begun rapid appreciation versus EM currencies. This will erode EM local bonds’ returns to European investors and trigger a period of outflows. Overall, Chinese property developers will affect the EM credit space in two ways. First, their credit spreads will likely continue to shoot up, generating investor anxiety and outflows from this asset class. Second, reduced investment by debt-laden and cash-strapped property developers will inflict pain on industrial and materials companies in Asia and beyond. We discuss the outlook for steel, iron ore and coal, which are very exposed to Chinese construction, in the section below. Bottom Line: For asset allocators, we recommend underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. investment grade, a strategy we have been advocating since August 16, 2017 (Chart I-21). For dedicated portfolios, the list of our overweights and underweights, as always, is presented at the end of the report (page 21). Chart I-20Emerging Asian Corporate Spreads Will Widen Chart I-21Favor U.S. Investment Grade Versus EM Overall Credit   As for EM domestic bonds, we continue to recommend betting on yield declines in select countries without taking on currency risk. These include Korea, Chile, Mexico and Russia. We will warm up to this asset class in general when we alter our negative EM currency view. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Chinese Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Markets: Renewed Deflation Chart II-1Is Deflation In Steel And Coal Back? Unlike 2015 when steel, iron ore and coal prices collapsed, in the current downturn they have so far held up reasonably well. They have begun falling only recently (Chart II-1). Even though we do not anticipate a 2015-type Armageddon in steel, iron ore and coal prices, they will deflate further due to supply outpacing demand in China. For both steel and coal, the pace of “de-capacity” reforms in China has diminished considerably, with declining shutdowns of inefficient capacity and rising advanced capacity, as we argued in a couple of reports last year.  This has led to a faster growth in supply, while demand has been dwindling with weak economic growth. Lower steel, iron ore and coal prices will harm Chinese and global producers along with their respective countries.2 Steel And Iron Ore First, both crude steel and steel products output will likely grow at a pace of 5-7% (Chart II-2). As the 2016-2020 steel de-capacity target (150 million tons capacity reduction) was already achieved by the end of 2018, the scale of further shutdowns will be limited. In addition, collapsing graphite electrode prices reflect an increased supply of this material. This along with more availability of scrap steel will facilitate the continuing expansion of cleaner technology (electric furnace (EF)) steel capacity and their output in China. The newly added EF steel capacity is planned at about 21 million tons in 2019 (representing 1.8% of official aggregate steel production capacity), slightly lower than the 25 million tons in 2018. Second, we expect steel products demand to grow at 3-5%, slightly weaker than output. Construction accounts for about 55% of Chinese final steel demand, with about 35% stemming from the property market and 20% from infrastructure. The automotive sector contributes about 10% of final Chinese steel demand. All of these end markets are weak and do not yet show signs of revival (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Steel Production In China Chart II-3No Recovery In Chinese Demand   Concerning iron ore price, we expect more downside than in steel. Supply disruptions among Brazilian and Australian producers were the main cause for the significant rally in iron ore prices this year. Evidence is that these producers have already resumed their output recovery. Current iron ore prices are still well above marginal production costs of major global iron ore producers. Besides, ongoing large currency depreciation in commodity producing countries will push down their marginal production costs in U.S. dollars terms. This will encourage further supply.  As China has increased its use of scrap steel in its crude steel production, the country’s iron ore demand has not grown much. In fact, imports of this raw material have contracted (Chart II-4) As scrap steel prices are currently very low relative to the price of imported iron ore (Chart II-5), steel producers in China will continue to use scrap steel instead of iron ore. Chart II-4China's Imports Of Iron Ore Have Been Shrinking Chart II-5Scrap Steel Is A Cheap Substitute For Iron Ore   Coal Chart II-6Coal Output Is Rising, But Beijing's Goal To Reduce Its Usage Chinese coal prices will also be under downward pressure. First, coal output growth will likely slow but will still stand at 2-4% down from a current 6% level (Chart II-6, top panel). The government has set a production goal of 3900 million tons for 2020. Given last year’s output of 3680 million tons, this implies only a 2.9% annual growth rate this year and the next. Second, the demand for both thermal coal and coking coal will likely weaken. They account for 80% and 20% of total coal demand, respectively. About 60% of Chinese coal is used to generate thermal power. As the country continues to promote the use of clean energy, thermal power output growth will likely slow further. Increasing the nation’s reliance on clean energy is an imperative strategic objective for Beijing. Given that thermal coal still accounts for a whopping 70% of electricity production, China will maintain its effort on reducing coal in its energy mix (Chart II-6, bottom panel). In the same vein, the government will continue to replace coal with natural gas in home heating. Finally, Chinese coal import volumes are likely to decline as the nation is increasingly relying on its domestic sources. In particular, the strategic Menghua railway construction will be completed in October. It will be used to transport the commodity from large producers in the north to the coal-deficit provinces in the south. This will reduce the nation’s coal imports, as the transportation cost of shipping domestic coal to the southern power plants will become more competitive than imported coal. Macro And Investment Implications First, companies and economies producing these commodities will face deflationary pressures. These include - but are not limited to - Indonesia, Australia, Brazil and South Africa, as well as steel producers around the world. Second, the RMB depreciation will allow China to gain further market share in the global steel market. In fact, China’s share of global steel output has been rising (Chart II-7, top panel). The bottom panel of Chart II-7 shows that steel production in the world excluding China have actually come to a grinding halt at a time when mainland producers have enjoyed high output growth. Global steel stocks have broken down and global mining equities are heading into a breakdown (Chart II-8). Chart II-7China Has Been Gaining A Share In Global Steel Market Chart II-8Breakdown In Steel And Mining Stocks   Finally, we remain bearish on commodities and other global growth sensitive currencies. In particular, we continue shorting the following basket of EM currencies against the U.S. dollar: ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR and KRW. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1          Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP & ZAR total return (including carry) indices relative to average of JPY & CHF total returns. 2      This is BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy view and is different from BCA’s house view. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Fixed-Income And Credit Recommendations

Highlights Economic data suggest the current business cycle in China has not yet reached a bottom. Stimulus measures have not been forceful enough to fully offset a slowing domestic economy and weakening global demand. With possibly more U.S. tariffs to come, intensifying political unrest in Hong Kong and a currency set to depreciate further, the potential downside risks outweigh any potential upside over the near term. Investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long. We are still early in a credit expansionary cycle, and we expect further economic weakness to pave the way for more policy support in China. However, we recommend investors who are not yet invested in Chinese assets to remain on the sidelines until clearer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. Feature Chart 1A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks Financial market volatility surged in the first half of the month following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tweet, vowing to impose a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods by September 1st. By the end of last week, prices of China investable stocks relative to global equities had nearly wiped out all their 2019 year-to-date gains. (Chart 1) The extent of the decline has left some investors wondering whether the time has come to bottom-fish Chinese assets. In our view, the answer is no. In this week’s report we detail five reasons why the near-term outlook for China-related assets remains negative. We remain bullish on Chinese stocks over the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) horizon and recommend investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets stay long. However, we also recommend investors who are not yet invested to remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. As we go to press, the U.S. Trade Representative Office announced that the Trump administration would delay imposing the 10% tariff on a series of consumer goods imported from China — including laptops and cell phones — until December.1 Stocks in the U.S. surged on the news. Today’s rally in the equity market highlights our view, that short-term market performance can be dominated and distorted by news on the trade front. However, market rallies based on headline news will not sustain without the support of economic fundamentals. Reason #1: Chinese Economic Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed In a previous China Investment Strategy report,2  we presented some simple arithmetic to help investors formulate their outlook on the Chinese economy. We argued that in a full-tariff scenario, investors should focus on the likely outcome of one of the two following possibilities: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock ≤ 0 In scenario 1, the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand from the sharp decline in exports to the U.S. Scenario 2 denotes an outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock. For now, we remain in scenario 2 due to Chinese policymakers’ continual reluctance to allow the economy to re-leverage. The magnitude of the credit impulse so far has been “half measured” relative to previous cycles.3  More than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom. As a result, more than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom, with the main pillars supporting China’s “old economy” still in the doldrums (Chart 2 and Chart 3). Chart 2No Clear Bottom, Yet Chart 3Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher   In addition to a weakening domestic economy, China’s external sector has been weighed down by U.S. import tariffs as well as slowing global demand. (Chart 4).  The possibility of adding a 10% tariff by year end on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese goods exports to the U.S. may trigger another tariff “front-running” episode in the 3rd quarter. However, Chart 5 and Chart 6 highlight that any front-running would be against the backdrop of sluggish global demand. Therefore, not only the upside in Chinese export growth will be very limited in the subsequent months following the front-running, but export growth is also likely to fall deeper into contraction. Chart 4Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Chart 5Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Chart 6Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Reason # 2: A-Shares Are Not Yet Signaling A Sizeable Policy Response In previous China Investment Strategy reports, we have written at length about how Chinese policymakers are reluctant to undo their financial deleveraging efforts and push for more stimulus. After incorporating July credit data, our credit impulse, at a very subdued 26% of nominal GDP, was in fact a pullback from June’s credit growth number (Chart 7). This confirms our view that the current stimulus is clearly falling short compared to the 2015-2016 credit expansionary cycle. It underscores Chinese policymakers’ commitment to keep their foot off the stimulus pedal. What’s more, the recent performance of China’s domestic financial markets has been consistent with a half-measured credit response, and is not yet signaling a meaningful change in China’s policy stance. The A-share market since last summer has been trading off of the likely policy response to the trade war. Chart 8Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Chart 8 (top panel) shows that the A-share market has closely tracked China’s domestic credit growth over the past year. Given this, we believe that the A-share market is reacting more to the likely policy response to the trade war, in contrast to the investable market which rises and falls in near-lockstep with trade-related news (middle panel). The fact that A-share stocks have been trending sideways underscores that China’s domestic equity market continues to expect “half measured” stimulus. This week’s sharp decline in China’s 10-year government bond yield is in part related to escalating political unrest in Hong Kong (bottom panel), and in our view does not yet signal any major change in the PBOC’s stance. Finally, our corporate earnings recession probability model provides another perspective on the equity market implications of the current path of stimulus. If the current size of stimulus holds through the end of 2019, our model suggests that the probability of an outright contraction in corporate earnings lasting through year end remains quite elevated, at close to 50% (first X in Chart 9). The July Politburo statement signaled a greater willingness to stimulate the economy; as a result, we are penciling in a slightly more optimistic scenario on forthcoming credit growth through the remainder of the year, by adding 300 billion yuan of debt-to-bond swaps4 and 800 billion yuan of extra infrastructure spending5 to our baseline estimate for the rest of 2019. However, this would only add a credit impulse equivalent of 1 percentage point of nominal GDP and would only marginally reduce the probability of an earnings recession to 40% (second X in Chart 9). A 40% chance of an earnings recession is well above “normal” levels that would be consistent with a durable uptrend in stock prices, and in previous cycles, Chinese stock prices picked up only after business cycles and corporate earnings had bottomed (Chart 10). In sum, the current pace of credit growth, signals from the domestic equity market, and our earnings recession model all suggest that it is too early to bottom fish Chinese stocks. Chart 9A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer Chart 10Too Early To Bottom Fish Reason #3: The Trade War Is Far From Over Our Geopolitical Strategy team maintains that the U.S. and China have only a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020, and that any trade truce is likely to be shallow.6 We agree with this assessment, which has clear negative near-term implications for Chinese investable stocks, even if temporary rallies such as what took place yesterday periodically occur. Since the onset of the trade war, Chinese investable stocks appear to have traded nearly entirely in reaction to trade-related events. Hence, until global investors are given proof that much stronger stimulus can and will offset the impact of the trade war on corporate earnings, Chinese stocks are likely to continue to underperform their global peers. Reason #4: The Hong Kong Crisis Is A Near-Term Risk Another near-term catalyst for financial market turbulence in China is the worsening situation in Hong Kong. For now, we hold the view that a full-blown crisis (i.e. China intervening with military force) can be avoided, but we are not ruling out the possibility of a severe escalation or its potential impact on market sentiment towards Chinese assets.  On the surface, China investable stocks (the MSCI China Index, the predominantly investable index that now includes some mainland A-shares) are not directly linked to businesses in Hong Kong: Out of the top 10 constituents of the MSCI China Index, which account for roughly 50% of the index’s market capitalization, seven are headquartered in mainland China and do not appear to have significant revenue exposure to Hong Kong. By contrast, at least 30% of Hang Seng Index-listed companies have business operations in Hong Kong. The remaining three companies in the top 10 MSCI China Index are Tencent (the largest component of the index, with a weight of approximately 15%), Ping An Insurance (4% weight), and China Mobile (3% weight) – all of which registered large losses in the past week. Both Tencent and Ping An Insurance are headquartered in Shenzhen, a southeastern China metropolis that links Hong Kong to mainland China. China Mobile appears to have the most revenue exposure to Hong Kong of any top constituent through its CMHK subsidiary, which is the largest telecommunications provider in Hong Kong. It is true that there has been little evidence so far that Chinese investable stocks have been more impacted by the escalation in political unrest in Hong Kong than by the escalation in the trade war. Indeed, the fact that the two escalations were overlapping this past week makes it difficult to isolate their effects. But if unrest in Hong Kong spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China intervening. According to an analysis done by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team,6 the deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries. The 1989 Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions. Should this to occur, the near-term idiosyncratic risk to Chinese stocks in both onshore and offshore markets will be significant. Reason #5: Further RMB Depreciation May Weigh On Stock Prices Whether due to manipulation or market forces, last week’s depreciation in the Chinese currency (RMB) was economically justified and long overdue. Chart 11RMB Depreciation Long Overdue Chart 11 shows the close relationship between the U.S.-China one-year swap rate differential and the USD/CNY exchange rate. The true source of the correlation shown in the chart remains somewhat of a mystery, given that Chinese capital controls, particularly following the 2015 devaluation episode, prevent the arbitrage activities that link rate differentials and exchange rates in economies with fully open capital accounts. However, Chart 11 clearly shows that China’s currency would have already weakened by now if it was fully market-driven, and we do not believe that the People’s Bank of China will be inclined to tighten monetary policy in order to reverse the recent devaluation. Hence, the path of least resistance for the CNY is further depreciation.  If the threatened 10% tariff on all remaining U.S. imports from China is imposed this year, our back-of-the-envelope calculation based on Chart 12 suggests that a market-driven “equilibrium” USD/CNY exchange rate should be at around 7.6. We have high conviction, based on previous RMB devaluation episodes, that China’s central bank will not allow its currency to depreciate in a manner that invites speculation of meaningful further weakness – meaning we are not likely to see a straight-lined or rapid depreciation down to the 7.6 mark. Chart 12Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the Chinese economy. At the same time, aggressive market intervention via the PBoC burning through its foreign exchange reserves is also unlikely: A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the economy. It improves Chinese export goods’ price competitiveness and helps mitigate some of the pain caused by increased tariffs. Therefore it is in the PBoC’s every interest to allow such depreciation. However, no matter how “orderly” RMB depreciation may be, the fact that the PBoC has signaled it is no longer defending a “line in the sand” exchange-rate mark is likely to trigger another round of “race to the bottom” currency devaluation from other regional, export-dependent economies.7 A weaker RMB and emerging market currencies will also contribute to USD strength. A strong dollar has been negatively correlated with global risky assets, implying that for a time, a weaker RMB will be a risk-off event for risky assets and thus presumably for Chinese and EM equity relative performance. Investment Implications Our analysis above highlights that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is fraught with risk, and it is for this reason that we recommended an underweight tactical position in Chinese stocks for the remainder of the year in our July 24 Weekly Report.8 However, by next summer (the tail-end of our cyclical investment horizon), it is our judgement that one of two things will have likely occurred: The trade war with the U.S. will have abated or been called off, and investors will have determined that a “half-strength” credit cycle is likely enough to stabilize Chinese domestic demand and the earnings outlook. In this scenario, Chinese stocks are likely to rise US$ terms over the coming year, relative to global stocks. The trade war with the U.S. will have continued, and Chinese policymakers will have acted on the need to stimulate aggressively further in order to stabilize domestic demand. In combination with an ultimately stimulative (although near-term negative) decline in the RMB, the relative performance of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark will likely be higher in hedged currency terms. Because of the near-term risks to the outlook, we agree that investors who are not yet invested should remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. But investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long, and should bet on the latter scenario: rising relative Chinese equity performance in local currency terms, alongside a falling CNY-USD / appreciating USD-CNY exchange rate.   Jing Sima  China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “US to delay some tariffs on Chinese goods”, Financial Times, August 13, 2019. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC”, dated July 10, 2019, and “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4      The remaining of 14 trillion debt-to-bond swap program rounds up to 315 billion yuan. 5      The relaxed financing requirement for infrastructure projects can add 800 billion yuan. 6      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch. 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “The RMB: Depreciation Time?”, dated May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Hawkish trade policy will continue to weigh on bond yields for at least the next few months, but a rebound in global economic growth should take hold before the end of the year. Ultimately, a growth rebound will lead to higher bond yields on a 12-month horizon, but the timing is difficult and investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being. High-Yield: The Fed’s accommodative policy stance and the likelihood of a global growth recovery argue for maintaining an overweight allocation to corporate credit. Within that allocation, junk bonds should outperform investment grade due to much more attractive valuations. 10-Year Treasury Yield: The current shock to global economic growth is of a similar magnitude to the one that occurred in 2015/16. However, wage and inflationary pressures are higher now than they were back then. This means that the 10-year Treasury yield will not re-visit the 2016 trough of 1.37%, and is probably already close to its floor. Feature Regular readers will be aware of our Fed Policy Loop framework for analyzing the wiggles in financial markets. The Loop works as follows: Step 1: A dovish shift in Fed policy leads to a favorable market reaction, easing financial conditions. Step 2: Easier financial conditions suggest to the Fed that economic growth will strengthen in the future. The Fed can therefore respond by adopting a more hawkish policy stance. Step 3: The Fed’s hawkish policy shift leads to a negative market reaction, tightening financial conditions. Step 4: Tighter financial conditions suggest to the Fed that economic growth will weaken in the future. The Fed is forced to ease monetary policy at the margin. Return to Step 1 But it appears that BCA readers aren’t the only ones aware of the Fed Policy Loop. President Trump has also been exploiting the two-way relationship between Fed policy and financial conditions as he escalates his trade war with China. Chart 1 illustrates how this has been working. Step 1 of the Fed policy loop continues to function exactly as described above. However, the last few times that financial conditions have eased, the President has seized the opportunity to ratchet up trade tensions. Much like the Fed, the President reasons that periods of easier financial conditions are when the economy and financial markets can best handle a negative shock. The fall-out is that financial conditions tighten in response to the hawkish trade announcement, and the Fed is forced to respond to tighter financial conditions by turning even more dovish. The end result is that the part of the Fed Policy Loop labeled “Hawkish Fed” is by-passed. Without that step it is impossible for bond yields to rise (Chart 2). Chart 2The Back-Drop Of The Interrupted Fed Policy Loop Our Geopolitical Strategy service provided a comprehensive breakdown of U.S./China trade negotiations in last week’s report.1 The overall message is that the 2020 election is the President’s main constraint. He views hawkish trade policy as a winning issue, but only insofar as it can be accomplished without a significant decline in the stock market or economic activity. Faced with that constraint, the President will continue to interrupt the Fed Policy Loop, and the Fed will continue to do its job by adopting a more dovish monetary policy to offset possible trade shocks. At present, this means that another rate cut is likely in September. Against the back-drop of the “interrupted” Fed Policy Loop, Treasury yields can only move higher if global economic growth strengthens. In that case, the policy loop will remain operative, but at an overall higher level of yields. With that in mind, while hawkish trade policy will continue to weigh on bond yields for at least the next few months, a rebound in global economic growth should take hold before the end of the year. This will lead to higher bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Still Tracking The 2015/16 Roadmap In our research, we have repeatedly pointed out the similarities between the 2015/16 episode of flagging global growth and the current period. Specifically, we continue to witness weak manufacturing data – both in the U.S. and abroad – but a resilient service sector and strong labor market. Much like in 2015/16, we expect that the shifts toward easier monetary policy in the U.S. and more accommodative credit conditions in China will eventually put a floor under the global manufacturing cycle. The Fed will continue to do its job by adopting a more dovish monetary policy to offset possible trade shocks. At present, this means that another rate cut is likely in September. Case in point, even as President Trump has tightened global financial conditions at the margin through his hawkish trade policy, overall global financial conditions have eased since the beginning of the year (Chart 3). In 2016, easier financial conditions eventually led to upturns in crucial measures of global growth such as the Goldman Sachs Current Activity Indicator (Chart 3, top panel), the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 3, panel 2), and the CRB Raw Industrials index (Chart 3, bottom panel). The same dynamic should play out this time around. It’s likely that the main reason why global growth has not responded as quickly as it did in 2016 is that Chinese policy easing has not been as rapid (Chart 4). Our China Investment Strategy service’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite measure of money and credit indicators designed to lead Chinese economic activity – has clearly bottomed, but has not yet surged as it did in 2015/16. However, Chinese policy easing continues to ramp up, a process that will continue in the months ahead. The most recent indication of this trend was China’s decision to de-value its currency versus the U.S. dollar, causing the exchange rate to jump above the important psychological threshold of 7 yuan per dollar (Chart 4, bottom panel). China took similar measures to de-value its currency in August 2015, a move that initially roiled markets but eventually helped usher in a rebound in global growth. Chart 3The 2015/2016 Scenario Has Yet To Play Out... Chart 4...As Long As China Does Not Stimulate More When it comes to strategy, we remain confident that global growth is close to a trough, but admit that timing the rebound is difficult. One indicator that should help with timing is the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold (Chart 5). This ratio is tightly correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield, and will only rise when the perceived improvement in global growth – proxied by the CRB index – starts to outpace the perceived dovish tilt to Fed policy – proxied by the rising gold price. Chart 5Keep Tracking The CRB / Gold Ratio In light of these difficulties with timing, we recommend that investors keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but position for a rebound in global growth by maintaining an overweight allocation to credit risk and by running a heavily barbelled Treasury portfolio, overweighting the long and short ends of the curve while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year maturities. The barbell strategy increases average portfolio yield, and also avoids the part of the yield curve that will suffer the most when yields rise. Take Credit Risk In Junk As mentioned above, we recommend that investors maintain an overweight allocation to corporate credit versus Treasuries, despite our recent shift to benchmark duration.2 This is particularly true for high-yield bonds, where spreads are very attractive. Charts 6A and 6B show one of our favorite ways of looking at corporate bond spreads. The charts show the 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier as a percentile rank relative to history.3 We show each credit tier individually to control for the time-varying average credit rating of the overall indexes. Similarly, we show breakeven spreads instead of the average option-adjusted spreads to control for the time-varying average duration of the bond indexes. Chart 6A shows the following valuation for investment grade credit tiers: Throughout history, Aaa credits have been more expensive than they are today only 13% of the time. Aa credits have been more expensive than they are today 19% of the time. A-rated credits have been more expensive 20% of the time. Baa credits have been more expensive 33% of the time. Chart 6B shows that the corresponding valuation for high-yield is much more compelling: Ba credits have been more expensive than today 55% of the time. B credits have been more expensive 81% of the time. Caa credits have been more expensive 84% of the time. Chart 6AInvestment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 6BHigh-Yield Breakeven Spreads In general, this way of looking at spreads shows that investment grade credits are quite expensive, while high-yield credits are either fairly valued or cheap. However, there is one more adjustment we can make to get an even better picture of corporate bond value. Adjusting For The Phase Of The Cycle A useful tool for cyclical portfolio allocation is to split the cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve (Chart 7). We define the three phases as: Chart 7The Three Phases Of The Cycle Phase 1: From the end of the last recession until the 3/10 Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2: When the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps. Phase 3: From when the 3/10 slope inverts until the start of the next recession. We have previously discussed the implications of the different phases for bond portfolio allocation in more depth.4 This week, we simply want to point out that credit spreads tend to be tighter during Phase 2 of the cycle, when monetary policy has tightened, but not by enough to cause a surge in corporate defaults. The recent surge in investment grade net debt-to-EBITDA likely reflects the shift toward a greater concentration of Baa-rated issuers. With this cyclical decomposition in mind, we can calculate the median breakeven spread for each credit tier in past Phase 2 periods and use that as a spread target for this cycle. We then convert our breakeven spread targets into average option-adjusted spread targets using current index duration. Charts 8A and 8B show how far each credit tier’s spreads are from target. The message is quite clear. Outside of Aaa, investment grade credits are more or less fairly valued, while high-yield credits appear very cheap. Chart 8AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 8BHigh-Yield Spread Targets One might reasonably challenge this approach to corporate bond valuation by noting that, outside of looking at credit tiers individually, we have not taken fundamental credit quality trends into account. That is, we have made no adjustment for the fact that the credit quality of a Ba-rated issuer might be worse today than in prior cycles. We are skeptical that fundamental credit metrics matter more than the phase of the monetary policy cycle when it comes to corporate bond spread forecasting.5 However, this point of view is still worth exploring, especially considering that net debt-to-EBITDA for the median corporate bond issuer is quite elevated compared to history (Chart 9). Note that we have not attempted to maintain consistent weightings between the different credit tiers in the bottom-up samples shown in Chart 9. This means that the recent surge in investment grade net debt-to-EBITDA likely reflects the shift toward a greater concentration of Baa-rated issuers. Nonetheless, the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio of the median junk issuer is clearly worse than during the past two recoveries. But even if we take this into account by looking at the ratio between the junk index 12-month breakeven spread and the median net debt-to-EBITDA, we see that the ratio is still close to its historical median (Chart 10). In other words, at current spread levels junk investors appear reasonably compensated for the elevated median net debt-to-EBITDA ratio Chart 9Elevated Corporate Leverage Chart 10Favor Junk Bonds Bottom Line: The Fed’s accommodative policy stance and the likelihood of a global growth recovery argue for maintaining an overweight allocation to corporate credit. Within that allocation, junk bonds should outperform investment grade due to much more attractive valuations. Close To The Floor Chart 11Now Vs. Mid-2016 In a prior report we walked through the process of creating a macroeconomic fair value model for the 10-year Treasury yield, with a focus on describing the different independent variables that might be included in such a model, and the rationale for each one.6 This week, we focus on two vital macroeconomic variables and use them to demonstrate why the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to re-visit its mid-2016 trough of 1.37%. The two main variables we focus on are (i) the pace of economic growth, and (ii) the size of the output gap. All else equal, a stronger pace of economic growth leads to expectations for a higher policy rate in the future and a higher 10-year Treasury yield today. However, it is not just the pace of growth that matters. The same rate of economic growth generates more inflationary pressure when the output gap is small than when it is large. This means that bond yields should be higher when the output gap is smaller (or more specifically, less negative). We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI is probably the indicator of economic growth that correlates best with the 10-year Treasury yield. Similarly, measures of wage growth – and to a lesser extent core inflation – tend to give the best read on the output gap. With that in mind, we can see how these factors look today relative to when the 10-year yield troughed at 1.37% in mid-2016 (Chart 11). Global economic growth looks slightly worse, but not dramatically so. The Global Manufacturing PMI is at 49.3 today. It troughed at 49.9 in 2016. If this were the only variable that mattered, we might reason that the 10-year yield should be below 1.37% already. But we also need to consider that wage growth and inflation are both much higher than in 2016. Average hourly earnings are growing at a year-over-year rate of 3.2%, compared to a rate of 2.8% when the 10-year troughed in 2016. Similarly, the Atlanta Fed’s measure of median wage growth is up to 3.7% for the un-weighted sample and 3.9% for the sample that is weighted to more closely match the demographic characteristics of the overall population (Chart 11, panel 3). It’s true that core PCE inflation is running below where it was in mid-2016, but the trimmed mean measure is much higher (Chart 11, bottom panel). The core PCE inflation measure also has a strong track record of converging toward the trimmed mean, a process we expect is playing out again. The core PCE inflation measure also has a strong track record of converging toward the trimmed mean, a process we expect is playing out again. Bottom Line: The current shock to global economic growth is of a similar magnitude to the one that occurred in 2015/16. However, wage and inflationary pressures are higher now than they were back then. This means that the 10-year Treasury yield will not re-visit the 2016 trough of 1.37%, and is probably already close to its floor.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Underinsured”, dated August 6, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The 12-month breakeven spread is the basis point widening required on a 12-month horizon for each credit tier to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasuries. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Dear Client, Instead of our regular report, this week we are sending you a Special Report penned by Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist of our sister Geopolitical Strategy service, titled “The Polybius Solution.” In this report Matt argues that a full-fledged cold war with China would put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist Highlights So What? U.S.-Iran risk is front-loaded, but U.S.-China is the greater risk overall. A full-fledged cold war with China will put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. War with Iran or trade war escalation with China are both ultimately dollar bullish – even though tactically the dollar may fall.  Feature The idea of the “Thucydides Trap” has gone viral in recent years – for good reason. The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant nation that presides over a particular world order (e.g. Sparta, the U.S.) faces a young and ambitious rival that seeks fundamental change to that order (e.g. Athens, China).1 This conflict between an “established” and “revisionist” power was highlighted by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his translation of Thucydides in the seventeenth century; every student of international relations knows it. Allison’s contribution is the comparative analysis of various Thucydides-esque episodes in the modern era to show how today’s U.S.-China rivalry fits the pattern. The implication is that war (not merely trade war) is a major risk. We have long held a similar assessment of the U.S.-China conflict. It is substantiated by hard data showing that China is gaining on America in various dimensions of power (Chart 1). Assuming that the U.S. does not want to be replaced, the current trade conflict will metastasize to other areas. If the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. There is an important but overlooked corollary to the Thucydides Trap: if the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. Polarization fell dramatically during the Great Depression and World War II and remained subdued throughout the Cold War. It only began to rise again when the Soviet threat faded and income inequality spiked circa 1980. Americans were less divided when they shared a common enemy that posed an existential threat; they grew more divided when their triumph proved to benefit some disproportionately to others (Chart 2). Chart 1China Is Gaining On The U.S. Chart 2U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis   If the U.S. and China continue down the path of confrontation, a similar pattern is likely to emerge in the coming years – polarization is likely to decline. China possesses the raw ability to rival or even supplant the United States as the premier superpower over the very long run. Its mixed economy is more sustainable than the Soviet command economy was, and it is highly integrated into the global system, unlike the isolated Soviet bloc. As long as China’s domestic demand holds up and Beijing does not suppress its own country’s technological and military ambitions, Trump and the next president will face a persistent need to respond with measures to limit or restrict China’s capabilities. Eventually this will involve mobilizing public opinion more actively. Further, if the U.S.-China conflict escalates, it will clarify U.S. relations with the rest of the world. For instance, Trump’s handling of trade suggests that he could refrain from trade wars with American allies to concentrate attention on China, particularly sanctions on its technology companies. Meanwhile a future Democratic president would preserve some of these technological tactics while reinstituting the multilateral approach of the Barack Obama administration, which launched the “Pivot to Asia,” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and intensive freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. These are all aspects of a containment strategy that would reinforce China’s rejection of the western order. Bottom Line: If the White House, any White House, were to pursue a consistent strategy to contain China, the result would be a major escalation of the trade conflict that would bring Americans together in the face of a common enemy. It would also encourage the U.S. to form alliances in pursuit of this objective. So far these things have not occurred, but they are logical corollaries of the Thucydides Trap and they will occur if the Thucydides thesis is validated. How Would China Fare In The Thucydides Trap? China would be in trouble in this scenario. The United States, if the public unifies, would have a greater geopolitical impact than it currently does in its divided state. And a western alliance would command still greater coercive power than the United States acting alone (Chart 3). External pressure would also exacerbate China’s internal imbalances – excessive leverage, pollution, inefficient state involvement in the economy, poor quality of life, and poor governance (Chart 4). China has managed to stave off these problems so far because it has operated under relative American and western toleration of its violations of global norms (e.g. a closed financial system, state backing of national champions, arbitrary law, censorship). This would change under concerted American, European, and Japanese efforts. Chart 3China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' Chart 4China's Domestic Risks Underrated Concerted external pressure would make it harder for China to manage its internal imbalances. How would the Communist Party respond? First, it could launch long-delayed and badly needed structural reforms and parlay these as concessions to the West. The ramifications would be negative for Chinese growth on a cyclical basis but positive on a structural basis since the reforms would lift productivity over the long run – a dynamic that our Emerging Markets Strategy has illustrated, in a macroeconomic context, in Diagram 1. This is already an option in the current trade war, but China has not yet clearly chosen it – likely because of the danger that the U.S. would exploit the slowdown. Diagram 1Foreign Pressure And Structural Reform = Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain Alternatively the Communist Party could double down on confrontation with the West, as Russia has done. This would strengthen the party’s grip but would be negative for growth on both a cyclical and structural basis. The effectiveness of China’s fiscal-and-credit stimulus would likely decline because of a drop in private sector activity and sentiment – already a nascent tendency – while the lack of “reform and opening up” would reduce long-term growth potential. This option makes structural reforms look more palatable – but again, China has not yet been forced to make this choice. None of the above is to say that the West is destined to win a cold war with China, but rather that the burden of revolutionizing the global order necessarily falls on the country attempting to revolutionize it. Bottom Line: If the Thucydides Trap fully takes effect, western pressure on China’s economy will force China into a destabilizing economic transition. China could lie low and avoid conflict in order to undertake reforms, or it could amplify its aggressive foreign policy. This is where the risk of armed conflict rises. Introducing … The Polybius Solution The problem with the above is that there is no sign of polarization abating anytime soon in the United States. Extreme partisanship makes this plain (Chart 5). Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. A lesser known Greek historian – who was arguably more influential than Thucydides – helps to illustrate this alternative vision for the future. This is Polybius (208-125 BC), a Greek who wrote under Roman rule. He described the rise of the Roman Empire as a result of Rome’s superior constitutional system. Polybius explains domestic polarization whereas Thucydides explains international conflict. Polybius took the traditional view that there were three primary virtues or powers governing human society: the One (the king), the Few (the nobles), and the Many (the commons). These powers normally ran the country one at a time: a dictator would die; a group of elites would take over; this oligarchy would devolve into democracy or mob-rule; and from the chaos would spring a new dictator. His singular insight – his “solution” to political decay – was that if a mixture or balance of the three powers could be maintained, as in the Roman republic, then the natural cycle of growth and decay could be short-circuited, enabling a regime to live much longer than its peers (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Polybius: A Balanced Political System Breaks The Natural Cycle Of Tyranny And Chaos In short, just as post-WWII economic institutions have enabled countries to reduce the frequency and intensity of recessions (Chart 6), so Polybius believed that political institutions could reduce the frequency and intensity of revolutions. Eventually all governments would decay and collapse, but a domestic system of checks and balances could delay the inevitable. Needless to say, Polybius was hugely influential on English and French constitutional thinkers and the founders of the American republic. Chart 6Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute What is the cause of constitutional decay, according to Polybius? Wealth, inequality, and corruption, which always follow from stable and prosperous times. “Avarice and unscrupulous money-making” drive the masses to encroach upon the elite and demand a greater share of the wealth. The result is a vicious cycle of conflict between the commons and the nobles until either the constitutional system is restored or a democratic revolution occurs. Compared to Thucydides, Polybius had less to say about the international balance of power. Domestic balance was his “solution” to unpredictable outside events. However, states with decaying political systems were off-balance and more likely to be conquered, or to overreach in trying to conquer others. Bottom Line: The “Polybius solution” equates with domestic political balance. Balanced states do not allow the nation’s leader, the elite, or the general population to become excessively powerful. But even the most balanced states will eventually decline. As they accumulate wealth, inequality and corruption emerge and cause conflict among the three powers. Why Polybius Matters Today It does not take a stretch of the imagination to apply the Polybius model to the United States today. Just as Rome grew fat with its winnings from the Punic Wars and decayed from a virtuous republic into a luxurious empire, as Polybius foresaw, so the United States lurched from victory over the Soviet Union to internal division and unforced errors. For instance, the budget surplus of 2% of GDP in the year 2000 became a budget deficit of 9% of GDP after a decade of gratuitous wars, profligate social spending and tax cuts, and financial excesses. It is on track to balloon again when the next recession hits – and this is true even without any historic crisis event to justify it. U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. The rise in polarization has coincided with a rise in wealth inequality, much as Polybius would expect (Chart 7). In all likelihood the Trump tax cuts will exacerbate both of these trends (Chart 8). Even worse, any attempts by “the people” to take more wealth from the “nobles” will worsen polarization first, long before any improvements in equality translate to a drop in polarization. Chart 7Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Chart 8Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Most importantly, from a global point of view, U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. Just as the George W. Bush administration launched a preemptive war in Iraq, destabilizing the region, so the Obama administration precipitously withdrew from Iraq, destabilizing the region. And just as the Obama administration initiated a hurried détente with Iran in order to leave Iraq, the Trump administration precipitously withdrew from this détente, provoking a new conflict with Iran and potentially destabilizing Iraq. Major foreign policy initiatives have been conducted, and revoked, on a partisan basis under three administrations. And a Democratic victory in 2020 would result in a reversal of Trump’s initiatives. In the meantime Trump’s policy could easily entangle him in armed conflict with Iran – as nearly occurred on June 21. Iranian domestic politics make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the 2015 setting. Despite Trump’s recent backpedaling, his administration runs a high risk of getting sucked into another Middle Eastern quagmire as long as it enforces the sanctions on Iranian oil stringently. China would be the big winner if such a war occurred, just as it was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the long American distraction in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would benefit from another 5-10 years of American losses of blood and treasure. It would be able to pursue regional interests with less Interference and could trade limited cooperation with the U.S. on Iran for larger concessions elsewhere. And a nuclear-armed Iran – which is a long-term concern for the U.S. – is not in China’s national interest anyway. Bottom Line: The U.S. is missing the “Polybius solution” of balanced government; polarization is on the rise. As a result, the grand strategy of “pivoting to Asia” could go into reverse (Chart 9). If that occurs, the conflict with China will be postponed or ineffective. Chart 9Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Iran Is The Wild Card If the U.S. gets bogged down in the Middle East yet again, the “Pivot To Asia” will go into reverse and the “Thucydides Trap” with China will be delayed. A war with Iran manifestly runs afoul of the Trump administration’s and America’s national interests, whereas a trade war with China does not. First, although an Iranian or Iranian-backed attack on American troops would give Trump initial support in conducting air strikes, the consequences of war would likely be an oil price shock that would sink his approval rating over time and reduce his chances of reelection (Chart 10). We have shown that such a shock could come from sabotage in Iraq as well as from attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could be driven to attack if it believes the U.S. is about to attack. Second, not only would Democrats oppose a war with Iran, but Americans in general are war-weary, especially with regard to the Middle East (Chart 11). President Trump capitalized on this sentiment during his election campaign, especially in relation to Secretary Hillary Clinton who supported the war in Iraq. Over the past two weeks, he has downplayed the Iranian-backed tanker attacks, emphasized that he does not want war, and has ruled out “boots on the ground.” Chart 10Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Third, it follows from the above that, in the event of war, the United States would lack the political will necessary to achieve its core strategic objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s nuclear program or its power projection capabilities. And these are nearly impossible to accomplish from the air alone. And U.S. strategic planners are well aware that conflict with Iran will exact an opportunity cost by helping Russia and China consolidate spheres of influence. The wild card is Iran. President Hassan Rouhani has an incentive to look tough and push the limits, given that he was betrayed on the 2015 deal. And the regime itself is probably confident that it can survive American air strikes. American military strikes are still a serious constraint, but until the U.S. demonstrates that it is willing to go that far, Iran can test the boundaries. In doing so it also sends a message to its regional rivals – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab monarchies, and Israel – that the U.S. is all bark, no bite, and thus unable to protect them from Iran. This may lead to a miscalculation that forces Trump to respond despite his inclinations. The China trade war, by contrast, is less difficult for the Trump administration to pursue. There is not a clear path from tariffs to economic recession, as with an oil shock: the U.S. economy has repeatedly shrugged off counter-tariffs and the Fed has been cowed. While Americans generally oppose the trade war, Trump’s base does not, and the health of the overall economy is far more important for most voters. And a majority of voters do believe that China’s trade practices are unfair. Strategic planners also favor confronting China – unlike Trump they are not concerned with reelection, but they recognize that China’s advantages grow over time, including in critical technologies. Bottom Line: While the media and market focus on China and Iran risks can alternate in the short run, the Trump administration is likely to continue downgrading the conflict with Iran and upgrading the conflict with China over the next six-to-18 months. Neither politics nor grand strategy support a war with Iran, whereas politics might support a trade war with China and grand strategy almost certainly does. China Could Learn From Polybius Too China also lacks the Polybius solution. It suffers from severe inequality and social immobility, just like the Latin American states and the U.S., U.K., and Italy (Chart 12). But unlike the developed markets, it lacks a robust constitutional system. Political risks are understated given the emergence of the middle class, systemic economic weaknesses, and poor governance. Over the long run, Xi Jinping will need to step down, but having removed the formal system for power transition, a succession crisis is likely. China’s imbalances could cause domestic instability even if the U.S. becomes distracted by conflict in the Middle East. But China has unique tools for alleviating crises and smoothing out its economic slowdown, so the absence of outside pressure will probably determine its ability to avoid a painful economic slump. China also lacks the “Polybius solution” of balanced government – and it even lacks a robust constitutional system. This helps to explain China’s interest in dealing with the U.S. on North Korea. President Xi Jinping’s first trip to Pyongyang late last month helped pave the way for President Trump to resume negotiations with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the first-ever visit of an American president north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). China does not want an unbridled nuclear North Korea or an American preventative war on the peninsula. If Beijing could do a short-term deal with the U.S. on the basis of assistance in reining in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, it could divert U.S. animus away from itself and encourage the U.S. to turn its attention toward the next rogue nuclear aspirant, Iran. It would also avoid structural economic concessions. Of course, a smooth transition today means short-term gain but long-term pain for Chinese and global growth. Productivity and potential GDP will decline if China does not reform (Diagram 3). But this kind of transition is the regime’s preferred option since Beijing seeks to minimize immediate threats and maintain overall stability. Diagram 3Stimulus And Delayed Reforms = Socialist Put = Stagflation If Chinese internal divisions do flare up, China’s leaders will take a more aggressive posture toward its neighbors and the United States in order to divert public attention and stir up patriotic support. Bottom Line: China suffers from understated internal political risk. While U.S. political divisions could lead to a lack of coherent strategy toward China, a rift in China could lead to Chinese aggression in its neighborhood, accelerating the Thucydides Trap. Investment Conclusions If the U.S. reverses the pivot to Asia, attacks Iran, antagonizes European allies, and exhausts its resources in policy vacillation, its budget deficit will balloon (Chart 13), oil prices will rise, and China will be left to manage its economic transition without a western coalition against it. The implication is a weakening dollar, at least initially. But the U.S. is nearing the end of its longest-ever business expansion and an oil price spike would bring forward the next recession, both of which will push up the greenback. Much will depend on the extent of any oil shock – whether and how long the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Beyond the next recession, the dollar could suffer severe consequences for the U.S.’s wild policies. Chart 13An Iran War Will Bust The Budget Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, U.S.-China conflict will be the dominant marketmover. If the U.S. continues the pivot to Asia, and the U.S. and China proceed with tariffs, tech sanctions, saber-rattling, diplomatic crises, and possibly even military skirmishes, China will be forced into an abrupt and destabilizing economic transition. The U.S. dollar will strengthen as global growth decelerates. Developed market equities will outperform emerging market equities, but equities as a whole will underperform sovereign bonds and other safe-haven assets. Our highest conviction call on this matter is that any trade deal before the U.S. 2020 election will be limited in scope. It will fall far short of a “Grand Compromise” that ushers in a new era of U.S.-China engagement – and hence it will be a disappointment to global equities. Our trade war probabilities, updated on July 26, can be found in Diagram 4. The combined risk of further escalation is 60% -- meaning that the U.S. will either implement the final batch of tariffs or refuse to renew Huawei’s trade license, or both. We are maintaining our risk-off trades: long JPY/USD, long gold, long Swiss bonds, and long USD/CNY. Diagram 4U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019)   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, and Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).